SNA 2020 Day 1 - Austal HSSV, LCS update, SEWIP Block 3, SPY-6 radar

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

Naval News is one of the best news on military hardware procurement, nowadays there aren't much live interviews with the industry and military experts.

[@caldgargan]

Nice set of interviews

[@jacobbaumgardner3406]

Less capable as a frontline warship, but more specialized towards the actual concept of littoral combat. I love it.

[@CheapSushi]

Really enjoy that Austal HSSV concept.

[@potatopants4691]

Those models look amazing! The HSSV looks promising!

[@paulsteaven]

Except the alluminum hull design.

[@potatopants4691]

@@paulsteaven for both steel and aluminum, it would take a large, sustained, high-intensity fire to actually "melt" them. And the difference between steel and aluminum is not as large as people claim it to be. It's not as if aluminum is like butter. And it's even less of an issue for transports/ non-frontline warships.

[@danceingdave3]

As an Australian I'm proud that Austal can continue to present new designs and work with the US Navy re LCS's and the like. However I looked into the loss of HMS Sheffield and HMS Coventry in the Falklands War of 1982 and discovered that (contrary to public opinion) these ships had steel, not aluminium superstructures (NY Times 3 July 1982), and that their loss thru Exocet missiles, etc. was due to other causes. So I'm comfortable with the hull designs as is.

[@paultanton4307]

Correct - HMS Sheffield suffered a catastrophic Fire more due to a burst Water Main and Unburnt Rocket Fuel,HMS Coventry was hit with 3 x 500kg Retarded Bombs that exploded below her Waterline.

[@longshot7601]

@@paulsteaven The other part that I'm wondering about is the buoyancy of SWATH designs in ships going into harm's way. Will relatively minor damage sink the ship. Will a USS Cole sized hole in a SWATH ship mean the sinking of one side of the ship and losing the entire ship instead of riding low in the water with a list. The advantage is of course that HUGE flight deck. Just like the LCS-2s.

[@robertchinnock8017]

The austral ship that was taked about would be great for the Australian navy

[@loyalist5736]

Australia already has this capability

[@Oligoogletookmyname]

Looking forward to when the Lockheed LCS design is upscaled for destroyers.

[@burnerjack01]

It looks like it can throw a punch, but can it take one?

[@reygieflorestv13]

Austal is awesome one of the best ship builder in the world

[@corey8420]

I can not believe the NSM launchers are not being installed on LCS prior to receiving the ships. Anyone know why the vertical Helfire launchers are not being installed on them?

[@MattThornton87]

3:22..... Wow, now that's what you call a tight fit!! Awesome looking ship

[@philburch1970]

The high flat sides on the first model would be a massive radar target for any missiles. If that thing gets to production, the hull should be angled outwards up from the waterline, then back inwards at superstructure level to minimize radar returns. (Unless it's going to stealthily mount battleship-class side armor.)

[@natahn9568]

It's a support vessel, probably doesn't need to be that stealthy

[@MrFlatage]

So you are clueless, lol! First one delivered in 2016. ;-)

[@watermirror]

Aluminum Independence class is doing good, but since they're also LCS, they had been lumped to the failures of their steel based freedom sisters

[@nasigorengpecelesteh1506]

2double hull?

[@jamesmerkel9442]

hospital army corp building construction & disaster ships only exception. Marines well deck can do triple duty, hot spot, hospital & disaster.

[@jhunalmero8891]

I hope it also can also have anti submarines torpedos and vertical air lunch missile for offence and defense. When it have it it will be a very ideal ship for Philippines navy since it can also be use for humatarian aid and This is also an ideal ship for disaster relief operations since its already a normal occurrence in our country like typhoon. Our country need atlist 6 or 8 of this.

[@Mediiiicc]

It is for the Marines so it will have different capabilities than a navy ship. Doesn't have any VLS cells on that model so we can determine the role it's intended to serve is not as a surface combatant. This is a small helicopter carrier that isn't meant to engage other ships.

[@MrFlatage]

The Phillipines are starving and need missiles for their 'lunch'? Nah just wasting your peso's on this junk. No amphibious capability of any kind or sort not to mention it needs a harbour to unload anything substantial. Why will filipino's keep suffering from disasters? Because as you said it yourself ... you have accepted as a normal occurence. For over 1 billion USD you want to spend I would simply make sure typhoons could not do any damage anymore. Simple.

[@saltymonke3682]

No laser on LCS news?

[@corey8420]

Lasers do not have enough power and dependability at this point to have much of an impact. One of many problems is lasers are subject to refraction, deflection and Absorption. The current technology also need to be able to instantly destroy targets.

[@PpAirO5]

Anyone knows which ship is in the background at 2:07 ? (Blue camo scheme)

[@y00zf]

I think it's a naval group smx submarine it was just a concept never built

[@Mediiiicc]

Austal HSSV is interesting though using aluminum is still controversial. At 113m it is slightly shorter than an LCS. Can't wait to hear about how it isn't combat capable since it doesn't have VLS cells even though that is outside the scope of it's design.

[@frankmcgee3213]

I was thinking the same thing with regard to the aluminum construction. I was surprised to hear that. Just because it’s been 38 years since Sheffield melted doesn’t mean it’s all better now. Other than that, it looks better than the EFP but seems more like a thicker LCS

[@paultanton4307]

Yes there have been problems with Aluminium Construction in Warships which has now been mitigated but HMS Sheffield wasn't one of them - that suffered more from the cocktail of Flammable Cabling and fittings,insufficient Water mains plus the unburnt Fuel in the Exocet Missile.

[@neiljones6573]

Aluminium Ships , stupid idea, has everybody forgotten the type 21 frigates of the R.N. during the Falklands? The Ardent and the Antelope Burnt like Candles.

[@wattlebough]

It’s a transport ship not a fighting vessel. All armaments are defensive. RAM, CIWS, 30mm Bushmaster II and a few M2 .50 cals along with some passive ECM, ESM, chaff end Nulka systems should protect it from everything from Somali pirates to Exocet missiles and aircraft out to 5km.

[@samburdge9948]

I hopesomeone is tracking what could happen after the soft kill, what would happen after the missiles enter the water and don't detonate, could an enemy have a secondary mode where it turns into a hunting torpedo....shouldn't be too difficult to do, would be troubling

[@user9b2]

Why no hydrofoils? Would that not increase speed and fuel efficiency?

[@burnerjack01]

Boeing used to make one called the 929. Still in use today, mostly in ferry service. Can't understand why its not more popular and why further evolution wasn't executed. I can only guess its not seaworthy in rough seas. Just a guess though.

[@kevinyaucheekin1319]

Yes it does permit increase speed per unit of bhp/Mw. It is also more efficient in terms of fuel consumption at hydrofoil operating speeds in excess of 30 or more kts. However hydrofoils carry a penalty that is the use of pump jet propulsion not propellors. Pump jet propulsion is inherently very much less efficent to propellors in the lower speed ranges like sub 20 kts. Propellors are more efficent up to around 30 kts. Crusing speeds for warships especially smaller warships below say 5000 ton class is normally between 15 to 18 knots. 99.5% or more of the time warships operate in peacetime with speeds of under 20 kts. Also sea keeping combat effective sea state keeping for hydrofoils is sea state 1 at best sea state 2. For standard hulls of similar displacement combat effective sea state keeping is above sea state 2. Hydrofoils capacity to operate their weapons is degraded by higher sea states that above sea state 1. They hydrofoil warship can't fight effectively at anything beyond relatively calm seas.

[@MrFlatage]

@@burnerjack01 Yea I have sailed on many hydrofoil ferries ... If the waves go past 150 cm or around 5 foot waves? They can't sail.

[@juliusfadera7404]

Wow...😀

[@UnderTakerSN1]

Austal ba mag mamanage sa subic?

[@Ricardo-yt7fg]

sana

[@chrysboulissiere1254]

Et une fois que tu as caché tout tes missiles t'as une recharge ? 2?3? Tu fais comment sil riposte avec plus de missiles ou de navires ?

[@jacob.f9412]

Canada needs the type 26 frigates

[@riskinhos]

for what?

[@shadowmod3]

@@riskinhos keep sleeping

[@kevinyaucheekin1319]

Canada needs a pair of armed heavy icebreakers.

[@agactual7901]

Canada needs a Government that is Committed to Sustainable Defense of the Country. Any police action, the CDF can assist, but in real high intensity warfare, Canada does not have the ability to hold the North or any large province on its own. Uncle Sam will help but also screw Canada for 'tribute'.

[@paulbaker9277]

You could work with us in Australia , our ships are a little different to the Uks type 26 but they still have a commonality, it would be good if Canada had 15 to 18 ships for your navy. The Hobart destroyer is smaller to the Hunter class /T 26, and if you take a closer look at the type 26 that we will build, its almost like a destroyer and I don't think it would take too much and place more VSL's on them and a few radar mods etc .

[@anurawijathilaka9017]

🙏🙏🙏🙏✊✊✊✊👌👌

[@marksolarz3756]

Interesting shop talk! Steel? Aluminum? Fiberglass? Semi submersible? Moon pool and crane? Sub compatibility? How many troops? Just rhetorical questions! Fascinating! Says Spock! AYE! Says Scotty! I know engineers.......always changing things! Says Bones! Second star to the right! Straight on till morning! Says Kirk!

[@BlunderMunchkin]

GAO reported today that the LCSs are still not mission capable. Only the American MIC could invent the unarmed warship.

[@iainmcmillan616]

7

[@user-wb2qy9kh4g]

強襲揚陸艦？

[@user-wb2qy9kh4g]

gratis gratis ふむ

[@user-ro5ox5ho2e]

3 m blue power '

[@user-pe4kg5ev8j]

The first boat the catamaran with the elicopters vessel, was stolen by the Greek national Mets onion polytechnic scholl of 1991.

[@jamesmerkel9442]

that cat is badd.

[@jamesmerkel9442]

The cat is a value play based on deck space, vs other to toy ship. LCS main mono hull shit engine is better than tri hull huge price. The main mono hull needs hydrofoil for that price. The tri hull is race car but price blows. The cat at right price is alot of deck

[@Oligoogletookmyname]

I like the catamaran design but these tri-hull frigates and lcs's people are building look stupid.

[@shrk128]

I still thing we need battleships back. Imagine how much YEET modern technology can put behind a 460mm cannon!

[@martinxy1291]

Imagen how much of a sitting duck that behemoth would look like

[@battousaihimura7853]

And you are still mistaken. No offense, just a fact. Best regards.

[@cirONE65]

have the fake gun hahahaha

[@sandeepthoutam8826]

Telangana State.) District..City.)(.Hanamkonda)India.. Country)Asia.)Telugu.)Asia.

[@phunglung69420]

How many of the LCS mentioned are broken down 😂 What a joke and waste of the taxpayers money.

[@andreinarangel6227]

Little Crappy Ships

[@suzannegoncalves9934]

Wws

[@matthewwhittington7662]

Nice looking models but anything designed or built out side the us you can forget it the us design and us manufacturers will and rightly so go absolutely ape shit with the dod

[@jeffhufana2389]

Why is the host sounds like Russian? That's sus!!

[@murshidkhan8712]

Iran war ship

[@emperorpenguin4663]

Alluminum again. My Navy will not buy this. Bunch of crap

[@billestew7535]

As of 2023, LCS has failed miserably and will be paid off in short order, the military-industrial complex really screwed the pooch on this one.

[@br5498]

LCS= little crappy ship

[@dianefabalina1478]

love uruffjgjghggjfjfjfhfhfhdfjdjjdjfjfjffjdjdjxjcjxjjcjccjcjfjjfdkdnnddndnfnndndnfnxnxnxnxnxxnnxnxnxnxnxncncnnccnncncncnccncnnccncnncnccnnccnncncnccncncncncncñccncncncnnccncncnnccncncncncncncñcncnççncnncnncnfnfncncncnñnxncncncncncnccncncnccnncnccncnncnccncnncncncncncnccnnccnncncncnñncn