tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post8263801992856139154..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: CONOPS FirstComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-59642965316003665142017-02-20T06:45:08.980-08:002017-02-20T06:45:08.980-08:00Mack, I'm absolutely fascinated by your commen...Mack, I'm absolutely fascinated by your comment. A bare bones outline of a CONOPS should be doable in one day. A refined concept should be doable in 30 days. Approvals are another story, of course.<br /><br />Tell me why you concluded that it would require four years to generate a CONOPS. I'm sure to learn something from this!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-76294174828805995162017-02-19T22:10:14.856-08:002017-02-19T22:10:14.856-08:00We ran the numbers last year at a CONOPS class we ...We ran the numbers last year at a CONOPS class we held for the Navy Cyber Command and the time to build a CONOPS, and get it approved via Fleet Forces Command, was about 48 months. That just won't work.Mack McKinneyhttp://www.solidthinking.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-15671928335237757122017-02-13T04:28:18.059-08:002017-02-13T04:28:18.059-08:00A better word than stupid describes the Navy's...A better word than stupid describes the Navy's approach on ship building and that is CRIMINAL.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-60256645512426765722017-02-11T20:22:29.602-08:002017-02-11T20:22:29.602-08:00It's also insane to build a $4 billion warship...It's also insane to build a $4 billion warship without a single Phalanx or SeaRam for active close-in protection. I realize the Zumwalt-class rely on stealth for protection, but over time their stealth may prove to be inadequate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-8982654001766716082017-02-11T18:09:07.632-08:002017-02-11T18:09:07.632-08:00A Zumwalt is being considered for the rail gun tri...A Zumwalt is being considered for the rail gun trials. It's a expensive test bed platform. At one time the test bed was to be one of those JHSV's<br />http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navy-railgun-tests-%E2%80%9Cblow-the-top-mountain%E2%80%9D-14869Guesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15323603454223326093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-9470390173579670102017-02-11T09:24:31.315-08:002017-02-11T09:24:31.315-08:00Vaguely wondered at one time if Navy would change ...Vaguely wondered at one time if Navy would change the 16,000 ton Zumwalt CONOPS from NGFS to BMD with the SM-3 Block IIB missile, though with the cancellation AN/SPY 4 volume search radar June 2010 seemed unlikely. The IIB was planned as a follow on to the US/Japan Aegis SM-3 IIA currently under development. IIB missile with higher speed and range, 27" vers. 21"body dia. with larger booster, liquid propellant upper stage vers. solid and new kinetic warhead. Due to the larger dia. IIB was too large to fit in the MK41 VLS and they would have had to modified, whereas with the Zumwalt MK57 VLS would have been no problems with size of IIB.<br /><br />But the IIB was cancelled in March 2013 by Obama under pressure from Putin for continued cooperation on the nuclear reduction treaty as IIB real threat to Russian ICBMs.<br /><br />Navy has stated it has no intention to fit Zumwalt MK57 VLS cells with SM for AAW or BMD missions, just use them for the old 80's TLAM's. May be a plan to use as test ships for rail guns with Navy PR spin to cover the waste of $24 billion. Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12567148391327455726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-59672268399699528442017-02-11T08:22:55.561-08:002017-02-11T08:22:55.561-08:00You're probably right. We're learning tha...You're probably right. We're learning that we can't run a 3000 ton LCS with a crew of 70 or so, despite the Navy's assurances.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-51371914665769663162017-02-11T07:28:53.430-08:002017-02-11T07:28:53.430-08:00I think they're going to find out you can'...I think they're going to find out you can't run a 14,000 ton warship with a crew of a 140. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com