Finally I hear about installing larger Mark 58 VLS tubes from the Zumwalt onto a next gen large surface combatant. Now I wanna hear a thing or two about the Next generation land attack weapon - NGLAW. Tomahawks are old, really old. We definitely need something new, something faster, longer range and stealthier.
When I see a professional sailor talk about training data w/r/t performance in navigating a ship, I shake to the core. Standing on a real deck with the salt air in your face, and wind in your hair, is NOT like being in a trailer on the pier. Common equipment doing the same thing everywhere, so knowledge and experience is common across platforms speaks more to me, like driving a car, or flying an aircraft.
great interview, Specially enjoyed the conversation about the FFX programme.. I would think it will be able to come in 3 size hauls... will be able to create for durability and modular design ... Building the ships further up... consider the capability of a haul for USMC .. Also to consider an option for new coast guard vessel option. and wow amazing Navy is considering a haul that is going to test the time.. Create a capability today .. Arleigh Burkes be an inspiration
Great vid👍 good question on training with accidents with warships👍 it would be interesting to see US Navy in what they have learn about T26 and uk, Australia n Canada what today’s needs n future needs in warships n whether saving can be made with common warship bridge n ship itself?
The watch stations on the Bridge should be common on all ships as is the equipment present with which to conduct those navigation activities (USN Integrated Bridge System). A tactile feel for steering and throttle should be so obvious that it need not be discussed, just like in aviation. Helm can conduct both steering and throttle just like a pilot, or operator of any Common auto (man-machine interface systems apply). These common controls simplify and reduce the cost of training devices, and Bridge equipment across the board. Configuration control on upgrading and maintaining said equipment should go without saying, and installing & maintaining same as common as possible across the fleet, should be common sense, and our goal. This conclusion should also be concerning radar equipment for surface tracking and navigation, and the readiness of those systems, probably given a common specification by NAVSEA for software & controls. Otherwise, it is as if there is no equipment on board when the ship transits densely navigated areas with a non-qualified crew, or high crew turnovers deprives you of those individuals. Get your CASREPS out NOW, and make sure that equipment works, and spares are on board. If the Type Commander cannot support, then the bell simply must be rung for greater funding for parts. THAT should have been a real focus over the last 24 months! Concerning LCS, we will entertain no evaluation as to utility until the platform has performed its function for some period of time (year?), but declaring 'victory' and 'awesome utility' before we have even started AGAIN to use them in the field, is less than disingenuous. I don't mind being positive, but taking a platform that is consuming the resources it is in Training, Logistical Support, Maintenance, and Operations on two disparate platforms doing the same job, with two crews is still baffling to most of us. No one owns the gear on the maintenance side, and it will always be the other crews problem. To deny this truth is to deliberately 'Ride a Barge Down a River in Egypt'. In a year we will know. The FFG(X) had better be Arctic capable (ice-hardened hull to one meter thick ice, and no hull-mounted sonar) for no other surface combatant can steam in Arctic waters with impunity with or without the presence of ice. Arctic must be inherent in the platform up front. Everybody else (CG/DDG) has a sonar dome up (down) there forward. Not doing this is planning to fail in that region. This is another argument for the three-array face, 9-RMA SPY-6 radar. It will most often be there mostly by itself, or escorting much less capable platforms (Polar Security Cutter/Convoy). The FFG(X) will be a node in the greater FORCEnet-21, be able to perform NIFC-CA with its COMBATSS-21 Combat System, and be able to control Standard Missiles. The FFG(X) will be the platform of choice for sailors because it will not only be dull, dirty & dangerous, but fast and very capable. Some of our NORDEFCO neighbors and the Canadians can advise with this regard. Passive capabilities on this ship are going to be preeminent. At some point in the future the FFG(X) platform will most likely begin to replace the DDG-51 Flt I&II platforms. That gives us the two helo hangars with the aviation support that is such a force multiplier.
And talk of really driving change through how the navy does procurement and creating capability.. doing in it a military sense with the accountability of supply chains will have considerable financial benefits. Also the ability to create building programmes that are ensured to continue, irrespective of who maybe POTUS...
So funny how Star Trek got it right, touch screen computers, you can transfer control of any system of the ship to any console. Again with Star Trek imagine emergency tablets stored around the ships that can control any aspect of the ship, a quick easy screen is created for the user to see a little of everything. if the bridge is destroyed X alarm can sound which turns on WIFI or blue tooth control of the ship. Any sailor can grab the emergency tablet and can control defense systems/ navigation... Make it like a mini game and get sailors to play against each other, high scores = free stuff at the ship store. Could even install hard line ports around the ship to connect to the tablet, video games, kids develop twitch motions and quick tactic thinking on RTS games that they develop over 20 years.
Finally I hear about installing larger Mark 58 VLS tubes from the Zumwalt onto a next gen large surface combatant. Now I wanna hear a thing or two about the Next generation land attack weapon - NGLAW. Tomahawks are old, really old. We definitely need something new, something faster, longer range and stealthier.
Excellent interview!
When I see a professional sailor talk about training data w/r/t performance in navigating a ship, I shake to the core. Standing on a real deck with the salt air in your face, and wind in your hair, is NOT like being in a trailer on the pier. Common equipment doing the same thing everywhere, so knowledge and experience is common across platforms speaks more to me, like driving a car, or flying an aircraft.
For FFGx program there is a frigate that already have all that in common with USA warships, that is the F100.
great interview, Specially enjoyed the conversation about the FFX programme.. I would think it will be able to come in 3 size hauls... will be able to create for durability and modular design ... Building the ships further up... consider the capability of a haul for USMC .. Also to consider an option for new coast guard vessel option. and wow amazing Navy is considering a haul that is going to test the time.. Create a capability today .. Arleigh Burkes be an inspiration
Great vid👍 good question on training with accidents with warships👍 it would be interesting to see US Navy in what they have learn about T26 and uk, Australia n Canada what today’s needs n future needs in warships n whether saving can be made with common warship bridge n ship itself?
shame they are not looking to join the uk, Australia and Canada in having a US T26 variant.
The watch stations on the Bridge should be common on all ships as is the equipment present with which to conduct those navigation activities (USN Integrated Bridge System). A tactile feel for steering and throttle should be so obvious that it need not be discussed, just like in aviation. Helm can conduct both steering and throttle just like a pilot, or operator of any Common auto (man-machine interface systems apply). These common controls simplify and reduce the cost of training devices, and Bridge equipment across the board. Configuration control on upgrading and maintaining said equipment should go without saying, and installing & maintaining same as common as possible across the fleet, should be common sense, and our goal. This conclusion should also be concerning radar equipment for surface tracking and navigation, and the readiness of those systems, probably given a common specification by NAVSEA for software & controls. Otherwise, it is as if there is no equipment on board when the ship transits densely navigated areas with a non-qualified crew, or high crew turnovers deprives you of those individuals.
Get your CASREPS out NOW, and make sure that equipment works, and spares are on board. If the Type Commander cannot support, then the bell simply must be rung for greater funding for parts. THAT should have been a real focus over the last 24 months!
Concerning LCS, we will entertain no evaluation as to utility until the platform has performed its function for some period of time (year?), but declaring 'victory' and 'awesome utility' before we have even started AGAIN to use them in the field, is less than disingenuous. I don't mind being positive, but taking a platform that is consuming the resources it is in Training, Logistical Support, Maintenance, and Operations on two disparate platforms doing the same job, with two crews is still baffling to most of us. No one owns the gear on the maintenance side, and it will always be the other crews problem. To deny this truth is to deliberately 'Ride a Barge Down a River in Egypt'. In a year we will know.
The FFG(X) had better be Arctic capable (ice-hardened hull to one meter thick ice, and no hull-mounted sonar) for no other surface combatant can steam in Arctic waters with impunity with or without the presence of ice. Arctic must be inherent in the platform up front. Everybody else (CG/DDG) has a sonar dome up (down) there forward. Not doing this is planning to fail in that region. This is another argument for the three-array face, 9-RMA SPY-6 radar. It will most often be there mostly by itself, or escorting much less capable platforms (Polar Security Cutter/Convoy). The FFG(X) will be a node in the greater FORCEnet-21, be able to perform NIFC-CA with its COMBATSS-21 Combat System, and be able to control Standard Missiles. The FFG(X) will be the platform of choice for sailors because it will not only be dull, dirty & dangerous, but fast and very capable. Some of our NORDEFCO neighbors and the Canadians can advise with this regard. Passive capabilities on this ship are going to be preeminent. At some point in the future the FFG(X) platform will most likely begin to replace the DDG-51 Flt I&II platforms. That gives us the two helo hangars with the aviation support that is such a force multiplier.
And talk of really driving change through how the navy does procurement and creating capability.. doing in it a military sense with the accountability of supply chains will have considerable financial benefits. Also the ability to create building programmes that are ensured to continue, irrespective of who maybe POTUS...
Just militarize the cutters. Later, they can strip them down a bit and give them to USCG.
So funny how Star Trek got it right, touch screen computers, you can transfer control of any system of the ship to any console. Again with Star Trek imagine emergency tablets stored around the ships that can control any aspect of the ship, a quick easy screen is created for the user to see a little of everything. if the bridge is destroyed X alarm can sound which turns on WIFI or blue tooth control of the ship. Any sailor can grab the emergency tablet and can control defense systems/ navigation...
Make it like a mini game and get sailors to play against each other, high scores = free stuff at the ship store. Could even install hard line ports around the ship to connect to the tablet, video games, kids develop twitch motions and quick tactic thinking on RTS games that they develop over 20 years.
LCS - Little Crappy Ships