The United States Navy in the Cold War Era: What ifs.

[dragoon500ly]

The Anti Submarine Warfare Stand Off Weapon (ASW SOW) is intended to replace the submarine-launched SUBROC anti-submarine weapon beginning in the early 1990s. Whereas SUBROC is a nuclear-only weapon, the ASW SOW may have a nuclear and conventional capability. In the later configuration carrying the Mark 50 Advanced Lightweight Torpedo. The ASW SOW should be capable of ranges out to at least the second convergence zone (approximately 60nm) or double the range of the SUBROC.

The ASW SOW would be launched form the standard 21in (533mm) submarine torpedo tubes. The missile would be encapsulated, with the capsule shed when it reaches the surface, after which the missile travels on a ballistic trajectory to the target. Over the target, the warhead or torpedo would be released.

During the concept stage the Navy envisioned a common ASW stand-off weapon for surface ships and submarines. The technical and program difficulties proved too great, however, and the surface-launched weapon became the Vertical-Launch Anti Submarine Rocket (VLA).

Weight: approx. 2,700lbs

Length: approx. 21ft (6.4m)

Diameter: approx. 21in (533mm) encapsulated

Propulsion: solid-propellant rocket

Range: approx. 60-90nm

Guidance: ballistic then terminal acoustic homing with the Mk 50 ALWT

Warhead: Nuclear (W55 warhead) or Mk50 ALWT

[chico20854]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

The Anti Submarine Warfare Stand Off Weapon (ASW SOW) is intended to replace the submarine-launched SUBROC anti-submarine weapon beginning in the early 1990s. Whereas SUBROC is a nuclear-only weapon, the ASW SOW may have a nuclear and conventional capability. In the later configuration carrying the Mark 50 Advanced Lightweight Torpedo. The ASW SOW should be capable of ranges out to at least the second convergence zone (approximately 60nm) or double the range of the SUBROC.

Was this the same project as the Sea Lance?

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by chico20854

Was this the same project as the Sea Lance?

This was the original concept of what would become Sea Lance. The primary difference was that ASW SOW was intended from the start to be primarily a nuclear delivery system, then the option of the Mark 50 ALWT as an alternative warhead.

Later (mid-80s) it was determined that the concept of one weapon for both surface and submarine had too many technical and program difficulties and the decision was made to split with Sea lance being the sub-version and the Vertical Launch ASROC (VLA) developed as the surface version.

Of interest is that Boeing's internal name for this was originally Seahawk until the Navy designated it Sea Lance.

[dragoon500ly]

GUIDED MISSILE DESTROYERS: Advanced Destroyer Design DD(X) Units Fiscal Year Status 1 ship 05 Planned 1 ship 06 Planned 1 ship 07 Planned 2 ships 08 Planned 3 ships 09 Planned 8 ships per year 10-13 Planned 8 ships per year 14-18 Planned

Displacement: approx. 14,000 tons full load

Length: approx. 183.0m overall Beam: approx.24.0m

Draft: approx. 8.4m

Propulsion: 4 Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbines; approx. 100,000+shp;
electric drive; 2 shafts

Speed: approx. 30+kts Personnel: approx. 127-175

Aircraft: 1 or 2 MH-60R Seahawk; 3 Vertical Take-off Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (VTUAVs)

Weapons: Peripheral VLS for SM2MR/TLAM (approx. 80 missiles); (1)2 155mm Advanced Gun Systems (AGS); 2 Mk110 57mm/70-caliber Radars: SPY-3 multifunction Sonar: not determined

Note: The planned follow-up to the ARLEIGH BURKE call as the Navy’s primary surface combatant. The lead design agent for the program if Northrop Grumman’s Ingalls Shipyard and includes Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Bath Iron Works as subcontractors. The contract for $2.9 billion is for the design, construction and testing of eleven major subsystems of the ship. Construction of the lead ship is not included in the award. This is a departure from the aborted ZUMWALT/DD 21 program, whose construction of the lead ship, series production, service-life maintenance and other cost-reduction features.

The DD(X) design has a wave-piercing, tumblehome hull configuration and a block, low-radar-cross-section superstructure. The guns will have two AGS with a reported 600-round magazine per gun. The design will have ‘peripheral’ VLS cells rather than the usual centerline ‘blocks; configuration of the Mk 41 VLS. Also referred to as the AVLS, it differs from the Mk41 in having four-cell modules installed along the perimeter of the ship rather. This arrangement will reduce the ship’s vulnerability to a single missile, shell or bomb hit.

All previous USN gas-turbine destroyers, as well as the TICONDEROGA class cruisers, had General Electric LM2500 gas turbines. DD(X) will be the first modern US warship with an all-electric drive and an integrated power architecture. Employing electric drive is expected to: reduce ship costs; reduce ship signatures, especially noise; reduce fuel consumption; reduce maintenance requirements; reduce manpower requirements and increase available power for sensors and weapons.
The key element of the integrated power architecture is a single-source generator for all of the ship’s power requirements. Instead of a reduction gear to convert the turbine power into propulsive power as in previous cruisers /destroyers the DD(X) engine will power an electric generator, the electricity produced is then carried via cable to a motor drive, this eliminates the requirement for the gas turbines to be aligned with propellor shafts, permitting considerable flexibility in ship design. In addition, the turbines can be operated at their most fuel-efficient speeds with the motor drive making changes in shaft turns/speed.

[dragoon500ly]

LAND-ATTACK MISSILE DESTROYER: “Zumwalt” class This program was canceled in 2001. Department of Defense officials cited the large size of the ship, although it probably would have been a small percentage larger than the replacement DD(X).

The lead ship was to be authorized in FY 2004 and placed in commission in 2008; follow-on ships were to reach the building rate of three per year. The design featured a large number of vertical-launched missiles (256 missiles) and long-range guns for land attack/fire support and a very small crew (approx. 95 personnel).

Designed up to 20,000 tons were considered, although a ship of approx. 15-17,000 tons appeared most likely.

The DD 21 program replaced the DD(V) program, which had sought to determine the characteristics for a new guided missile destroyer to begin construction in the FY 1998 shipbuilding program. In the event, it was decided to continue construction of the ARLEIGH BURKE class (Flight IIA) into the 21st century.

The Navy’s cost goal was $579 million per ship by the fifth unit. With two shipyards expected to produce the DD 21 class, that cost goal would have applied to hull number 9 or 10. The first few ships were to cost approximately $1.5 billion per unit.

[dragoon500ly]

IMPROVED “ARLEIGH BURKE” CLASS (FLIGHT III) This is a proposed enhancement of the ARLEIGH BURKE design, the principal changes being the provision of a two-helicopter hanger and reduced radar and infrared signatures. This variant would have displaced 10,722 tons full load: weapons and sensors would have been similar to the basic BURKE class except for the provision of an improved SPY-1 radar, designated the SPY-1E in some publications. Development of this design was halted in favor of the DD 21/SC 21 program.

[dragoon500ly]

The purpose-built SSKs were small (1,000 ton, 59.75m) hunter-killer submarines, intended to lie in wait to intercept Submarine submarines off their home ports and in narrow waterways. Several hundred were to be produced in the time of war. They were originally assigned -number ‘names’ and were given fish names in 1955. The BASS and BONITA were reclassified SS in 1959 for use in the training role; the BARRACUDA was changed to SST in 1959 for the training role.

[dragoon500ly]

A proposed entry for the USN’s carrier-based fleet defense fighter. It was designed to be able to loiter for extended periods at a relatively long distance from the Navy's aircraft carriers, engaging hostile aircraft 100 miles (160 km) away with its powerful radar and long-range, nuclear-armed, air-to-air-missiles. Since the enemy would be fired on long before they reached visual range, the aircraft had little dogfighting capability and was strictly subsonic. When doubts were expressed about the Missileer's ability to defend itself after firing its missiles, the value of the project was questioned, leading to its cancellation. Some of the Missileer's systems, primarily the engines, radar, and missiles, continued development in spite of the cancellation, eventually emerging on the ill-fated General Dynamics–Grumman F-111B and successful Grumman F-14 Tomcat years later.

In 1957, the USN began the formal process of designing what was termed as the fleet defense fighter. This would be a large aircraft with loiter times on the order of six hours, supported by a dedicated radar aircraft providing early warning. In order to get the loiter times they wanted, the aircraft had to carry a large fuel load and was thus very large. The complex radar required dedicated operators, which resulted in a three-man crew. Additionally, they specified a side-by-side layout so both the pilot and co-pilot could concentrate on a single centered radar display, avoiding duplication of equipment and helping reduce communications errors that could occur if they were looking at different screens. Since dogfighting was out of the question, the aircraft was strictly subsonic and did not require all-round visibility.
The first part of the design began in 1958 with the proposed development of the AAM-N-10 Eagle air-to-air missile (later developmental funding stopped due to budgetary reasons). The Eagle was to be capable of a speed of Mach 4.5, with a range of 110nmi (powered)-160nmi (aerodynamic). It would be capable of inertial guidance with radio correction midcourse and active radar or home-on-jam terminal guidance. While never completed, the Eagle was presumed to fitted with a nuclear warhead.

Westinghouse was contracted to develop the AN/APQ-81 radar for the aircraft. This was an advanced pulse-Doppler radar with a maximum detection range against “bomber” sized targets of 120mi and able to track eight targets at a time when switched to ‘track-while-scan’ mode with a range of up to 80mi.

In order to support the Missileer, Grumman was developing the W2F Hawkeye (fore runner of the E-2 Hawkeye II) airborne early warning aircraft with a search range of up to 200mi.

In order for the F6D to work, a large number of technologies had to work at the same time. Among these were the new engines, radar, missiles, and supporting early warning aircraft. Development of the F6D itself was highly likely to be successful and low cost, but the system as a whole was very risky and expensive. And the F6D was dropped before any airframe was fully developed.