rickusnI quess I haven kept up with developments as well as I should have.
This is an update to my most recent post on the issue SLL brought up.
It appears DDG 85 and 86 never received it either. Heres probably why.:
“In July 2002, the first ESSM sea launch was carried out by Flight IIA vessel, USS Shoup. The missile was launched from the Mk 41 VLS and the Aegis AN/SPY-1D radar successfully guided the missile to destroy the target. ESSM passed US Navy Operational Testing & Evaluation (OPEVAL) in September 2003 and entered full rate production in March 2004. USS Chaffee and McCampbell have been equipped with the new missiles.”
And by now probably others.
The recent pictures of older ships I just looked at still show Phalanx carried if nany do have it removed I would think it would be because they received ESSM.
In photos I havent noticed any other equipment in the Phalanx position but this doesnt mean a ship or ships havent been fitted with something.
But right now my thinking and knowledge on this subject is suspect.
Sorry for any confusion.
rickusn“Am I completely wrong or is the case that the new AB’s dont have Phalanx and that it is being removed from earlier units to make way for other equipment?’
I was going by this from my outdated 2005-2006 combat fleets:
“Phalanx BlockiB CIWS Phalanx mounts, however were bacfitted into DDG 85-86b during 2002 delays in the ESSM program and will probably be backfitted through DDG 90-102; DDG 103 to 112 are to have Phalanx as completed.”
But after a quick glance at a couple of the newer ships they arent armed with Phalanx.
I havent heard of removals.
Will check into this further.
rickusn“I think another factor is that Phalanx is a very compact system and a lot of USN ships, if not most, would simply lack the space (without major modification) to take a larger more capable system.”
True enough.
There is also the “factor” that the USN had planned to move to an all RAM and ESSM configuration for CIWS.
With the Phlanx mounting being adapted to launch 11 RAM missiles in addition to the larger 21 missile launcher
But both have been slow to enter service.
The Burke IIA DDGs were to dispense with Phalanx but have all been completed(Some may have had it backfitted after completion) with Phalanx because of delays with ESSM.
“It is worth noting that DDG1000 is to get a pair of Bofors 57mm as CIWS.”
Yes it was a late addition that had two things going for it the USCG had chosen it for its new cutters and it was a good fit for the new LCS portion of the so-called “family” of ships.
Both the DDX and LCS programs have had serious programmatic problems. Where that may leave the 57mm program is problematic
The rather long gestation of the 35mm “millenium” gun may yet result in USN service. Sorry I havent kept up with any recent decisons or developments concerning that gun.
rickusn” think the only reason for the RN still fitting it to new ships is money. They have systems taken off retired ships, that they can refurbish & install for much less than the price of a new gun.”
No doubt that “cost” is one of the amin reasons the USN still uses it.
But whats the “cost” if it doesnt work the way you want when you want?
Sometimes the compromises seem illogical to me but then having served in submarines most compromises are inherently anathema to me.
As they usually end up getting getting equipment damaged/destroyed and people injured/killed.
Which for some strange reason always annoys me without fail.
Thats why Im not seen as compromising or diplomatic by anybody I dont think.
I just dont see the logic or efficacy of such approaches.
And Murphy is no stranger to me although I wish he would more often find someone else to make his point because I was converted at birh. LOL
rickusn“In any case I don’t think that the Phalanx automatic target-acquisition mode is good enough.”
Phalanx is an old system(first production unit delivered in 1979) although much updated.
It seems strange to me that the USN and some other navies are still relying on this system some 30 years later.
Although RAM and ESSM have long been touted as replacing it in most roles its been a slowwwwwwww process and now of course the relatively new millenium gun.
But even that been in testing most if not all of this decade.
I had a newer article on the millenium gun but of course cant readilly locate it when I want to. “rizmrockemrazem” LOL
http://www.gizmag.com/go/4006/
May 4, 2005 The U.S. Navy has completed initial testing of Lockheed Martin’s Millennium Gun as part of its effort to validate and qualify new naval cannon technology for fleet self protection. The gun’s capabilities — including its high rate of fire and air-bursting Advanced Hit Efficiency And Destruction (AHEAD) ammunition – were recently evaluated during two weeks of testing. The Millennium Gun is a multi-mission, close-in weapon system capable of engaging multiple fast-attack surface craft and near-shore land targets in littoral and riverine waters, as well as defending against anti-ship missiles and aircraft. Creating a “wall of lead,” the Millennium Gun fires 35-mm ammunition, including the AHEAD round, at 1,000 rounds per minute. Each AHEAD dispenses 152 subprojectiles that form a cone-shaped pattern to destroy a target’s control surfaces, seeker and other vital components as it moves through this lethal cloud.
rickusnFor Breznev:
http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1720&catid=243&decommisioned=true
BCGN KIROV | CRUISERS
ADMIRAL USHAKOV #189 Baltiiskyy SSZ 30.12.1980 NOR
(until April 22, 1992 known as Kirov). Keel laid down on March 27, 1974. Launched on December 27, 1977, and commissioned by the Navy on December 30, 1980. 6.3.1981 entered NOR. 4.1 2.1984 awarded by USSR MoD Pennants. Based at Severomorsk. Inactive since 1990 when there was an accident in the ship’s machinery. Kirov-1, inactive, was stricken in 1998. 2002 decommissioned. Scrapped.
069 ADMIRAL NAKHIMOV #189 Baltiiskyy SSZ 30.12.1988 NOR
(until 1992 known as Kalinin.) Keel laid down on May 17, 1983. Launched on April 25, 1986, and commissioned on December 30, 1988. ex-Kalinin, Kirov-3. 21.4.1989 entered NOR. 2004: Undergoing refit at Sevmash. Inactive. To be completely refitted with new computerized management systems and Onyx missiles. Planned sea trials for 2007. 07.2006 according to MoD minister S. Ivanov ship is modernizating instead of continue construction of SSGN Belgorod. Planned to re-enter navy in 2007-2008.
ADMIRAL LAZAREV #189 Baltiiskyy SSZ 31.10.1984 PAC
(until 1992 known as Frunze). Laid down on July 27, 1978. Launched on May 26, 1981, and commissioned on October 31, 1984. 7.12.1984 entered PAC. 21.8 – 22.11.1985 visited Luanda (Angola), Aden (Yemen), Vietnam. The ship is based at Severomorsk, but has been laid up over the last few years. It is expected that the vessel will be decommissioned; decommissioned Jun 99. May be recommissioned for Pacific Fleet if funds can be found. 2004: awaiting overhaul.
The Petr Velikiy (Kirov Class), Marshall Ustinov(Slava Class), Admiral Ushakov, Gremyashchy(newly renamed and modernized)(both Sovremenny Class) and Severmorsk, Admiral Kukalov(newly modernized and about to reenter the fleet) ( both Udaloy class) all form a very potent fully operational Surface action group in the Northern Fleet.
Not to mention the soon to reenter the fleet Admiral Nakhimov (Kirov class).
Why does everyone think the entire Northern Fleet should have sortied with the Kunetsov?
Operationally, tactically and strategically it would serve no useful purpose.
Again I caution do not underestimate the Russian Navy its far more potent than many would have you believe.
And is capable of denying the US and NATO freedom of the seas in the North Atlantic, the MED and Western Pacific where supported by land based air and attack submarines both nuclear and conventional.
Anyone who denies this is either spreading dangerously misleading propaganda or arent aware of(or in denial of) the true capabilities of the Russian Navy.
The Baltic Sea is poised to soon become a Russian/German lake if it isnt already.
The Pacific Fleet is rapidly modernizing and soon will have four modern or recently modernized Udaloy class, four Sovremenny class and one Slava class warships(plus possibly soon a modernized Kirov class ship) forming two potent surface action groups.
The Black Sea fleet lags a bit but then historically it has for good reason but is enough to control that sea.
There are many supposedly secret new construction and modernizations taking place as I type. Just because these programs are being kept out of the media is no reason to deny there existence.
Make no mistake these are very dangerous times as a renewed(and continuing renewal of) Russian fleet flexes its muscle.
The USN is focused elsewhere at the moment and Russia is taking full advantage of the lack of attention to counter any renewed future US interest.
And dont forget this SSBN program which much of the Western media denies even exists. Not to mention the ongoing modernization of the existing SSBNs.
Which is suicidal IMHO.
http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1720&catid=243&pending=true
YURI DOLGORUKY SSBN Borei Pending
Borei – I. Pending. The keel was laid down on 2 November 1996. 2003: In July 2003 it was reported that construction is 40% complete. Launched 15.04.2007, transferred to dry dock. Sea trials till 2008. Planned 11+
VLADIMIR MONOMAKH SSBN Borei Pending
Borei – III. Pending. The keel was laid down on March 2006. 04.2007 readinesss 12%.
ALEKSANDR NEVSKIY SSBN Borei Pending
Borei – II. Pr.955A (16 msl). Pending. The keel was laid down on March 2004. 2006: 45% readiness. 04.2007: 50+% readiness. Launch planned for 2009.
Your all free to believe as you wish but I have nothing but respect for the Russian Navy.
And while I do not fear them I refuse to underestimate their capabilities or their intentions.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
rickusnRussia Completes New Experimental “Diesel-Nuclear” Submarine
A new experimental submarine, built in secret, has been completed in Russia, Russia’s corporate-owned military news agency Interfax- AVN website (in English) reported on 14 December from Severodvinsk.
The Russian-language version of the report adds that the new sub “is designed to test unique technology in the form of a nuclear reactor installed aboard a diesel submarine as its auxiliary propulsion system”.
The B-90 Sarov diesel submarine was floated on 14 December, Sevmashpredpriyatiye spokesman Mikhail Starozhilov told Interfax- AVN.
“The pilot diesel submarine is a multipurpose test vessel, which will be used to test newly developed and modernized types of arms and military equipment, the spokesman said. This submarine has a long life span and can be modernized many times over,” AVN notes.
In turn, the Russian navy’s information and public relations service told AVN that the new sub is designed for tests of “combat and non-combat unmanned underwater vehicles, as well as other types of sea weapons and armament, and underwater equipment designed for various purposes, their prototypes, functional models (experimental systems), released from launchers” [grammar as published], the Russian-language version of the report adds.
The plan is to carry out the submarine’s factory running tests and state trials in 2008, the report notes.
It goes on to say that the B-90 crew is 52 officers and warrant officers, formed by order of the Northern Fleet commander, its training completed. Capt 1st Rank Sergey Kroshkin is in command.
“The construction of the new submarine proceeded amid heightened secrecy, as it – as experts consider – represents a unique experiment by Russian scientists and the military,” the report sums up.
The design of the submarine, from the Rubin firm, dates back to 1989, AVN recalls. It was laid down the same year at the Krasnoye Sormovo shipyard in Nizhniy Novgorod, its construction continued at Sevmash in Severodvinsk.
“Open sources say that the project is number 20120. According to open-source data, the new submarine is very much like Project 877 Paltus diesel submarines but its under-water displacement is greater, at 3,950 tonnes rather than 3,050.
“The experimental Project 20120 is designed to test unique technology in the form of a nuclear reactor installed aboard a diesel submarine as its auxiliary propulsion system,” the report notes in conclusion.
Sources: Interfax-AVN military news agency website, Moscow, in English 1050 gmt 14 Dec 07; and in Russian 1530 gmt 14 Dec 07
© 2007 BBC Monitoring Former Soviet Union. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.
rickusn“Fashion dear boy fashion. Terrorism and insurgency are the favorite subjects at them moment,…”
Maybe so but Ive been on the internet since 1995 and havnet seen any change ie IMHO ther always has been a dearth of discussion but I will admit to the UKers probably not as pointed as they have been well(Overly? In a good context) represented on every site Ive ever patronised.
Even though the RN seems by outward appearances to have been in decline for quite some time(or maybe because of this) but personally after hard looks at the post-war histories of the RN, USN, MN, Russian Navy, Japanese Navy & Netherlands Navy in particular Im not quite the doom and gloomer of many analysts when it comes to the Royal Navy.
As basically they really only stripped out since 1960 the 70 frigates that were always earmarked for NATO ASW/convoy duty.
Remember the USN cut over 150 escorts since then and if they would have built as many escorts as were needed to support NATO it would have been over 220!!!!
But basically that is what the USN did(Same as the Royal Navy)only the USN kept the OHPs around instead of the Spruances for financial reasons in the main. The US really doesnt have a bottomless pool of money although in fact probably pay four or five times more(or even more) for a similar weapon or platform than most countries.
Sorry to be a bit off topic. Im just bored. LOL
“Russia has been all but abandoned since the mid nineties.”
Certainly not by the Russians?????????????????
Whered they go? Poland? Just kidding.
rickusnThere should also be more discussion on the ongoing Russian Navy deployment.
This is a major event.
As much for the ships taking part as the for the ones not.
No Kirovs??????????????
No Sovremennys??????????
How about the refurbished Karas?
How much life is left in the few remaining Krivaks?
Is this a flash in the pan or a harbinger of the future?
And yes I understand many of the possible reasons and issues but still.
But wheres the indepth discussion?
rickusnI find alot of stuff at warfare.ru its an execellent Russian site mostly in English.
Im very,very surprised to see extremely few Russians there much less anyone else truly interested in naval matters Russian or otherwise.
In fact Im quite surprised in the general lack of interest in naval matters in general as that is where the future of this world will truly be decided as it has been for many centuries now.
All else is a sideshow. Albeit often quite interesting and exciting.
rickusnhttp://www.interfax.ru/e/B/politics/28.html?id_issue=11926134
“”A naval attack group including the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, the Admiral Levchenko and Admiral Chabanenko anti-submarine ships, and the Sergei Osipov and Nikolai Chiker support ships successfully performed its duties on rebuffing air strikes and ensuring anti-submarine defense during a marine cruise as part of a tactical exercise,” Dygalo told Interfax on Saturday. “
“Two support ships, the Lena and the Kola, left the Baltiisk port, the main base of the Russian Baltic Fleet, on December 7 and will soon join the Northern Fleet attack group. “
http://www.defense-update.com/analysis/analysis_091207_navy.htm
“The group is expected to be joined by the flagship Moskva a guided missile cruiser and four additional ships as it arrives in the Mediterranean.”
rickusnThats new Broncho although it certainly isnt official. And certainly sounds like BS.
And you forgot to post this found right below the blurb you quoted.:
“However, the Indian side is seeing this threat as the beginning of another round of hard-nosed negotiations as was the case with the Sukhoi cost escalation issue. “
Your perspective does not hold water or has any vestige of credibility.
But this is and does:
See Dec. 3rd entries under “India owns Admiral Gorshkov: Navy Chief”:
http://www.subsim.com/nucleus/index.php?blogid=1&archive=2007-12
I dont know why I cant get this to hyperlink:
[url]http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEH20071203112314&Page=H&He…[url]
“The Navy Chief also said that India can not walk out of the deal as it has already paid $ 500 million. The ship now belongs to India, he said.”
“”I don’t think we will be paying very much if not more,” he said adding that India has got assurance from fairly high level in Russia that everything will be done in accordance with the contract worth $974 million.
Sending a strong message to Russia, admiral Mehta said India never wanted to buy the ship as it did not find the price right.”
Once again your way over the top with this “My I wonder who is lying the ruskies or the americans”.
So put your money where your mouth is and so show me an official statement by a Russian personage who is empowered and authorised to say they will refund Indias money.
Otherwise BS and lies is all you have.
But once again this isnt about Russian shortcomings and intrangience as it is about anti-American propaganda.
Although then the Russians, their supporters and apologists would have to run and hide as they are as always IMHO afraid of the light.
If this was true it would already have been done.:
“Russian negotiators have let it be known that they would be happier returning the $400 million given by India as advance for repairing and modernising the partially gutted aircraft carrier.”
But of course some supposed unnamed Russain negotiater has more credibilty than head of the Indian Navy.
Why am I not surprised.
And of course you taotally ignore this quote from a “real”, “named” and “authorised” person from the aggrieved side from the same article you quoted.:
” On the eve of Navy Day earlier this month, Admiral Mehta had said the slippages in delivery schedule for the Gorshkov had “us wondering where the relationship with Russia is going.” “
But then of course it isnt about India or a carrier at all to the Russians, their supporters and appologists is it?
Trying to justify this by blaming the US (or “Americans”) is a thinly veiled red herring that is stupendously goofy.
rickusn“The Indians can then get their dollar back ..”
No they cant.
Russia has made this quite clear.: ie no more money, no carrier and definetely no refund.
Russia could care less about India and the Indians are slowly but surely realizing this.
rickusnProject 20380 Pics:
rickusn“Even with its ‘special relationship’ with the US, the UK still has to pay extra to cover the cost overruns from Apaches to Chinook to the JSF. Yet people expect Russia, which has far less finanical muscles and a not-quite ‘special relationship’ with India to foot the bill for the cost overruns themselves? Get real.”
1) Your talking apples and oranges. Look at the contracts but then that would put the lie to your assertions.
2) Leave the US out of it.
3) When is Russia, its supporters and apologists going to realize that blaming the US for Russian shortcomings is total nonsense.
And yes according to the contract that Russia made they are absolutely liable for the financial debacle of this state of affairs.
That they got caught being foolish is no reason for them not to be held accountable.
Suck it up and do whats right.
Now that would be “real” but Im not holding my breath.
Not as long as there is some way to blame the US now matter how illogical or unreal.
LOL ROTFLMAO
Sheeshhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Sign In
