# US military news, discussions and history



## SvenSvensonov

Welcome to the US Military Forum where all discussions, news and pictures pertaining to the US military are welcome. I will also provide an inaugural post of the creeds of the US military branches.

*Army and Army National Guard*

_*The Soldier's Creed*_

I am an American Soldier.
I am a Warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the United States and live the Army Values.

I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.

I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills. I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.
I am an expert and I am a professional.
I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.
I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.
I am an American Soldier.

*Air Force*

_*Airman's Creed*_

I am an American Airman.
I am a Warrior.
I have answered my Nation’s call.
I am an American Airman.
My mission is to Fly, Fight, and Win.
I am faithful to a Proud Heritage,
A Tradition of Honor,
And a Legacy of Valor.
I am an American Airman.
Guardian of Freedom and Justice,
My Nation’s Sword and Shield,
Its Sentry and Avenger.
I defend my Country with my Life.
I am an American Airman.
Wingman, Leader, Warrior.
I will never leave an Airman behind,
I will never falter,
And I will not fail.

*Coast Guard*

_*Creed of The United States Coast Guardsman*_

I am proud to be a United States Coast Guardsman.

I revere that long line of expert seamen who by their devotion to duty and sacrifice of self have made it possible for me to be a member of a service honored and respected, in peace and in war, throughout the world.

I never, by word or deed, will bring reproach upon the fair name of my service, nor permit others to do so unchallenged.

I will cheerfully and willingly obey all lawful orders.

I will always be on time to relieve, and shall endeavor to do more, rather than less, than my share.

I will always be at my station, alert and attending to my duties.

I shall, so far as I am able, bring to my seniors solutions, not problems.

I shall live joyously, but always with due regard for the rights and privileges of others.

I shall endeavor to be a model citizen in the community in which I live.

I shall sell life dearly to an enemy of my country, but give it freely to rescue those in peril.

With God's help, I shall endeavor to be one of His noblest Works...

*Marine Corps*

_*My Rifle - The Creed of a United States Marine *_

_This creed, accredited to Major General William H. Rupertus, USMC (Deceased) and still taught to Marines undergoing Basic Training at the Recruit Depots at San Diego and Parris Island, was first published in the San Diego Marine Corps Chevron March 14, 1942. _

1. This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

2. My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.

3. My rifle, without me, is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will.

4. My rifle and myself know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit.

5. My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will ever guard it against the ravages of weather and damage as I will ever guard my legs, my arms, my eyes and my heart against damage. I will keep my rifle clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will.

6. Before God, I swear this creed. My rifle and myself are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life.

7. So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but peace!!

*Navy*

_*The Sailors' Creed *_

I am a United States Sailor.
I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and I will obey the orders of those appointed over me.
I represent the fighting spirit of the Navy and those who have gone before me to defend freedom and democracy around the world.
I proudly serve my country's Navy combat team with Honor, Courage and Commitment.
I am committed to excellence and the fair treatment of all.

AMDR gambit Peter C C130 Nihonjin1051 - I've been a fixture on your JSDF forum, I would like to have your participation here as well.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
2 | Like Like:
12


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*A History of the U.S. Military*
In many ways, the history of the America's military is a history of America itself, for it is a projection of America?s political, economic, and institutional issues. U.S. military history is both vast and complex, but its pluralistic military institutions, dual force of professional and citizen soldiers, and commitment to civilian control of the military have been consistent themes. As of 2007, the term ?military? encompasses the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, and Marine Corps, which are all under the command of the Department of Defense. The U.S. president is Commander in Chief of each of these branches and also has authority to assume control of individual state militia or National Guard units. Today, America still stands as the world?s premier military superpower, but it has not always been this way.

*Colonial Wars: The Beginning of a Civilian Military 1512-1774*

U.S. military history begins when the earliest English settlers arrived in a dangerous New World. In response to not only unfriendly Native American tribes but also raiding European rivals, English settlers began developing a civilian militia in each colony in which the militiamen were required to maintain and provide their own weapons (Millett and Maslowski 1984). Within each colony, civilian authority controlled military matters, thus establishing America?s revered tradition of civilian control of the military. During this time, militia primarily engaged Native Americans in the Pequot War 1637, King Philips War 1675, and the Yamasse War 1715 (Bradford 2003). Though the colonists fought together with the British during the French and Indian Wars (1754-1763), tension between Britain and its colonies soon grew untenable.

*Revolutionary War: Establishing the Common Defense 1775-1783*

Convinced Great Britain was illegally subverting their liberties, colonists created the Second Continental Congress which then formed the Continental Army. On April 19, 1775, shooting began in Lexington and Concord (Bradford 2003). Initially, the states? militias and the Continental Army seemed to be embarked on an unequal war against Britain, but Britain underestimated the colonists? commitment to ?natural courage, God, Freedom and posterity? as well as the extent of both Tory and British support (Millett and Maslowski 2003). Britain also misunderstood how difficult it would be to a fight a thinly populated society across vast expanses of territory. Perhaps its greatest shortcoming was its inability to implement an unambiguous strategy early in the war (Millett and Maslowski 2003). American military success was due, in large part, to their unlimited goal of independence and their mobilization of citizen soldiers rather than professionals. The Constitution tried to embody these ideals by balancing a central government that could provide for the ?common defense? without usurping states? rights.

*Post-Revolutionary Era: Moving Toward a Nationalized Military 1783-1815*

The New Republic had to both survive on a dangerous international stage while at the same time try to reconcile its ideological concerns for liberty with military effectiveness. This task was further complicated when the Continental Army began making demands that reawakened fears of a standing army. In addition, the lack of an institutionalized response to Shay?s Rebellion (1786-87) led leaders to question the nature of their military force (Millett and Maslowski 1984). Eventually, Congress passed the Calling Forth Act and the Uniform Military Act which allowed the national government to create and call out state militias. To the dismay of antinationalists, these acts essentially gave the Federal government concurrent power over both previously autonomous, local state militia as well as a regular national Army.

During this time, the United States fought of series of wars that further tested its military force generally and provided validation of early American naval power specifically. These wars included the Quasi-War (1798-1802), which was an outgrowth of the French Revolution; the Barbary Wars (1791-1815) with North African states; and the War of 1812, which was the first war declared by the U.S. as a sovereign nation. The war, which was a direct result of Britain clashing with America?s national interests, ended in basically a stalemate but helped solidify the U.S. as a nation. In addition, after the War of 1812, political leaders realized that no matter how politicians idealized the citizen-soldier, government regulars provided the most effective line of defense, and military policy further evolved from a common militia as the foundation for national defense to professionalized regulars (Millett and Maslowski 1984). The military, which had previously been involved in Europe?s affairs, consciously tried to avoid further entanglement and assumed a passive defense policy while playing a key role in America?s own domestic development and expansion (Bradford 2004).

*U.S. Civil War: The Beginning of Modern Total Warfare 1861-1865*

The Civil War began at 4:30 a.m. on April 12, 1861, in South Carolina when Confederates fired on Fort Sumter. No one knows exactly what caused the war, though thoughtful explanations include moral disagreements regarding slavery, slavery?s expansion into the territories, and states’ rights versus national authority (Millett and Maslowski 1984). Most people at the time thought the war would be brief and romantic; instead, it was the beginning of modern total warfare (Weigley 1975). Though twice as many soldiers died from disease than from battle, the fact of Civil War battles is that technology had outpaced tactics. The Civil War Napoleonic formations based on frontal assaults with bayonets were not suited for more rifled weapons that would blast scores of men into bloody masses. In many respects, the North won by sheer numbers (Millett and Maslowski 1984). Such a large coordination of logistical and strategic matters could not be left to individual states. Massive mobilization required an unprecedented degree of centralized control over military policy, and the country saw the military?s balance of power shift further from the states to the national government. After the war, the military, which now included African-Americans and Native-Americans as permanent soldiers, returned to its traditional missions in support of national policy of expansion.

*American Indian Wars: Continental Expansion 1866-1890*

These wars--which ranged from the seventeenth-century’s King Philip’s War to the Wounded Knee massacre in 1890--were a result of several complex influences on the U.S. military, including America?s emerging imperialistic impulses, technological military advances, officers? concerns about their own careers, and social Darwinism (Millett and Maslowski 1984). What these wars did was open the frontier to further colonization and force Native American assimilation. While these wars did not significantly change military policy or doctrine, the military gained experience using guerrilla-style tactics that would aid them in the next century.

*Spanish-American War: The Beginning of a Military Superpower 1898*

With the diminishing frontier, America began to abandon its ?continentalist? policy in favor of more aggressive competition for world trade, and it turned its eye toward Spain. The war began after Spain rejected American demands that Spain resolve the Cuban fight of independence peacefully (Bradford 2003). America eventually won Spain’s remaining overseas territories and, in doing so, acquired a colonial empire. Acquiring vast amounts of land had several important implications for the U.S. military. Aware that its new possessions placed them on an international stage rife with economic and imperialistic competition and that more land also meant more area to defend, the U.S military sought to increase its forces. The next two decades saw unprecedented accelerated military change and development. By WWI, the American Navy battle fleet was second only the British and Germans, and the American Army transitioned from frontier constabulary to a force equipped with air and motor power.

*World War I: America?s Debut as a Superpower 1917-1918*

America entered WWI reluctantly in 1917, abandoning its official policy of neutrality. Despite pleas from President Woodrow Wilson, German submarines continued to attack U.S. ships carrying aid to Britain, forcing the U.S. to join the war with the objective to ?make the world safe for democracy? (Bradford 2003). President Woodrow Wilson successfully framed the first peacetime draft in such terms, reciting ideals such as democracy, freedom, and national self-determinism. In practical terms, however, the military struggled with a new concept of twentieth-century war: the economic implications of national mobilization. The Department of War?s procurement efforts coupled with the government attempts toward centralizing economic regulations overcame initial mobilization challenges. Though the U.S military initially struggled with the economic realities of twentieth century war, it had gone to Europe and successfully fought a massive industrialized war against a nation known for its military strength and expertise and emerged a formidable superpower (Millett and Maslowski 1984).

*World War II: Military Golden Age 1939-1945*

On December 7, 1941, Japan pushed America into WWII by bombing Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Seven days later, Germany declared war on the U.S. and President Franklin D. Roosevelt quickly mobilized the military. In the Pacific, the Japanese were defeated in the carrier battles of the Coral Sea and Midway. Limited U.S. offensives in the Solomons and in the Papuan area of eastern New Guinea were launched in the last months of 1942, followed by Nimitz?s decision to ?island-hop? 2,000 miles across the central Pacific from the Gilbert Islands to Okinawa. The exceptionally bloody battles at Iwo Jima and Okinawa in 1945 prompted the U.S. to use atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which quickly ended the war in the Pacific.

Between 1942 and 1945, the U.S. deployed millions of men to fight in Europe. Nazi Germany surrendered in May 1945 after the Allied forces invaded North Africa in 1942, Italy in 1943, and France in 1944 (Bradford 2003). Due to its use of atomic weapons and impressive ground forces, the U.S. military emerged as a one of only two new superpowers. The advent of nuclear weapons sharpened interservice competition among the military as the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corp vied to adapt to the new technology. Most notably, the U.S. changed its policy to emphasize deterrence, and it was decided that the creation of nuclear weapons seemed to be the best form of deterrence.

*Cold War: Nuclear Deterrence 1946-1990*

The Cold War was a political, ideological, strategic, and military conflict between the two post WWII superpowers, the U.S. and Soviet Union. (Bradford 2003). U.S. Cold War military policy was defined by two themes: communist containment and strategic nuclear deterrence. Such a policy highlighted the move from a crisis oriented military policy to a policy devoted to creating programs that would last as long as the Soviet Union. In fact, until the end of the 1960?s, the public polls favored maintaining long-term military superiority. Significantly, the U.S. joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which both allowed the military to create a ?nuclear umbrella? by stationing missiles in NATO countries but at the same time tied the military to the behavior of NATO allies. Though the U.S. and the Soviet Union rarely fought each other, the Cold War nevertheless was a global struggle that prompted several wars, including the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and soon competing East/West ideologies were felt in developing nations across the globe. It wasn?t until the break up of the Soviet Union in the early 1990?s that the Cold War effectively ended.

*Korean War: Military Containment 1950-1953*

The Korean War, sometimes called the ?Forgotten War,? was essentially a proxy Cold War. When communist North Korea invaded South Korea on June 25, 1950, the U.S. became involved under the auspices of the United Nations (Millett and Maslowski 1984). This was the first war in the nuclear age and the first war in which communist ?containment? became a military rather than a political endeavor. Though the war ended in a stalemate, it solidified the U.S. as the world?s policeman and strengthened its relationships with Western European allies. After the war, rather than demobilize as the U.S. military traditionally did, it remained strong. The defense budget quadrupled, creating the world?s most powerful military, one that could skillfully combine land, sea, and air forces. The war was also interesting in its extensive use of the helicopter for reconnaissance, evacuation, and rescue work (Bradford 2003).

*Vietnam War: Erosion of U.S. Military Power 1959-1975*

The roots of the Vietnam War lie in the U.S. Cold War policy of Communism containment, for it was containment that prompted the U.S. military to become involved during the First Indochina War (1946-1954) and to continue its involvement unabated until Saigon was conquered by the Communist People?s Army of China in 1975. When actual U.S. military combat units first entered the conflict between North and South Vietnam in 1965, they were accompanied by huge logistical support by land, sea, and air. Such a powerful arsenal guaranteed that the U.S. never lost a major battle in Vietnam; however, the fact that the U.S. never achieved its objective of stabilizing an independent, noncommunist state highlights the war?s significant complexity.

Though the U.S. military had superior military power, the communists waged an effective psychological ?hide and seek? war in oppressive jungle conditions by using ambush, night attacks, suicide bombers, snipers, and booby traps. Hoping to nourish the growing anti-war movement in the U.S., the communists also bombed key U.S administration sites, such as the Saigon Embassy. In addition, U.S. politicians? own political motives and their confusion about war goals made it difficult for them to create an effective strategy in Vietnam. Under pressure from strong anti-war protests, military policy shifted mid-war from battlefield victory to negotiated settlement and withdraw. The soldiers perceived this shift as further lack of support for the war and reports of troop misconduct and demoralization increased domestic war-weariness. In a continued attempt to defuse the anti-war movement, the U.S. government also ended the draft, but military technology could not compensate for the decline in man power. Consequently, the U.S military was forced to reduce its spending on operations and maintenance and after signing the Paris Peace Accord, finally withdrew from Vietnam in 1975. The war left the U.S. military demoralized and materially crippled. Defense spending dropped, and the power of the President to conduct war fell under attack. Because the U.S. failed to win its political objectives in Vietnam, the military?s ability to use military force anywhere else in the war became seriously compromised. In addition, ?containment,? at least as a military policy, was not a success. While the Vietnam War did not end the Cold War, it did cast doubt on 25 years of U.S. military superiority.

*Persian Gulf War: The Computer War and a Military Redemption 1990-1991*

When Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein invaded and Kuwait, coalition forces led by the United States responded swiftly in the largest U.S. wartime engagement since Vietnam. (Bradford 2003). Using lessons gleaned from the Vietnam War, The U.N. coalition that attacked Iraqi forces was able to synchronize powerful air strikes. The Gulf War was technologically the fastest and most dramatic war in history and is often referred to as the ?computer? war because of its use of ?smart? bombs and guided missiles. (Bradford 2003). After just 100 hours of ground combat, the U.S. had Kuwait and southern Iraq under control. Though highly controversial, President Bush Sr. decided to keep Saddam Hussein in power to act as a counterweight in the region.

*September 11th and the War in Iraq: 2001-present*

Prompted by the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and on the assumption that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction, a coalition led by the United States and Great Britain invaded Iraq in 2003 (Bradford 2003). After three weeks of fighting, the United States military captured Saddam Hussein in a hole, and the Iraqi government executed him on December 30, 2006. Though President Bush consistently states that the Iraq war is the central front on the war of terror, the war has been severely criticized. With heavy coverage by modern media, operations in a country with little modern infrastructure or political stability, the war has been compared to Vietnam. However, several milestones have been reached, including the capture of Saddam Hussein and democratic elections. Currently, the U.S. military budget is the highest of any country, and by 2008, U.S. military funds are projected to surpass the combined defense funds of the rest of the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## SvenSvensonov

A piece of history:

*The Marksman Who Refused to Shoot George Washington*

On September 11, 1777, an army of 12,500 British troops who had recently landed at the northern end of the Chesapeake Bay marched through Pennsylvania toward the patriot capital of Philadelphia. Covering their flank, a detachment of green-clad British marksmen hid in the woods along Brandywine Creek, near Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania, and kept a lookout for American forces led by General George Washington. Suddenly a cavalry officer dressed in the flamboyant uniform of a European hussar rode into view, followed by a senior American officer wearing a high cocked hat.

Captain Patrick Ferguson, a 33-year-old Scotsman reputed to be the finest shot in the British army, commanded the British marksmen, who were equipped with fast-firing, breech-loading rifles of Ferguson's own design. He whispered to three of his best riflemen to creep forward and pick off the unsuspecting officers. But before the men were in place, he felt disgust at the idea of such an ambush, and ordered them not to fire. He shouted to the American officer, who was riding a bay horse. The American looked his way for a moment, and turned to ride on. Ferguson called again, this time leveling his rifle toward the officer. The American glanced back before slowly cantering away.

A day later, after he had been seriously wounded himself, Ferguson learned that the American officer he let ride off was most likely General George Washington. "I could have lodged half a dozen balls in or about him, before he was out of my reach," Ferguson recalled, "but it was not pleasant to fire at the back of an unoffending individual, who was acquitting himself very coolly of his duty—so I let him alone."

If Ferguson had taken aim and fired at the officer who turned his back and rode away, there is no telling how the American Revolution would have turned out. Washington lost the Battle of Brandywine and then the city of Philadelphia, but lived on to win the war. A century later the American historian Lyman C. Draper wrote: "How slight, oftentimes, are the incidents which…seem to give direction to the most momentous concerns of the human race. This singular impulse of Ferguson illustrates, in a forcible manner, the over-ruling hand of Providence in directing the operation of a man's mind when he himself is least of all aware of it."

Generations have honored the name of Washington, but few remember the chivalrous officer who held his fire and let the general ride on into history. The Scotsman deserved fame for what he did in the rest of his short but full life; he was a brave but unconventional professional soldier, eager for battle from adolescence to the day he died. As Draper would write, "No man, perhaps, of his rank and years, ever attained more military distinction in his day than Patrick Ferguson." Many months after Brandywine, when the Revolutionary War turned south, it also turned to partisan combat, especially in the thinly settled country back of the Atlantic coast. There Ferguson rode into a darker chapter of history in a battlefield finale that was anything but glorious.

Ferguson was a son of the Scottish Enlightenment, born in 1744 to an eminent judge near Aberdeen, who bought a commission for him before his 15th birthday as a cornet (junior lieutenant) in the Royal North British Dragoons. He proved himself under fire in Flanders and Germany during the Seven Years' War, but sustained injuries that derailed his military career for nearly six years. Although one leg was still lame, in 1768 he returned to service as a captain in the 70th Foot, a regiment assigned to put down slave uprisings in the West Indies. That meant disorganized, small-unit warfare, experience that Ferguson would draw on near the end of his life. After the tropical islands, he was sent in the early 1770s to the garrison of Halifax, Nova Scotia, quiet duty that soon bored him, and he returned to Britain as disputes heightened between the American colonies and the mother country.

Word of the vaunted marksmanship of American hunters and soldiers, and the accuracy of their long rifles, spread across the pond. So Ferguson devoted himself to producing a weapon that would enable British troops to outshoot those potential rebels. The standard "Brown Bess" musket issued to soldiers of the Crown was a long, heavy, inaccurate, smooth-bore flintlock muzzle-loader, and using it involved a series of elaborate steps that entailed remaining upright and exposed to enemy fire. Ferguson wanted a weapon that was safer, faster and more deadly. Starting with a model devised by Isaac de la Chaumette, a Frenchman living in England, he perfected the first practical breech-loading rifle in the history of warfare.

Ferguson's rifle did away with awkward manipulation of the ramrod, the exercise that brought on so many casualties among troops using the Brown Bess. The key to its success was a screw-type breech lock, operated by simply rotating the trigger guard. It could be loaded safely and quickly in four steps: Turn the guard to open the breech; lean the muzzle forward; drop the ball, then the powder charge into the chamber; and turn the guard to close the breech. A rifled barrel made the weapon vastly more accurate. As a bonus, the Ferguson weighed only 7 1/2 pounds, nearly 3 pounds less than the Brown Bess.

Practicing with his new breech-loading rifle, Captain Ferguson became so adept that he "almost exceeded the bounds of credibility," winning renown as the best shot in the British army. He could get off seven aimed rounds in a minute, more than twice the average soldier's rate with a muzzle-loader. Typically, the army bureaucracy was skeptical of any improvement in weaponry that might require new thinking and more money. To convince his seniors, in June 1776 Ferguson demonstrated his rifle to a party of lords and generals at Woolwich, site of the Royal Military Academy, across the Thames from London.

Though lashed by high winds and drenched by heavy rain, Ferguson fired a series of rounds at different distances, some at six a minute. He got off four shots a minute while advancing at 4 miles an hour. He poured a bottle of water into the weapon, thoroughly wetting his powder, then got off another shot within 30 seconds, without extracting the ball. Finally he lay on his back and hit the bull's eye. In the entire performance, he missed his targets only three times. The skeptical officials were so impressed that they told King George III, who witnessed another such exhibition and promptly awarded Ferguson a patent for his efficient new rifle.

His Majesty, his generals and Ferguson were eager to rush this formidable weapon into the field against the rebels, but those were the days before mass production. The rifle would not equip an army, or even a full regiment, in time to matter in America. Ferguson was given command of a single company, only 100 men, whom he diligently trained to become expert with his rifle. Sent to America, he recruited more marksmen from different regiments in General William Howe's army. Their first serious combat was at Brandywine Creek.

The day after Ferguson passed up the chance to shoot the stately American officer with the high cocked hat, a patriot ball shattered his right elbow. A surgeon who had attended wounded American officers told Ferguson that General Washington had been out just before the battle with light troops, escorted only by a French officer in hussar dress, and wearing exactly the uniform Ferguson had seen across his rifle sights. The surgeon's revelation prompted Ferguson to reflect on his decision not to fire; he was unsure what he would have done if he had recognized that Washington was his target. "I am not sorry that I did not know at the time who it was," he wrote.

Some doubting scholars have maintained that the near-victim of Ferguson's marksmanship could not have been Washington. They asserted that no commanding general would have been riding without armed escort so close to the enemy. But later researchers found a letter from Washington's headquarters to Congress confirming that "His Excellency" was "out reconnoitering and busily engaged." And the Polish hero Count Casimir Pulaski, recently arrived from France, did in fact dress as a hussar, and he was with Washington as an aide de camp until being sent into action later on that crucial day. The novelist James Fenimore Cooper would write that his father-in-law, serving with Ferguson, believed the near-victim was Pulaski, rather than Washington. But Cooper's account had dates and other details wrong. Apparently the evidence will never be conclusive, but it leans strongly toward Washington, who was the only ranking American officer in the vicinity.

For months after Brandywine, Ferguson managed to fend off surgeons who wanted to amputate his shattered right arm. But the arm was useless thereafter, so he laboriously taught himself to wield sword, pistol and pen with his left hand. While he was out of action, his sharpshooters scattered into other units, but rejoined him after he recovered. Early in October 1778, General Henry Clinton, who had replaced General Howe, dispatched the Scottish captain on a commando raid against one of the hideouts from which American privateers were harassing and capturing British ships.

With 400 men aboard eight or 10 vessels, Ferguson sailed from New York to strike at Little Egg Harbor, on the New Jersey coast just above modern Atlantic City. They destroyed 10 vessels, wrecked warehouses and shipyards, and burned the homes of known patriots. Days later, Ferguson heard from deserters that Pulaski's Legion, sent by Washington to catch him, was camped 11 miles away. In the deep of night, he took 250 troops in rowboats to surprise the Americans. They bayoneted and killed 50, capturing only five, before Pulaski arrived with his dragoons and drove the attackers away. The Americans would complain that their men were massacred. "It being a night attack, little quarter could of course be given," Ferguson reported; only two of his own troops were killed, three wounded and one missing.

The nature of the war was rapidly changing. Chivalry and ferocity were in serious contention on both sides, and within Patrick Ferguson.

After a series of successful missions along the coast and up the Hudson Valley, in late 1779 Ferguson was at last promoted to major, in the 71st Highlanders. Then, when General Clinton mounted an all-out offensive to crush resistance in the rebellious South, he temporarily boosted Ferguson to lieutenant colonel, leading an independent force of 500 rangers. Skirmishing ahead of the army between Savannah and Charleston, he accidentally collided with a friendly force and in the darkness, a British bayonet sliced through his good left arm. Undaunted, for three weeks he rode with his reins in his teeth.

Charleston fell to the British in May 1780 after three months of siege operations, during which Ferguson's Rangers struck inland to cut off American lines of supply. From Charleston, General Charles Cornwallis intended to subdue the backcountry and then sweep north through the Carolinas and Virginia. The British strategists believed that the backcountry was full of loyalists, and Cornwallis sent Ferguson and the arrogant, merciless cavalryman Banastre Tarleton into the hills to recruit them. This brought on a series of bloody clashes, American Tories vs. American patriots, often family against family. "It was a civil war," wrote the historian Christopher Ward, "and it was marked by bitterness, violence, and malevolence such as only civil wars can engender."

Ferguson tried first to make friends, to convince these rustics that he came "not to make war on women and children, but to relieve their distresses." That summer, he succeeded in collecting and drilling several thousand loyalists. But when soft words did not work, he resorted to the sword, even the hangman's noose. As word of his men's plundering spread, local and state militia leaders raised regiments of vengeful partisans, including "over-mountain men" from beyond the Blue Ridge, skilled at shooting squirrels and fighting Indians.

Ferguson was operating out of touch, beyond Cornwallis' western flank, while the main British army marched north. His reputation spread among the backwoodsmen as they gathered in the mountains. Though slim and scholarly in appearance, in combat he was inspirational. He wore over his uniform a bold black-and-white plaid duster to be seen by his troops, and signaled them with a silver whistle to be heard in the chaos of battle.

But Ferguson's zealotry carried him into a mistake that made sure there would be no mercy if he ever fell into patriot hands. As the backwoodsmen gathered in the hills, he sent a prisoner with a message to their commander. He told them to "desist from their opposition to the British arms," or else "he would march his army over the mountains, hang their leaders, and lay their country waste with fire and sword." This arrogance further infuriated the patriots, who vowed to hunt him down.

Cornwallis captured the village of Charlotte, N.C., in late September 1780, and waited there for Ferguson to rejoin him. Pulling back with the patriots hard behind, Ferguson decided to turn and fight on Kings Mountain, which rose to 1,700 feet near the North-South Carolina border, 35 miles west of Charlotte. On a plateau bounded by rocky slopes, he deployed just over 1,000 troops. He was the only British soldier among them—all the rest were either Tory militia or regularized Americans. They waited for reinforcements that would never come.

More than 1,500 lean, angry patriots from the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia and Tennessee converged on Kings Mountain. As they spread around Ferguson's position, Virginia's Colonel William Campbell told them not to wait for orders to attack: "Let each man be his own officer. If in the woods, shelter yourselves and give them Indian play!" His men clambered up the rocky steep, slipping through the brush to sight the Tories. A neighborhood youth had told them about the officer wearing a black-and-white duster, and they knew who it was.

Campbell spotted Ferguson's men through the autumn woods. "There they are!" he shouted. "Shout like hell and fight like devils!" The backwoodsmen under his command sent a high, primordial war cry keening over the mountainside—a sound that would return to history as the Rebel yell.

Strangely, as if the two sides were lined up across an open field, Ferguson ordered a bayonet charge. As his Tories rushed and then fell back, well-aimed rifle fire picked them off. The patriots closed in from all sides.

Ferguson galloped here, then there, blowing his silver whistle to inspire his troops. A few white flags appeared; furious, he cut them down. Then he realized he was being overrun and, according to the patriots, tried to ride through their lines to escape. A mountain sharpshooter named Robert Young recalled that he saw that conspicuous black-and-white shirt and said to himself, "I'll try and see what Sweet-Lips can do." Taking aim with his pet rifle, he fired; a volley of shots knocked the brave but grievously errant Scot from his horse.

With Ferguson down, his second in command tried and failed to rally the Tories. Despite a flurry of white flags, the patriot officers were slow to stop the slaughter. Ferguson was hit by eight or more balls, at least one through the head. His force lost 157 killed, 163 badly wounded and 698 prisoners. Only 28 patriots were killed, and 64 wounded. It was the biggest clash between brother Americans before First Bull Run in Virginia in 1861, and it boosted morale up and down the young republic.

The victorious patriots buried the bodies of the fallen in two shallow pits. Tarleton later asserted that "the mountaineers used every insult and indignity towards the dead body of Ferguson," and one of his officers said, "While they buried all the other bodies, they stripped Ferguson's of its clothes and left it naked on the field of battle." Another account says it was wrapped in a raw beef hide and buried. Patriot soldiers reported that Ferguson's favorite camp follower, a young woman nicknamed "Virginia Sal," was killed while tending the wounded and lay beside him in death. According to Draper, "The wolves of the surrounding country were soon attracted to the spot…for several weeks they revelled upon the carcasses of the slain….Long after the war, it is said, that Kings Mountain was the favorite resort of the wolf-hunter."

It took more than six weeks for news of Ferguson's defeat at Kings Mountain to reach George Washington at his headquarters in New Jersey. Washington's papers do not disclose whether he ever learned of the twist of fate by which the fiery Scotsman held his fire and let the American in the high cocked hat canter away, eventually to save the young nation.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AMDR

On the topic of marksman.....

*Carlos N. Hathcock II*

On May 20th, 1959, at 17 years of age, Carlos N. Hathcock II fulfilled his childhood dream by enlisting in the United States Marine Corps. His ability as a marksman was soon recognized by the instructors on the rifle range at Camp Pendleton where he was undergoing recruit training. Later, while based in Hawaii as a member of Company E, 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, Carlos won the Pacific Division rifle championship. Following his assignment in Hawaii, Hathcock was transferred to Marine Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina, where he quickly found himself shooting competitively again. This time he set the Marine Corps record on the "A" Course with a score of 248 points out of a possible 250, a record that stands today. The highlight of his competitive shooting career occurred in 1965 when Carlos out-shot over 3000 other servicemen competing to win the coveted Wimbledon Cup at Camp Perry.

This achievement led to his being sought out in Vietnam in 1966 to be part of a newly established sniper program. After his training was completed Carlos began his new assignment. Operating from Hill 55, a position 35 miles South-West of Da Nang, Hathcock and his fellow Marine snipers renewed a Marine tactic which had been born in the islands of the Pacific in World War II. Within a short period of time the effects of the Marine snipers could be felt around Hill 55. Carlos rapidly ran up a toll on the enemy that would eventually lead to a bounty being placed on his head by the NVA.

As a result of his skill Sergeant Hathcock was twice recruited for covert assignments. One of the them was to kill a Frenchman who was working for the North Vietnamese as an interrogator. This individual was torturing American airmen who had been shot down and captured. One round from Carlos' modified Winchester Model 70 ended the Frenchman's career. On another occasion Sergeant Hathcock accepted an assignment for which he was plainly told that his odds for survival were slim. A North Vietnamese general was the target, and the man died when a bullet fired by Carlos struck him from a range of 800 yards. Hathcock returned to Hill 55 unscathed. In one incredible incident an enemy sniper was killed after a prolonged game of "cat and mouse" between Carlos, with his spotter, and the NVA sniper. The fatal round, fired at 500 yards by Hathcock, passed directly through the NVA sniper's rifle scope, striking him in the eye.

Hathcock would eventually be credited with 93 enemy confirmed killed, including one Viet Cong shot dead by a round fired from a scope-mounted Browning M-2 .50 caliber machine gun at the unbelievable range of 2500 yards.

In 1969, during his second tour of duty in Vietnam, Carlos was badly burned while rescuing fellow Marines from a burning Amtrack. The other Marines and Carlos had been riding in the vehicle when it ran over an anti-tank mine. Despite the severity of his wounds it would ultimately be the ravages of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) that would bring Hathcock's extraordinary career to an end. In 1979 he was made to retire on 100% disability due to the advancing stages of the disease.

Gunnery Sergeant Hathcock has spent subsequent years instructing police tactical units in "counter-sniper" techniques. In 1990 a book entitled Marine Sniper, by Charles Henderson, was published, documenting the exploits of this one-of-a-kind Marine. Regretfully Carlos has yet to receive a penny of royalties from sales of the book, which has been produced both in hard cover and paper-back.

As this brief history is written he is confined to a wheel chair, struggling against the disease which he knows is terminal. Nonetheless he attempts to get to the police rifle range as often as possible. He still loves the crack of the rifles, the smell of gun powder as it drifts across the range, and the company of good men striving to be the best at what they do. The indomitable Carlos N. Hathcock II is indeed one of the "Few and Proud."

Marine Corps Sniper Carlos Hathcock | Marine Corps Stories | Scuttlebutt | Sgt Grit

Just some history

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SvenSvensonov

US Special Forces

Ranger






FAC





SEAL Team 2





4th Military Information Support Group





Special Operations Weather Technician 





10th special warfare group





Pararescue





Combat Control and US pararescue





SDVT 1





Special Warface Combatant Craft Crewmen

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## SvenSvensonov

AMDR said:


> On the topic of marksman.....
> 
> Carlos N. Hathcock II
> 
> On May 20th, 1959, at 17 years of age, Carlos N. Hathcock II fulfilled his childhood dream by enlisting in the United States Marine Corps. His ability as a marksman was soon recognized by the instructors on the rifle range at Camp Pendleton where he was undergoing recruit training. Later, while based in Hawaii as a member of Company E, 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, Carlos won the Pacific Division rifle championship. Following his assignment in Hawaii, Hathcock was transferred to Marine Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina, where he quickly found himself shooting competitively again. This time he set the Marine Corps record on the "A" Course with a score of 248 points out of a possible 250, a record that stands today. The highlight of his competitive shooting career occurred in 1965 when Carlos out-shot over 3000 other servicemen competing to win the coveted Wimbledon Cup at Camp Perry.
> 
> This achievement led to his being sought out in Vietnam in 1966 to be part of a newly established sniper program. After his training was completed Carlos began his new assignment. Operating from Hill 55, a position 35 miles South-West of Da Nang, Hathcock and his fellow Marine snipers renewed a Marine tactic which had been born in the islands of the Pacific in World War II. Within a short period of time the effects of the Marine snipers could be felt around Hill 55. Carlos rapidly ran up a toll on the enemy that would eventually lead to a bounty being placed on his head by the NVA.
> 
> As a result of his skill Sergeant Hathcock was twice recruited for covert assignments. One of the them was to kill a Frenchman who was working for the North Vietnamese as an interrogator. This individual was torturing American airmen who had been shot down and captured. One round from Carlos' modified Winchester Model 70 ended the Frenchman's career. On another occasion Sergeant Hathcock accepted an assignment for which he was plainly told that his odds for survival were slim. A North Vietnamese general was the target, and the man died when a bullet fired by Carlos struck him from a range of 800 yards. Hathcock returned to Hill 55 unscathed. In one incredible incident an enemy sniper was killed after a prolonged game of "cat and mouse" between Carlos, with his spotter, and the NVA sniper. The fatal round, fired at 500 yards by Hathcock, passed directly through the NVA sniper's rifle scope, striking him in the eye.
> 
> Hathcock would eventually be credited with 93 enemy confirmed killed, including one Viet Cong shot dead by a round fired from a scope-mounted Browning M-2 .50 caliber machine gun at the unbelievable range of 2500 yards.
> 
> In 1969, during his second tour of duty in Vietnam, Carlos was badly burned while rescuing fellow Marines from a burning Amtrack. The other Marines and Carlos had been riding in the vehicle when it ran over an anti-tank mine. Despite the severity of his wounds it would ultimately be the ravages of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) that would bring Hathcock's extraordinary career to an end. In 1979 he was made to retire on 100% disability due to the advancing stages of the disease.
> 
> Gunnery Sergeant Hathcock has spent subsequent years instructing police tactical units in "counter-sniper" techniques. In 1990 a book entitled Marine Sniper, by Charles Henderson, was published, documenting the exploits of this one-of-a-kind Marine. Regretfully Carlos has yet to receive a penny of royalties from sales of the book, which has been produced both in hard cover and paper-back.
> 
> As this brief history is written he is confined to a wheel chair, struggling against the disease which he knows is terminal. Nonetheless he attempts to get to the police rifle range as often as possible. He still loves the crack of the rifles, the smell of gun powder as it drifts across the range, and the company of good men striving to be the best at what they do. The indomitable Carlos N. Hathcock II is indeed one of the "Few and Proud."
> 
> Marine Corps Sniper Carlos Hathcock | Marine Corps Stories | Scuttlebutt | Sgt Grit
> 
> Just some history



The best the US military has ever seen

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Aepsilons

*History of the United States Marine Corp*






​During the American Revolution, the Continental Congress passes a resolution stating that "two Battalions of Marines be raised" for service as landing forces for the recently formed Continental Navy. The resolution, drafted by future U.S. president John Adams and adopted in Philadelphia, created the Continental Marines and is now observed as the birth date of the United States Marine Corps.

Serving on land and at sea, the original U.S. Marines distinguished themselves in a number of important operations during the Revolutionary War. The first Marine landing on a hostile shore occurred when a force of Marines under Captain Samuel Nicholas captured New Province Island in the Bahamas from the British in March 1776. Nicholas was the first commissioned officer in the Continental Marines and is celebrated as the first Marine commandant. After American independence was achieved in 1783, the Continental Navy was demobilized and its Marines disbanded.

In the next decade, however, increasing conflict at sea with Revolutionary France led the U.S. Congress to establish formally the U.S. Navy in May 1798. Two months later, on July 11, President John Adams signed the bill establishing the U.S. Marine Corps as a permanent military force under the jurisdiction of the Department of Navy. U.S. Marines saw action in the so-called Quasi-War with France and then fought against the Barbary pirates of North Africa during the first years of the 19th century. Since then, Marines have participated in all the wars of the United States and in most cases were the first soldiers to fight. In all, Marines have executed more than 300 landings on foreign shores.

Today, there are more than 200,000 active-duty and reserve Marines, divided into three divisions stationed at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; Camp Pendleton, California; and Okinawa, Japan. Each division has one or more expeditionary units, ready to launch major operations anywhere in the world on two weeks' notice. Marines expeditionary units are self-sufficient, with their own tanks, artillery, and air forces. The motto of the service is _Semper Fidelis,_ meaning "Always Faithful" in Latin.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Aepsilons

@WebMaster , @Horus , @Manticore , @Chak Bamu , @Jaanbaz , @Hakan

Esteemed Sirs, I formally request that we sticky this thread. Please and Thank You, Kind Sirs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SvenSvensonov

You may never see us, but you will feel our presence. Some pics of US military R&D:

Sniper detection system





Fire Suppression





EW testing





Fire Suppression





UUV





Plasma Weapon





Railgun

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## SvenSvensonov

Electronic warfare systems and testing

EMP shielding





EMSEC testing





EMSEC testing





EMSEC testing





Jam Pod





Counter radio IED





Laser warning reciever





RFCM testing chamber





RFCM testing

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Aepsilons

*The United States Marine*






























































​

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## SvenSvensonov

US military countermeasures

ALE-50





C-130 flares





(?) - from the US office of countermeasures, no description given





Smoke grenade





Fliker





Boomerang





Nulka





SLQ-32

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## SvenSvensonov



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## F-22Raptor

Happy to see this up an running!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SvenSvensonov

F-22Raptor said:


> Happy to see this up an running!



And I welcome any contributions you can offer. I thought it was about time we have our own forum, given the size of the US presence on PDF, now it just needs to become official. 

(sorry I didn't tag you, or your welcome if you don't like to be bothered, its hard to keep track of everyone)

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## AMDR

US Army, 75th Ranger Regiment

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SvenSvensonov

US Tanks

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AMDR



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SvenSvensonov

Odd US military guns

Phasr





Davy Crockett Nuclear Recoil-less Rifle





MAUL stand alone





P11 underwater pistol





AA12





M26

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## SvenSvensonov

The US military doesn't just take lives, it helps save them and let them recover too.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## AMDR

GBU-57 MOP bunker buster

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## SvenSvensonov

Past and present experimental weapons:

Microwave area denial/anti access





AA12 automatic shotgun





prototype OICW





ASM-135 anti-satellite missile





Sea Shadow stealth demonstrator





Prototype counter battery laser





General Atomics railgun demonstrator





prototype wingsuit 





This one isn't an actual weapon, rather its a targeting system for missiles.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## AMDR

"Atlantic Resolve" NATO training exercise in Poland and the Baltic States, Fall-Winter 2014

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AMDR

Atlantic resolve part 2

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

Atlantic resolve part 3

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

Atlantic Resolve part 4

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

SvenSvensonov said:


> The best the US military has every seen



6 minute mark. He was only saved by the sun.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Jaanbaz

Nihonjin1051 said:


> @WebMaster , @Horus , @Manticore , @Chak Bamu , @Jaanbaz , @Hakan
> 
> Esteemed Sirs, I formally request that we sticky this thread. Please and Thank You, Kind Sirs.



I feel honoured to have been mentioned but I'm not a mod.


----------



## Aepsilons

*The United States Navy*
​*Mission & History *
America’s Navy is a force as relevant today as it’s been historically significant for the last 237 years. The times may change. The threats may become more obscure. The complex nature of 21st century life may make the demand for such a presence less obvious. But now more than ever, the Navy is something to be aware of. Something to be thankful for. Something to be proud of.

*Mission Statement *
The mission of the Navy is to maintain, train and equip combat-ready Naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas.

*Domination of the maritime domain*
Today, the U.S. Navy has the distinction of being the world’s premier naval power. Complete with the big ships that one would most commonly associate with it. But to really understand why there’s a need for a sea-based military organization in this day and age, just consider that:


70% of the earth is covered in water
80% of the planet’s population lives within close proximity to coastal areas
90% of global commerce is conducted by sea
Any way you look at it, supremacy on the waterways of the world will always be critical. And whether it’s by way of oceans, canals, rivers or littoral areas, there remains a great need for the Navy to be out there:


Serving as a guardian for America’s freedom and defending the life we know
Supporting the cause of liberty abroad and promoting peace for all humanity
Enabling the safe travel of people and goods to meet the expanding demands of globalization
*Expansion of the seapower concept*
America’s Navy is unique in that it conducts missions on all fronts: in the air, on land and at sea. Fulfilling a broad role that encompasses everything from combat to peacekeeping to humanitarian assistance – in theater, on bases and everywhere from the cockpits of F-18’s to the control-rooms of nuclear submarines.

Wherever a military presence is needed, the Navy is there. Whenever a situation requires U.S. involvement, the Navy is often the first to deploy, the first to engage and the first to help. Always on call and standing by to:


Utilize its force of highly skilled Sailors in whatever capacity is called for
Serve as an operational platform for anything from military missions to disaster relief
Transport uniformed military personnel and equipment
*"Our mission is to provide a lawful maritime order and deny the use of the sea to terrorists and violent extremists. We do this through our presence..."*

*Vice Adm. Bill Gortney 
Commander Combined Maritime Forces*

*Working together for a better world*
Among the seven uniformed services of the Unites States, America’s Navy holds the distinction of being the most multidimensional force serving the nation. Composed of highly specialized communities whose duties often extend beyond the sea, it does far more than meet the overwhelming task of carrying out Naval operations around the globe. It’s there to do a job no one else can do. And to offer the kind of support that often helps enable our other military forces to complete their missions – successfully and efficiently.



​

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Of all the world's militaries, the US military special forces community is the largest and the most technically oriented compared to other special forces in other militaries. As a side note, there is no such thing as 'Green Berets', only US Army Special Forces soldiers. These soldiers will tolerate 'Green Berets' at best and hate that label at worst.

Most people, even inside the US military structure either as civilian or military, are unaware that the US Air Force have its own special forces troopers. They are Combat Controllers, Pararescue, and Combat Weather. Despite the USAF's reputation for being a 'high tech' oriented service with the aircraft being the most visible symbol of the service, a long time ago, the USAF recognized the need to have its own special forces on the ground trained to exploit airpower to the maximum to increase the odds of victory for the other three branches that need air support, any time and any place.






A USAF Combat Controller is more than just an FAA certified air traffic controller. He is very much a combat soldier no less than a US Navy SEAL or a US Army Ranger. When earthquake ravaged Haiti needs air traffic controls despite the lack of a functioning airport tower, the USAF CCT team managed over two hundred aircrafts -- per day -- via their notepads and maps. Not counting basic arms, a CCT must be as certified in parachuting as a US Army Ranger, including high altitude free fall, and as at home in the water as a US Navy SEAL. If assigned with the US Army in directing artillery, he must be as proficient in trigonometry as any seasoned artillery US Army gun crew. In other words, he must know how to use any 3rd dimension weapon system to its maximum potential in combat.






Combat Weather are essentially 'killer' weathermen. Criticize their forecasts at one's peril. But more than that, each CW specialist must be educated in the natural sciences relevant to meteorology and oceanography, how local environment can affect and influence forces of friends and foes, and to fight when necessary. It take about 2 yrs of technical training in the hard sciences to qualify an apprentice Combat Weatherman. A CW could be deployed with an US Army Ranger unit, or a US Marine scout party, or a US Navy SEAL insertion team, and that mean his physical conditioning must be no less than those he support. In this age of warfare when air assets are often below cloud cover, such as the always critical helos, immediate meteorological intelligence and analyses, from the tropics to the poles, a CW is a vital asset to any special operations unit.






Of the three USAF special forces, a pararescueman, or pararescue jumper (PJ), is a bit of a contradiction. He is not a mere first aid specialist but a fully certified medic with the National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians. He will be trained in minor field surgery that includes emergency airway clearance so his charge can breath, pharmacology, and even esoteric knowledge like collapsed structure reconnaissance and exfiltration. Downed pilots are/were not the only recipients of the PJs' skills but also victims of disasters, from natural to human caused. The contradiction lies in the fact that a PJ is not a medic under the Geneva Conventions despite his primary mission of being a life saver. Under the GCs, a medic must wear the distinctive red cross emblem somewhere on his person. A medic may carry a weapon, but he is not allowed to engage in combat. He will not display any distinctive emblems other than that of the US military. But a PJ is a specialist in covert insertion, tracking, survival, and recovery of friendly airmen behind enemy lines and will engage in combat and kill if necessary in his mission.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hakan

Guys before they open a u.s defense forum i suggest we plan out all of the sticky thread so that way everything is done right and organized from the beggining. Maybe a thread for each service branch along with threads for important topics such as uav programs, naval programs, small arms etc.

I think this format for threads would be a good idea to use when starting threads in the new forum:

Huge Projects of Türkiye

It doesnt have to be exactly the same but the concept of listing the thread contents in the opening post is a good idea. As new major things are added the op is updated by a mod. Im hoping that the u.s defence forum gets its own mod so that way the forum gets managed well,

@Nihonjin1051 @LeveragedBuyout @SvenSvensonov @gambit @American Eagle @Desertfalcon @F-22Raptor

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bouncer

SvenSvensonov said:


> Past and present experimental weapons:



Can you please post a small description of these weapons? Awesome thread otherwise!


----------



## AMDR

*ASM-135 ASAT*, an F-15 launched anti-satellite missile. The first test in 1985 successfully hit and destroyed a satellite

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
5


----------



## Esc8781

Many people haven't heard of these guys.








Regimental Reconnaissance Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SvenSvensonov

Bouncer said:


> Can you please post a small description of these weapons? Awesome thread otherwise!



Sure thing.


----------



## SvenSvensonov

Hakan said:


> Guys before they open a u.s defense forum i suggest we plan out all of the sticky thread so that way everything is done right and organized from the beggining. Maybe a thread for each service branch along with threads for important topics such as uav programs, naval programs, small arms etc.
> 
> I think this format for threads would be a good idea to use when starting threads in the new forum:



This is definitely a good plan, but I've found that with dedicated branch threads, such as the JMSDF thread, that they quickly devolve into a general discussion about the entire military of a nation - now the JMSDF thread is just the JSDF. It's hard to keep them unified and on topic, even when off topic posts are reported or deleted and an outline is provided. I am eagerly awaiting a formal US military thread, in the mean time though I thought people would like a place to discuss the US military and share some pictures.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*Air Force crew prepares to test next-generation tanker*

For the group of airmen selected to test the Air Force’s next generation tanker, the assignment is bigger than once in a career.

With the KC-46A Pegasus expected to rival the lifespan of its predecessor, the almost 60-year-old KC-135, it is once in a generation.

“When they have no hair left and they’re sitting there talking to their grandchildren, they will say ‘Hey grandpa, what did you do when you were in the Air Force?’ ” said Lt. Col. James Quashnock, commander of the 418th Flight Test Squadron Detachment 1, stationed at Boeing Field in Seattle. “Every single guy here will answer, ‘I was the first to work on the KC-46.’ ”

The 418th Flight Test Squadron Detachment 1 includes 27 airmen and civilians, working in a nondescript office right off the flight line at Boeing Field, about 6 miles south of downtown Seattle. The group, about half military and half civilian, are tasked with overseeing the test and development of the next generation tanker and ensuring that it is safe to fly, along with creating the procedures that will govern the future flight of the Pegasus.

“This 46 will be around here for decades, and decades, and decades,” Quashnock said. “Our great grandchildren will probably be able to fly this aircraft. It’s going be an Air Force legacy for a long time.”

*Fly when ready*
The detachment serves as the lead developmental test organization for the Air Force on the new tanker. The team is made up of pilots and boom operators from the Air Force, along with mostly civilian engineers who work with Boeing to make sure testing is accurate, and that it is being done safely, Quashnock said.

For now, that means mostly simulation testing, with the aircraft’s real equipment set up to computers to work on how the systems will operate. The first aircraft in the developmental lot, a modified Boeing 767-2C, has not finished production. That aircraft will be flown and maintained by Boeing and certified by the Federal Aviation Administration. Once that is done, it will receive the boom and other military-specific equipment, and that’s when the detachment’s pilots and test boom operators will step in.

“We want to make sure they are doing the right tests and doing it safely, to collect the data that the program office needs to then approve the full purchase of the aircraft,” he said.

The first contract includes four test aircraft. These will be put through the paces mostly at Boeing Field, along with other tests at Edwards Air Force Base, California; Eglin Air Force Base, Florida; and Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. The initial 767 variant is expected to fly in the next month or two, with the modified variant to fly several months later.

Boeing and the program office work the schedule, Quashnock said, and the airmen on-site are concerned with actually flying the aircraft when it is ready.

“We fly when the aircraft is ready, not necessarily on the schedule,” he said. “Boeing is focused on the schedule. We’re here to provide the support when the aircraft is ready.”

The detachment’s pilots come from the service’s other tankers — the KC-135 and KC-10, along with those who have flown the C-17, C-40 and B-2. All have graduated test pilot school.

“What that wide mix of aircraft does is allows us to bring in a breadth of experience across all those different types of aircraft,” Quashnock said. “Because all aircraft are built a little bit different. ... Having that broad spectrum allows eyes that have different backgrounds to look at something and go, ‘That looks like something I know about,’ or ‘That’s something I have seen before. Let’s talk about it and make it better.’ “

Air Force Materiel Command hand-selected every member of the team, including the “best boom operators in the Air Force,” he said. The operators come from a mix of KC-10 and KC-135 backgrounds, and have all done test work at Edwards. Their experience will be needed to lay the groundwork for how new operators will work on the jet.

“We want to look through every situation and every scenario, and account for what this 18-year-old boom operator straight into the Air Force is going to encounter and what is he going to do,” said Chief Master Sgt. Ernest Burns, superintendent of the detachment. “Because there is a tremendous amount of responsibility that a boom operator has. To connect two airplanes going 400 miles per hour is not an easy chore.”

The KC-46 is the No. 1 acquisition program in the service — the Joint Strike Fighter is the No. 1 Defense Department-wide — meaning it is the top priority for people, and the program’s funding is protected.

“When that happens, you kind of get the ability to do certain things like by name request the right people you need into your program,” Quashnock said.

The biggest change will come for the boom operators. In the KC-135 and the KC-10, operators looked out through a window at the rear of the aircraft to connect with the jets receiving fuel. In the KC-46, the operators will sit near the front of the jet and use 3-D cameras to operate the boom.

“This is completely new,” Burns said. “We’re doing this through [the remote visual system] and we’re up front. We are running through every scenario to think of what a brand-new, 18-year-old boom operator could encounter.

That’s why developmental testing is so important. ... We don’t want to leave anything uncovered. We don’t want to let any operational guy learn something for the first time.”

The Air Force is using lessons learned from the Japanese and Italian tankers, along with the KDC-10 used by the Netherlands. Test boom operators are using a simulator system before the actual KC-46 can begin flying to determine test protocols.

“It’s a huge test. A huge leap and there are a lot of things we’re going to figure out as we go,” he said. “However ... we’re going to be able to do things much safer. Especially at night.”

*No owner's manual*
The KC-46, while based on Boeing’s 767, is pure tanker. Italy’s and Japan’s version of the 767 tanker is mostly a freighter-built 767 ripped apart and rebuilt for refueling, Quashnock said. The KC-46 is all new, meaning most of it is unproven and unflown. That will be the job of the detachment.

“You want to look at, where could this plane go and what can it do?” he said. “What failure modes are out there that anybody else who could climb in this aircraft are going to go see and go find.”

Test pilots and boom operators will have to fly through hundreds of scenarios that operational fliers could run into and develop the checklists and procedures to work through it. The jet is new, and there isn’t a manual yet, Burns said.

“It’s not a freighter that’s converted,” Burns said. “From the initial spar, it is built as a tanker. Obviously, there are engineering obstacles to figure out as part of the development. Boeing’s mantra is ‘zero cuts.’ They do not have to cut or modify anything.”

Boeing has done a lot of work on its 767s, with Japan and Italy doing additional work on their tankers, but the Air Force has a “more robust process” to work through.

“That’s what a robust test program does, that’s why we have to do it first before we pass it off to the Air Force,” Quashnock said. “At some point, somebody has to be first.”

*Taking the 'hero'*
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh announced in February that the service had given the KC-46 its official name: the Pegasus. It’s a name with plenty of history in the Air Force, Quashnock said.

The name and Pegasus imagery can be found on dozens of squadron patches throughout the service over the years. The original Greek mythology is a fit for the aircraft, he said.

“The Pegasus is what took the hero to go kill the demon,” he said. “Without the Pegasus, the hero would not have been able to succeed. That’s almost exactly what the KC-46 is. Without tanker gas, the JSF is not going to get anywhere, the F-22 is not going to do anything.

We can’t go anywhere in the world without the tanker.”

From Air Force crew prepares to test next-generation tanker | Military Times | militarytimes.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SvenSvensonov

Past and Present AGMs

AGM-69 SRAM





AGM-129 ACM





AGM-78 ARM





AGM-12 Bullpup





AGM-130





AGM-84e SLAM

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## SvenSvensonov

Lesser known US special forces group - 95th Civil Affairs Brigade






That mustache! - should be a requirement

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## SvenSvensonov

"Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated" - US submarine fleet

Virginia Class sub pics






























Seawolf Class Sub pics

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*F-35 Ahoy! Navy Version Of JSF Faces Nimitz’s Tests*

WASHINGTON: The next two weeks will be enormously important for the Navy’s carrier-based version of the Joint Strike Fighter as two F-35Cs undergo extensive testing operating from the USS _Nimitz_. The Navy has been the least committed of the three services buying versions of the Joint Strike Fighter, so if the two planes being tested perform well it could help change the views of some senior Navy leaders. Anything less than a sterling performance, of course, could well give reluctant Navy officials more ammunition to buy more F-18s and stretch out or shrink their planned purchase of F-35Cs.

Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan was very upbeat about the aircraft during a program briefing with reporters yesterday. The two F-35Cs are flying directly to the carrier and will land using arresting gear, he said. No cranes gently lifting the planes onto the Nimitz’s deck. Nope. These aircraft will fly the last portion of their trip and are expected to execute the carrier version’s very first landing on a carrier with a small group of reporters watching.

After several months of uncertainty whether CF-3 and CF-5 would both be ready to fly — complete with new tail hook assemblies and huge amounts of test instrumentation — Bogdan told us yesterday they would both fly to the ship. As Breaking D readers know, thetail hook on the F-35Cs had to be redesigned. The initial design did not reliably engage the cable and wasn’t strong enough. The Arresting Hook System got better damping, changed the shape of the hook and made it and where it connects with the airframe, much stronger. During tests over the last five months, F-35C test pilots had to deliberately land their aircraft on the nose gear to mimic what can happen when pitching seas may drive a carrier deck right up into a plane as it lands. A Navy pilot I spoke with said the physical punishment of such a landing is “pretty impressive” — not to mention the stresses it can place on the plane. I’ll be in San Diego and on the Nimitz all next week covering the tests for you.

From F-35 Ahoy! Navy Version Of JSF Faces Nimitz’s Tests « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## AMDR

*Have Guns, Will Upgrade: The M109A7 Paladin PIM Self-Propelled Howitzer*

Have Guns, Will Upgrade: The M109A7 Paladin PIM Self-Propelled Howitzer

The USA’s 155mm M109 self-propelled howitzers (SPH) were first introduced in 1962, as a form of armored mobile artillery that could stand up to the massed fire tactics of Soviet heavy artillery and rockets. They and their companion M992 Armored Ammunition Resupply Vehicles (AARV) have been rebuilt and upgraded several times, most recently via the M109A6 Paladin upgrade.

In the meantime, the Army has re-learned a few home truths. Artillery arrives in seconds rather than minutes or hours, is never unavailable due to bad weather, and cheaply delivers a volume of explosive destruction that would otherwise require hundreds of millions of dollars worth of bombers and precision weapons. Most combat casualties in the gunpowder age have come from artillery fire, and the US Army will need its mobile fleet for some time to come. So, too, will the many countries that have bought the M109 and still use it, unless BAE wishes to cede that market to South Korea’smodern K9/K10 system
View attachment 143939
, or new concept candidates like the KMW/GDLS DONAR
View attachment 143939
. What to do? Enter the Paladin PIM program.


*PIM Program: A New M109A7/ M992A3 Paladin*
While the M109 was technically mobile, in practice it was only semi-mobile. The need to string communications wire in order to physically connect the battery’s howitzers and their fire-control center fixed the vehicles in position. Surveyors were used to calculate the battery’s location as part of this process, and the entire emplacement and readying procedure could easily take 15-20 minutes. So, too, could the process of taking this setup down so the battery could move to another location. It didn’t take a genius to figure out that spending so much time outside of any protective armor was going to get a lot of people killed in any serious conflict involving tools like attack helicopters, massed artillery and rocket fire, and nifty toys like artillery-locating radars that backtrack the origin point of incoming shells.

The M109A6 Paladin addressed these issues via computerization and communications upgrades. Secure SINCGARS radios replaced the wires. Inertial navigation systems and sensors attached to the gun automatically tell the crew where they are, and where their shells are likely to land. Finally, automatic gun-laying translates the fire co-ordinates to a specific gun position. No aiming circles. No surveyed fire points. No wire lines. Just move into the assigned position area somewhere, calculate data, receive orders from the platoon operations center, use FBCB2 (aka “Blue Force Tracker”) to verify the location of “friendlies,” use the automatic PDFCS (Paladin Digital Fire Control System) to aim the gun and send the shell on its way. Once the fire mission is over, the vehicle can move off, receive another target, then quickly lay and fire again.

Improved armor added even more protection to the new system, and an upgraded engine and transmission made the M109A6 speedier. On-board prognostics and diagnostics were installed to improve the vehicles’ readiness and maintainability. Finally, ammunition stowage was made safer, and the load was increased from 36 rounds to 39 rounds of 155mm shells. Some of which can be M982 Excalibur GPS-guided shells.

The M992 Field Artillery Ammunition Support Vehicle (FAASV) vehicle is the M019’s companion. The M992A2 is also referred to as “Carrier Ammunition Tracked” by the US Army, which is an apt name because it holds up to 90 shells on 2 racks (up to 12,000 pounds total), plus an hydraulic conveyor belt to help with loading the M109. In practice, the duo’s crews often handle that task manually. The Paladin PIM program will enhance the FAASV/CAT to M992A3.

*M109A7 PIM: The Weapon*
The Paladin Integrated Management partnership builds on the A6’s advances, but there are so many changes that it’s almost a new-build program.

The BAE/Army partnership will re-use the turret structure and the main 155/39 mm gun. As such, additional range and accuracy depends on using new projectiles like the rocket-boosted & GPS-guided M982 Excalibur, or ATK’s non-boosted PGK screw-in guidance system. Both are explicitly contemplated in the Paladin PIM’s loading systems. Maximum rate of fire also remains unchanged, because tube structure and temperature remain the limiting factor for sustained rates of fire.

The Paladin Digital Fire Control System is somewhere between old and new. The system has continued to receive upgrades, and is being produced by BAE and Northrop Grumman. GPS is currently provided via older PLGR systems, with data sent to the Dynamic Reference Unit – Hybrid (DRU-H inertial navigator), but the obsolescence of electronic components within this box means that DRU-H and possibly PLGR are on the future replacement list.

What will be new? Two big advances:

*Chassis.* Previous M109 upgrades hadn’t altered the M109’s 1950s configuration. The new chassis are being fabricated & assembled with components from the M2/M3 Bradley IFV (e.g. engine, transmission, final drives, etc.), in order to create more commonality across America’s Heavy Brigade Combat teams. BAE Systems expects a growth in overall weight of less than 5%, but the combined effects of the new chassis and more robust drive components give Paladin PIM the ability to operate at higher weights than its current GVW maximum of about 39 tons/ 35.4 tonnes. That will be tested, given the expected weight of the T2 add-on armor and separate underbelly armor add-on kits.

*All-Electric.* The M109A7 PIM also incorporates select technologies from the Future Combat Systems 155mm NLOS-C (Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon), including modern electric gun drive systems to replace the current 1960s-era hydraulically-operated elevation and azimuth drives. The removal of the hydraulic systems saves the crew a tremendous amount of maintenance, and they retain manual backups for gun laying just in case.

The shift to an electric turret included a major redesign of the vehicle’s power system, converting the 600 hp engine’s work into up to 70 kW of 600 volt/ 28 volt direct current for use by various on-board systems. The power system’s modularity means that if any one of the motors inside fails, it can be replaced in the field within less than 15 minutes, using the same single part type. In concrete terms, it means the howitzer crew can handle the problem themselves and continue the mission, instead of withdrawing for repairs.

*Paladin PIM: The Program*






Adam Zarfoss, BAE Systems’ director of artillery programs:

“Artillery is playing an important role in operations in Iraq, with the Paladin providing critical fire support with both standard and precision munitions… The M109A6-PIM is the next step in Paladin development to ensure this essential fire support system remains ready and sustainable for soldiers in the HBCT [Heavy Brigade Combat Teams] through its projected life beyond the year 2050.”

Even with the previous-generation Paladin’s computerization and fast, safe set-up and take-down, a noticeable capability gap existed between the M109A6 used in Iraq, and newer self-propelled guns. At the same time, America’s comparable XM2001 Crusader/ XM2002 ARRV
View attachment 143939
was canceled as an $11 billion Cold War relic in 2002, and the light 155mm NLOS-C died with the 2009 removal of the Future Combat Systems ground vehicle program.

The Paladin Integrated Management Program is designed to handle America’s future needs in the absence of Crusader and NLOS-C, and close some of the M109A6’s technological gaps. The initial goal was 600 M109A7 / M992A3 vehicle sets, but that has been lowered slightly to 558.






BAE Systems and the U.S. Army have signed a 2007 memorandum of understanding (MoU), establishing a Public-Private Partnership (P3) to develop and sustain the Army’s M109A6 vehicles throughout their life cycle. The establishment of a P3 will capitalize on the strengths and capabilities of each organization to ensure the cost-effective and on-time reset of the current fleet of M109A6 Paladin self-propelled howitzers (SPHs) and M992A2 Field Artillery Ammunition Supply Vehicles (FAASV), as well as the planned production of the M109A7/M992A3 Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) systems.

PIM prototypes were originally slated to be delivered to the US Army for test and evaluation in 2009, but changes to the program meant that the prototype contract wasn’t even issued until October 2009. That moved prototype delivery back to May 2011.

By January 2012, BAE had completed Phase I of the Army’s formal Developmental Test Program, with 5 vehicles returning for refurbishment, and 2 remaining at Aberdeen Proving Grounds for further tests. Full testing of all vehicles was set to resume in June 2012, and the Milestone C approval to proceed with Low-Rate-Initial-Production (LRIP) was scheduled for June 2013. In practice LRIP approval by the Defense Acquisition Board slipped to October 2013, and formal induction didn’t take place until May 2014.

*Industrial Team*
Parties to the memorandum signing include BAE Systems leaders, US Army TACOM (Tank, automotive & Armaments COMmand), The Army’s PEO-GCS (Program Executive Office for Ground Combat Systems), the Army’s PKM-HBCT (Project Manager – Heavy Brigade Combat Team), and the Anniston Army Depot in Alabama. The MoU was signed during the AUSA 2007 conference in Washington, DC.

BAE Systems has significant experience with public-private partnerships thanks to Britain’s “future contracting for availability” innovations. In the USA, meanwhile, it has a long standing and successful partnership with the Red River Army Depot in Texas to remanufacture and upgrade the USA’s M2/M3 Bradley fighting vehicles.

The Army’s PM-HBCT will manage the M109 RESET activities. Anniston Army Depot will retain labor and lead the majority of the program, including the M109A6-PIM production process, through the public-private partnership. They will be integrated into the PIM Integrated Product Development Teams (IPDTs) structure during the design phase, and will support the manufacture of the prototype vehicles.

During the production phase, Anniston Army Depot will be responsible for induction of vehicles, overhaul of critical components like the gun system, and modification/ upgrade of the cab structure. BAE Systems will be responsible for materials management. The partially assembled cabs, along with overhauled components, will be provided to BAE Systems for integration with the new M109A7 PIM chassis. Areas involved in production will include York, PA; Aiken, SC; and Elgin, OK where final assembly will take place.


*Export Potential*
A total of 975 M109A6 Paladins were produced for the US Army, and another 225 or so were produced for Taiwan. Full rate production ceased in 1999. BAE built a small final batch to fill out an Army National Guard request, which finished in 2001.

Most other countries who use the M109 (Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Denmark, Egypt, Greece, Israel, Kuwait, Morocco, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Spain, Thailand, Tunisia, Iran on its own, soon Iraq with US support) employ previous versions, ranging from M109A1s to M109A5s.

That’s a lot of potential upgrades.

So far, the most popular upgrade abroad is the M109A5+, which adds independent position location via GPS/INS, and radio transmission of co-ordinates. It’s a budget-conscious upgrade that omits the M109A6’s automatic gun-laying, which would require a tear-down and rebuild of the turret. It also omits the PIM upgrades, which make very substantial changes to every part of the vehicle.

On the other hand, countries that do decide to field fully modern armored artillery systems will find that Paladin PIM is still generally cheaper than buying new heavy systems. That’s enough to succeed in America. What about the rest of the world?

Abroad, Paladin PIM will be competing against options like KMW’s PzH-2000, Denel’s G6, and Samsung’s K9/K10 on the heavy side, some of which offer more advanced features. It will also have to deal with substitution threats from lightly-armored truck-mounted 155mm artillery like BAE/Saab’s Archer, Elbit’s Atmos, and Nexter’s Caesar. It’s still early days, but the M109A7 Paladin PIM system has yet to find an export customer.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Everyone -- or at least those interested in high performance aviation -- are aware of the 'g-suit' that fighter pilots always wear. Under high g maneuvers, enough blood can be transferred by g-forces away from the upper body that it would cause the pilot to black out, or gravity induced loss of consciousness: g-loc.

The g-suit or anti-g suit works by applying physical pressure -- compression -- via pressurized air to bladders which then will literally squeeze the lower waist and legs to keep as much blood in the upper body as possible. The early g-suit designed used water, which is heavier than air and eventually not used.






Emergency medical necessities exploited the pilot's g-suit to create the MAST: *M*ilitary *A*nti-*S*hock *T*rousers. USAF Pararescue have the MAST as standard equipment carry in their missions. If the victim is either in shock or approaching that condition due to blood loss, a PJ can use the MAST to keep as much of whatever remaining blood in the upper body as possible. In essence, the limbs are sacrificial compared to the brain.

Military anti-shock garment: Historical relic or a device with unrealized potential?


> MAST was subsequently introduced into medical practice during the Vietnam War and was then called the Military Anti-Shock Trousers (MAST).[5] Its value in the military was documented when soldiers with massive trauma and bleeding, previously considered fatal, were able to survive a 30-60 minute air-lift and helicopter ride to a definitive care facility.[6]
> 
> In the 1970s, MAST began to be introduced into the civilian Emergency Medical Services (EMS) systems.[7] In 1977, it was listed by the Committee on Trauma of the American College of Surgeons to be an essential device to be carried on all ambulances.


The use of the MAST have been controversial in the civilian settings. Some lives were saved, but for emergency personnel who were not familiar and trained in its use, a hasty removal of a MAST on a trauma patient can kill the patient due to rapid blood loss for the brain. Today, the MAST is renamed the pneumatic anti-shock garment, but the PJs still refers to the device as the MAST.

In the civilian setting in most advanced countries, it is rare that any trauma victim would be greater than 30 minutes away from competent, trained, and well equipped emergency medical services and staff. But the military does not have that luxury all the time. Any air medevac must still negotiate hostile ground weapons and find safe air corridors.

Rotor & Wing Magazine :: The Military Spin: Joint Service Medevac Capabilities


> Air Force HH-60G combat search and rescue (CSAR) missions traditionally fly with 2-3 PJs per aircraft. They carry: fast and rappel rope, medical ruck, extrication kit, medical oxygen, collapsible litter, medical accessory bag, Stokes litter, spine board, Propaq vital-signs monitor, and *military anti-shock trousers (MAST).* Payloads and patient requirements dictate the number of PJs and equipment carried on civil SAR missions.


If we send men, and now women, to fight for our cause, we will do everything in our power to save anyone when he/she is in need. The MAST may be controversial for the civilians and many EM services will not even train their technicians in its use, but for a severely wounded US combatant of any branch, the PJ will do everything in his training and any equipment at his disposal to keep his charge alive.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*Video: U.S. Navy Version of F-35 Lands on Carrier for First Time*






The Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter has made a successful trap onboard USS_Nimitz_ (CVN-68).

“F-35C completes first carrier landing,” the U.S. Navy’s twitter feed announced at about 5p EST on Monday.

Two of the single-engine stealth fighter are scheduled to conduct sea trials onboard the nearly 100,000-ton warship this week to prove the jet can operate safely on the flightdeck.

The Joint Strike Fighter Program Office is deploying test aircraft CF-3 and CF-5 to the carrier. The two jets are fully instrumented and are cleared to operate with a full flight envelope. Once onboard Nimitz, the jets will be run through the gamut of carrier operations.

Earlier in the year, F-35 program manager Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan said that he had some doubts as to if the sea trials were going to be possible because of problems with the aircraft’s hook and nose landing gear. Given the rigorous testing the two jets have undergone, the situation has improved. “I feel pretty good about this now,” Bogdan said.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## SvenSvensonov

gambit said:


> Everyone -- or at least those interested in high performance aviation -- are aware of the 'g-suit' that fighter pilots always wear. Under high g maneuvers, enough blood can be transferred by g-forces away from the upper body that it would cause the pilot to black out, or gravity induced loss of consciousness: g-loc.
> 
> The g-suit or anti-g suit works by applying physical pressure -- compression -- via pressurized air to bladders which then will literally squeeze the lower waist and legs to keep as much blood in the upper body as possible. The early g-suit designed used water, which is heavier than air and eventually not used.
> 
> View attachment 143961
> 
> 
> Emergency medical necessities exploited the pilot's g-suit to create the MAST: *M*ilitary *A*nti-*S*hock *T*rousers. USAF Pararescue have the MAST as standard equipment carry in their missions. If the victim is either in shock or approaching that condition due to blood loss, a PJ can use the MAST to keep as much of whatever remaining blood in the upper body as possible. In essence, the limbs are sacrificial compared to the brain.
> 
> Military anti-shock garment: Historical relic or a device with unrealized potential?
> 
> The use of the MAST have been controversial in the civilian settings. Some lives were saved, but for emergency personnel who were not familiar and trained in its use, a hasty removal of a MAST on a trauma patient can kill the patient due to rapid blood loss for the brain. Today, the MAST is renamed the pneumatic anti-shock garment, but the PJs still refers to the device as the MAST.
> 
> In the civilian setting in most advanced countries, it is rare that any trauma victim would be greater than 30 minutes away from competent, trained, and well equipped emergency medical services and staff. But the military does not have that luxury all the time. Any air medevac must still negotiate hostile ground weapons and find safe air corridors.
> 
> Rotor & Wing Magazine :: The Military Spin: Joint Service Medevac Capabilities
> 
> If we send men, and now women, to fight for our cause, we will do everything in our power to save anyone when he/she is in need. The MAST may be controversial for the civilians and many EM services will not even train their technicians in its use, but for a severely wounded US combatant of any branch, the PJ will do everything in his training and any equipment at his disposal to keep his charge alive.



I've had the opportunity to fly in some of the old prop engines aircraft of the WWII era and without a G-suit it is a crappy experience. "clench your fists, clench your legs" - that's what I was told to do to prevent G-lock. This was to be done once every three seconds and your fists and legs clenched and held for one second. Praise be to the engineers that created the G-suit because without it flying high performance aircraft sucks.


----------



## AMDR

*US Ballistic missile defense (BMD)*


Overview





*Aegis BMD
*
Aegis BMD Overview





Missile Evolution concept





Sm-3 IA vs SM-3 IB (currently employed)






USS Shiloh (CG-67) launches an SM-3





*THAAD (Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense)

*Overview
*




*
Missile Design
*



*
AN/TPY-2
AN/TPY-2: America’s Portable Missile Defense Radar

From the article...

"The THAAD Ground-Based Radar (GBR), now known as the AN/TPY-2, is an X-Band, phased array, solid-state, long-range air defense radar. It was developed and built by Raytheon at its Andover, MA Integrated Air Defense Facility, as the main radar for the US Army’s THAAD late midcourse ballistic missile defense system.

For THAAD, targeting information from the TPY-2 is uploaded to the missile immediately before launch, and continuously updated in flight via datalinks. The TPY-2 is always deployed with THAAD, but it can also be used independently as part of any ABM (anti ballistic missile) infrastructure. That flexibility, and ease of deployment, is carving out an expanding role for the TPY-2/ “FBX” that reaches beyond THAAD. If a recent NRC report is adopted, that role will expand again to include national-scale ballistic missile defense."






THAAD Launch
*






*


*








*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SvenSvensonov

AMDR said:


> *US Ballistic missile defense (BMD)*
> 
> 
> Overview
> View attachment 143963
> 
> *Aegis BMD
> *
> Aegis BMD Overview
> View attachment 143988
> 
> 
> Missile Evolution concept
> 
> View attachment 143969
> 
> Sm-3 IA vs SM-3 IB (currently employed)
> 
> View attachment 143970
> 
> 
> USS Shiloh (CG-67) launches an SM-3
> View attachment 144290
> 
> 
> *THAAD (Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense)
> 
> *Overview
> *
> View attachment 144307
> 
> *
> Missile Design
> *
> View attachment 144308
> *
> AN/TPY-2
> AN/TPY-2: America’s Portable Missile Defense Radar
> 
> From the article...
> 
> "The THAAD Ground-Based Radar (GBR), now known as the AN/TPY-2, is an X-Band, phased array, solid-state, long-range air defense radar. It was developed and built by Raytheon at its Andover, MA Integrated Air Defense Facility, as the main radar for the US Army’s THAAD late midcourse ballistic missile defense system.
> 
> For THAAD, targeting information from the TPY-2 is uploaded to the missile immediately before launch, and continuously updated in flight via datalinks. The TPY-2 is always deployed with THAAD, but it can also be used independently as part of any ABM (anti ballistic missile) infrastructure. That flexibility, and ease of deployment, is carving out an expanding role for the TPY-2/ “FBX” that reaches beyond THAAD. If a recent NRC report is adopted, that role will expand again to include national-scale ballistic missile defense."
> 
> View attachment 144782
> 
> 
> THAAD Launch
> *
> View attachment 144309
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *



Can't forget about the new land-based system: Aegis Ashore

Aegis Ashore is a land-based capability of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) System to address the evolving ballistic missile security environment. The re-locatable deckhouse is equipped with the Aegis BMD weapon system and Standard Missile-3 (SM-3), with upgrades being phased during this decade. Each Aegis BMD upgrade provides increased capability for countering ballistic missile threats.
In addition to Aegis BMD ships, Aegis Ashore is part of Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) Phases II and III.

*Development*

Uses the same combat system elements (AN/SPY-1 Radar, Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence systems, Vertical Launching System, computer processors, display system, power supplies and cooling) that are used onboard the Navy’s new construction Aegis BMD Destroyers.
Conducting flight tests at the Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Test Complex at Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) in Kauai, Hawaii. Each test will increase the operational realism and complexity of targets and scenarios and will be witnessed by Navy and Department of Defense test agents.
Integrates advances in sensor technology such as launch of an SM-3 missile in response to remote sensor data.
Defeats short- to intermediate-range ballistic missile threats.
Incorporates future capability upgrades in association with Aegis BMD Program of Record.
*Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Test Complex (AAMDTC)*

The AAMDTC at the PMRF is a test and evaluation center in the development of the PAA. The test complex leverages the Aegis BMD Weapon System and the new SM-3 Block IB missile for PAA Phase II deployment, as well as, supports deployment decisions and upgrades of future PAA Phase capabilities.
The AAMDTC fired the first land-based SM-3 Block IB missile in May 2014.
*Deployment*

In 2015, Aegis Ashore will be installed in Romania as part of the PAA Phase II. This deployed capability will use Aegis BMD 5.0 CU and SM-3 Block IB to provide ballistic missile coverage of southern Europe.
In 2018, Aegis Ashore will be installed in Poland, as part of the PAA Phase III. This deployed capability will use Aegis BMD 5.1 and SM-3 Blocks IB and IIA to support increased additional defense of Europe.
*Future Capabilities*

Engagement of longer range ballistic missiles
And GMD

*Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD)*
The Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System provides Combatant Commanders the capability to engage and destroy limited intermediate- and long-range ballistic missile threats in space to protect the United States

*Overview*

GMD employs integrated communications networks, fire control systems, globally deployed sensors, and Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs) that are capable of detecting, tracking and destroying ballistic missile threats.
The Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) is a sensor/propulsion package that uses the kinetic energy from a direct hit to destroy the incoming target vehicle. This hit-to-kill technology has been proven in a number of successful flight tests, including three using GBIs.
*Details*

*Ground-based Midcourse Defense* is composed of GBIs and Ground Support & Fire Control Systems components.
*The GBI* is a multi-stage, solid fuel booster with an EKV payload. When launched, the booster carries the EKV toward the target’s predicted location in space. Once released from the booster, the EKV uses guidance data transmitted from Ground Support & Fire Control System components and on-board sensors to close with and destroy the target warhead. The impact is outside the Earth’s atmosphere using only the kinetic force of the direct collision to destroy the target warhead.
*Ground Support & Fire Control Systems* consist of redundant fire control nodes, interceptor launch facilities, and a communications network. GMD Fire Control (GFC) receives data from satellites and ground based radar sources, then uses that data to task and support the intercept of target warheads using GBIs.The GFC also provides the Command & Control, Battle Management & Communications element with data for situational awareness.
*Deployment*

GBIs are emplaced at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. A total of 30 interceptors have been emplaced—26 at Fort Greely and four at Vandenberg.
Fire control, battle management, planning, tasking, and threat analysis take place via a dual-node, human-in-control interface located in Fort Greely, Alaska, and Colorado Springs, Colo. Warfighters of the 49th Missile Defense Battalion at Fort Greely, Alaska, and of the 100th Missile Defense Brigade at Colorado Springs, Colo., operate 
the system.
All GMD components communicate through the GMD communications network, a secure data and voice communications system using SATCOM and fiber optic cabling for long-haul communications.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AMDR

*DARPA advances ship-based MALE UAV concept*
DARPA advances ship-based MALE UAV concept - 10/14/2014 - Flight Global

The US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is one step closer to demonstrating the launch and recovery of a medium-sized unmanned air vehicle (UAV) from a small vessel, following a $19 million preliminary design contract award to AeroVironment.

Under phase II of DARPA’s tactically exploited reconnaissance node (Tern) programme, the company will conduct “subscale flight demonstrations” over the next 12 months that will subsequently lead on to a sole-source phase III at-sea demonstration contract award.

DARPA launched the TERN effort in 2013, but joined with the US Navy’s Office of Naval Research (ONR) in May 2014 to continue the programme, which was retitled “Tern”.

The agency considers assets that provide worldwide airborne intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) as having weaknesses – specifically helicopters being limited by range and flight time, and manned and unmanned fixed-wing aircraft being restricted by large base and runway requirements.

“Tern envisions using smaller ships as mobile launch and recovery sites for medium-altitude long-endurance [MALE] unmanned aircraft,” DARPA says. “Ideally, Tern would enable on-demand, ship-based unmanned aircraft system operations without extensive, time-consuming and irreversible ship modifications.”






DARPA

Ships would have a “mission truck” to transport ISR and strike payloads, and would support field-interchangeable mission packages for overland and at-sea missions from multiple ship types.

According to a broad agency announcement (BAA) released by DARPA in March 2013, TERN was to match emerging land-based MALE UAV capabilities – the ability to carry out persistent ISR and strike missions – with payloads of 272kg (600lb) and at a range of 900nm (1,670km) from the host ship.

The BAA also claimed TERN’s objective would be for UAVs to operate from multiple ship types. This would be from ships such as the USN’s Littoral Combat Ship 2-class. However, following the ONR teaming announcement, the target host vessel was changed to Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.

The first two phases of the programme focus on preliminary design and risk reduction for the Tern system, DARPA says.

Five teams were under contract for phase I, and one or more of these was expected to be selected to continue in phase II, although it is unclear whether any firms in addition to AeroVironment have also been selected.

In phase III, one contractor is expected to be selected to build a full-scale demonstrator Tern system for ground-based testing, culminating in an at-sea demonstration of launch and recovery. The 2013 BAA cited 2017 as the target date for the at-sea demonstration.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

SvenSvensonov said:


> I've had the opportunity to fly in some of the old prop engines aircraft of the WWII era and *without a G-suit it is a crappy experience.* "clench your fists, clench your legs" - that's what I was told to do to prevent G-lock. This was to be done once every three seconds and your fists and legs clenched and held for one second. Praise be to the engineers that created the G-suit because without it flying high performance aircraft sucks.


You said 'crappy experience' and I am sure it was figuratively.

The USAF have a program call 'Incentive Flight' where a non-pilot would be taken up for a flight, not possible for a single seater, of course, to give him/her a taste of what he/she is supporting. The recipient could be someone in maintenance or even an 'office puke', but always must be someone outstanding in every way. There were/are a lot of inflight reenlistments where the pilot would officiate the process. Those inflight reenlistments were definitely *NOT* ceremonial as any commissioned officer could administer the oath and it is tough to beat an inflight reenlistment in a jet fighter. Those were the days of chemical film cameras so there were a lot of blurry photos of the reenlistments. No 'selfies' back then.

Anyway...When I was at RAF Upper Heyford back in the 80s, we had an 'office puke' senior airman (E4) who was nominated and approved for an incentive flight and wanted to reenlist in an F-111. For any day's sorties, there are always back up jets should any scheduled jet failed to make take off for any reasons, usually mechanically related. If the back up jets are not needed, they are either stand down or used for other purposes. For that day, we had a VIP full bird from the Pentagon who needed his required monthly air time to keep his flight pay. He recently came from the FB-111, Pease AFB, a SAC base, so our 'wing king' approved the guest's taking a jet up with our 'office puke' along for the ride.

The story was that after the 'office puke' reenlisted and the colonel took the usual blurry photo of the process, the colonel decided to relive his glory days in the -111. He performed a few maneuvers, not stressing the jet since the -111 is not really a 'fighter', then he took the jet for what the -111 was famous for: hard terrain following (TF) flight. Back then, the Soviets never failed to bring up the -111s stationed in England as part of the arms reduction talks. The Warsaw Pact never had a real defense against a four-ship F-111s in hard TF flight all the way to Moskva. They wanted the -111s back to the States.






In the -111, the weapons system officer (WSO) have a hood for his scope (above). The WSO's seat is also where the incentive flight recipient, or VIP guest, or media specialist, sits for the flight.

After a few hard dives in this hard TF flight, the 'office puke' blew chunks into the hood. Blew chunks or technicolor yawn, whatever you want to call the action. He also blew chunks from his lower bodily orifice as well. He later said to the flight surgeon that he 'lost it' when the g-suit squeezed him extra hard during the 3rd or 4th dive, he could not remember. It was literally a 'crappy experience' for the poor guy.

The colonel declared an inflight emergency (IFE), specifically a minor medical IFE. It was not enough to warrant the full display of fire trucks and ambulance, but just a very quiet ambulance for an embarrassed flight crew member. I also heard that the crew chief and the avionics guys were not happy -- to start. Next, Egress had to perform the full cockpit safe procedures to remove the WSO's seat for cleaning, inspection, and recert.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AMDR

*U.S. Marines to Retire Harrier Fleet Early Than Planned, Extend Life of Hornets*
U.S. Marines to Retire Harrier Fleet Early Than Planned, Extend Life of Hornets - USNI News




_AV-8B Harriers sit on the flight deck at night aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Bataan (LHD-5) on Oct. 3, 2014. US Navy Photo_

The U.S. Marine Corps will phase out the Boeing AV-8B Harrier II jump jet by 2025 — about five years earlier than planned — and will instead extend the life of its fleet of aging Boeing F/A-18 Hornet strike fighters, according to the service’s recently released 2015 aviation plan.

In previous years, the service had said it would replace its increasingly older fleet of original model Boeing F/A-18A – D Hornet strike fighters before retiring the Harriers before replacing both fighters with the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

Now, the Harrier will be retired in 2025 and the Hornets will hang on until 2029 for the active duty Marines.

“The TACAIR 2030 Roadmap is a departure from the previous AVPLAN’s TACAIR transition order,” reads the Marine Corps’ 2015 aviation plan.
“The F-35 transition continues per the program of record, while the AV-8B and F/A-18 order of transition has changed.”

The Marine short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B is planned to operational in the summer of 2015 will eventually replace the Harrier.

The Hornets will finally leave the Marine inventory in 2030 when the reserve component transitions to the F-35B.




_An AV-8B Harrier from the Black Sheep of Marine Attack Squadron (VMA) 214 on the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) on Aug. 4, 2013. US Navy Photo
_
“Visibility and Management of Operating and Supporting Cost (VAMOSC) analysis estimated changing transition order would result in cost avoidance of over one billion dollars through 2030,” the document reads.

The first Harrier squadron to transition to the F-35B will be VMA-211, which will make the switch in Fiscal Year 2016 (FY 2016). If all goes according to plan, the entire West Coast Harrier force will transition to the JSF by 2020.

The remaining East Coast Harriers will be retired 2025. In the meantime—since the AV-8B still has another 11 years to go in service—the Marines will focus on improving the fleet’s readiness.

“The AV-8B program will continue to focus on readiness by solving chronic parts inventory shortfalls. In 2015 the aircraft will transition support from Boeing to NAVSUP [Naval Supply Systems Command],” the document reads.

The Marines will also continue to modernize the aging jet. The jet will receive new ALE-47 V2 countermeasures dispenser, ALR-67 radar warning receivers and ALQ-164 electronic countermeasures pods. The Harriers will also be modified with variable message format terminals, full Link-16 data-link capability and possibly the Tactical Targeting Network Technologies high-speed data-link.
With full integration of the fourth generation Litening pod, it will be able to self-designate the AGM-65E missiles and GBU-54 Laser Joint Direct Attack Munitions.

The Marines are also planning on integrating the AIM-120C/D AMRAAM and AIM-9X Block II air-to-air missiles onto the AV-8B. Flight testing of the AMRAAM onboard the Harrier is slated for 2016.




_US Marine Corps tactical aviation plan into FY 2032 from the service’s new 2015 aviation plan_

Meanwhile, the Hornet fleet will have to be modified stay in service. The Navy and Marines have implemented a Center Barrel Replacement Plus (CBR+) program to increase the service life of 200 Lot 17 and below Hornets

Further, a High Flight Hour (HFH) inspection has extended the life of 110 F/A-18 A-D aircraft beyond 8000 hours with another 129 aircraft awaiting inspections. In addition to those efforts, a Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) will modify about 150 hand selected F/A-18 C/D aircraft so that they will be able to fly up to 10,000 hours.
The SLEP program has run into serious delays because of personnel shortages resulting from the sequestration cuts to the Pentagon as part of the 2011 Budget Control Act (BCA) , several sources told USNI News.

The problem is so severe that when the Department of the Navy pulled engineers from the Super Hornet program to help resolve the issue, it has also caused a severe readiness shortfall on the F/A-18E/F program, USNI News understands.





A_n F/A-18C Hornet, assigned to the Checkerboards of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMA) 312, launches from the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) on Oct. 13, 2014. US Navy Photo

T_he Marines acknowledged part of the problem in the document: “The USMC F/A-18 A-D community is enduring a sustained shortage in excess of 40 aircraft fleet wide due to “Out Of Reporting” (OOR) maintenance.”
The Marine Hornets are also going to be upgraded with new computers and displays. The jets will also receive new weapons.

Those include the Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System (APKWS), AIM-120D and AIM-9X Block II. The Marines will also, “pursue minimum of two stand-off Net Enabled Weapons.”

Both the Hornet and Harrier—along with Northrop Grumman EA-6B Prowler–will be replaced by the F-35. The Marines hope to buy a total of 353 F-35Bs and 67 F-35Cs.

The Marines’ plans is to have nine squadrons with 16 F-35Bs, five squadrons of 10 F-35Bs and four squadrons of carrier-based F-35Cs with ten jets each. There would also eventually be two reserve squadron of 10 F-35B aircraft each and two 25-aircraft F-35B training units.

It will take the Marines until 2030 to completely transition to the JSF, but the Marines hope to boost production of the jet.

“Increasing F-35B production from 20 to 24 aircraft per year would reduce the Marine TACAIR transition timeline by four years,” the document said.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Hakan

SvenSvensonov said:


> This is definitely a good plan, but I've found that with dedicated branch threads, such as the JMSDF thread, that they quickly devolve into a general discussion about the entire military of a nation - now the JMSDF thread is just the JSDF. It's hard to keep them unified and on topic, even when off topic posts are reported or deleted and an outline is provided. I am eagerly awaiting a formal US military thread, in the mean time though I thought people would like a place to discuss the US military and share some pictures.


Good idea. I cant wait till a us forum is opened.

Im the guy who opened the thread about it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Aepsilons

Hakan said:


> Good idea. I cant wait till a us forum is opened.
> 
> Im the guy who opened the thread about it.



Waiting for that day, bro. Tesekur ederim!


----------



## gambit

What happens when a pilot had to eject and failed to safely reach the ground ?

German fighter pilot rescued from tree branches after parachuting to safety seconds before Tornado jet crashes | Daily Mail Online


> A German fighter pilot had to be rescued from tree branches after he was forced to parachute to safety just seconds before his Tornado jet crashed.


Movies do not bother with medical issues involved when a pilot is stranded in the trees above ground. Movie pilots always managed to extricate themselves heroically.

Nothing could be further from the truth. But then, if action movies obeys the laws of physics, of common sense, and of medical reality, we would not have actors paid tens of millions of dollars per project, do we ?

So enter a medical reality...*H*arness *I*nduced *P*athology (HIP)...

Safety and Health Information Bulletins | Suspension Trauma/Orthostatic Intolerance


> Orthostatic intolerance may be experienced by workers using fall arrest systems. Following a fall, a worker may remain suspended in a harness. The sustained immobility may lead to a state of unconsciousness. Depending on the length of time the suspended worker is unconscious/immobile and the level of venous pooling, the resulting orthostatic intolerance may lead to death. While not common, such fatalities often are referred to as *"harness induced pathology" or "suspension trauma."*



For the men of the USAF Pararescue units...






...Whenever they hear a call for a rescue of a suspended pilot, the first thing that goes thru the PJs' minds is HIP. It is the helo pilots' job to get to the scene and while others worry about their jobs, the mission's PJs prepares their climbing gear so they will lose no time in saving the suspended pilot's life and limbs.

As the suspended pilot is trapped by his harness and height from the ground, his harness begins to put abnormal levels of pressure on his body, particularly the joints. His harness straps could, but more like would, be digging into the joints and other soft areas in his groin, possibly crushing nerves, and certainly shutting off blood vessels. Those parachute harness were never designed for long term wear, unlike what action movies implies.

Victims of HIP, in the civilian and military situations, have lost consciousness in as little as ten minutes. For the military pilot, he may not have any combat wounds that came from how he was shot down, but if he was trapped in suspension in a tree after ejection and if he was suspended long enough before being rescued, he will not be able to stand, let alone walk, and if the toxin filled blood that have been trapped in the legs are allowed to swiftly recirculated, he could, but more likely would, go into shock and cardiac arrest.

Untitled Document


> While recently training for roof-top work requiring a full body harness, the instructor spoke briefly of suspension trauma and the need for anyone having a fall to be rescued within five minutes to prevent the onset of *harness-induced pathology.
> *
> We were also warned that, whatever the type of harness, motionless suspension is not physiologically safe and will eventually lead to very serious blood circulation problems.
> 
> Further questioning and research led me to the following: if a person is motionless for any longer than five minutes, the normal exchange of waste and oxygen between muscle and blood does not occur due to compression of the femoral arteries by the harness leg straps. The femoral arteries are the large arteries running down the inside of the upper thigh. *Once the compression is released, the toxins that have built up are pumped back into the body and can do significant damage to the internal organs.* The legs can contain up to one third of the body's blood, so if a person has a fall but is not rendered unconscious, the lack of blood flow can lead to the person 'passing out' or vomiting.


For the PJs who finally arrived on the scene, they must assess the immediate area to see how quickly can they get to the trapped and suspended pilot. Is the tree on level ground, or on a hill side, or even in a swamp ? The PJs must be expert climbers along with their medical training. Now add in the possibility of the rescue being behind enemy lines and/or under hostile gun fire.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LeveragedBuyout

Hakan said:


> Guys before they open a u.s defense forum i suggest we plan out all of the sticky thread so that way everything is done right and organized from the beggining. Maybe a thread for each service branch along with threads for important topics such as uav programs, naval programs, small arms etc.
> 
> I think this format for threads would be a good idea to use when starting threads in the new forum:
> 
> Huge Projects of Türkiye
> 
> It doesnt have to be exactly the same but the concept of listing the thread contents in the opening post is a good idea. As new major things are added the op is updated by a mod. Im hoping that the u.s defence forum gets its own mod so that way the forum gets managed well,



Excellent idea--have you heard anything from the admins about whether they have agreed to create such a forum, and what the timetable might be?

Sorry for the late reply, but I seem to be missing a lot of functionality these days. My bookmarks are gone, and now I don't seem to get alerts anymore, so apologies to anyone who tags me and doesn't get a response.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LeveragedBuyout

@SvenSvensonov Thanks for opening this thread to provide a much-needed mini-forum for the US. I see that much of the thread thus far seems to focus on various systems or military history, both of which are beyond my area of competence. However, I try to keep up to date with the high-level geopolitical and strategic issues, at least, but please let me know if the following article doesn't fit what you are trying to achieve here.

---

The Army Gropes Toward A Cultural Revolution « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

*The Army Gropes Toward A Cultural Revolution*
By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on October 22, 2014 at 4:41 PM

AUSA: A new generation of generals is rising in the Army. It’s a generation forced to get creative by more than a decade of ugly unconventional conflicts. It’s a generation disillusioned by the mistakes of superiors, military and civilian alike. It’s a generation willing to take on the Army’s bureaucratic culture of top-down management, which dates back toElihu Root becoming Secretary of War in 1899.

But can they shift the notoriously slow-moving service? “I think the Army would acknowledge they are in the _earliest_ stages of figuring out how to design and field the force we will need in the future,” Michele Flournoy, former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, told my colleague Colin Clark today at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

To make change stick in the largest service, you have to start by rewriting holy writ, the service’s official doctrine. For the first time, for example, an official Army Operating Concept – published just this month — addresses the problem that’s bedeviled the military since Vietnam: how to turn tactical victories into strategic success. “That was a very deliberate decision [to include],” Gen. David Perkins, head of the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), told reporters during the new concept’s roll-out at the annual Association of the US Army conference. “We are very, very good at the operational and tactical level,” Perkins said, “[but] this was written by people who’ve actually done this since 9/11, and we realize that actually the operational and tactical level of war is _inadequate_. It’s important, but it is inadequate to get at what the Army needs to provide our nation.”

“That’s why we start with _Win In A Complex World_,” the title of the new concept , Perkins said: “‘Win’ is a strategic-level construct.”





Gen. David Perkins, TRADOC commander.

The Army’s not only adding a new emphasis on strategy, it’s taking away a longstanding emphasis on top-down control. In fact, the venerable term “command and control” itself is gone, replaced by “mission command.”

In military jargon, “control” meant making sure your subordinates followed orders: That’s still necessary, but it’s far from sufficient for a world so complex and quickly changing that no commander, staff, or war plan can keep up, Gen. Perkins told me. Enforcing “compliance to specific orders” is less important than forging “a common understanding” between superiors and subordinates,” he said. Wireless networks are the Army’s top investment priority because they help share and update this common understanding — when they work, Perkins added wryly — but it has to start with a meeting of human minds.

Perkins himself exercised extraordinary initiative — to the point some old-school commanders might consider insubordination — as a brigade commander spearheading the US drive into Baghdad in 2003. (More on that below). 11 years and four stars later, he’s now, since March, the chief of TRADOC, the oft-hidebound priesthood of the Army. His deputy is no less an iconoclast than Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, whose career was once nearly killed by traditionalist promotion boards.

Are the inmates running the asylum? They’re certainly driven to shake things up.”It is not a feel-good document,” Perkins said of the new concept. “It is meant to be a very serious document written by very serious people… who have seen a lot of blood spilled since 9/11 and are very serious about really capturing the essence of war.”

“It’s in our doctrine now, because we know the world is unknown and constantly changing, [that] you can’t possibly control compliance with everything,” Perkins told reporters at the service’s largest gathering, the annual Association of the US Army conference. “You have got to figure out how you empower subordinates to exploit the initiative.”

“It’s not chaos. It’s not ‘cross the line of departure and everybody self-actualize,’ because that’s _not_ empowering,” Perkins told me. “If you want to empower somebody, you better have a common understanding of what you think the problem is, [so] you understand where you can take initiative” — for example, by taking a hill or visiting a sheikh — “and where you can’t” — say, by shelling a mosque or violating an international border.

If you read an Army “Case Study in Mission Command” that Perkins commissioned, that leeway can be wide indeed.



*



A Surprising Turn*

In April 2003, as his brigade made ready for the second “Thunder Run” into Baghdad, then-Colonel David Perkins had a plan. It wasn’t a plan his superiors had approved. It was, in fact, a plan the three-star commander of all ground troops in Iraq had “dismissed” when the colonel presented it through the usual channels, according to the official Army case study. So Lt. Gen. William Wallace was understandably “stunned” when he watched the GPS-tracked positions of Perkins’ brigade turn right towards downtown Baghdad instead of making the expected U-turn to leave the city.

Wary of urban warfare, for good reason, the generals had decided to besiege Baghdad and wear Saddam down with repeated raids. But the weak resistance to the first such raid, the first “Thunder Run,” had convinced Perkins that the regime would shatter if his brigade went downtown, seized its palaces and stayed. He’d told his subordinates to be ready to do just that, despite his orders to hit and run. After the first few hours of fighting went well, he’d convinced his immediate superior to let him try that critical right turn downtown — or at least not countermand it: The two-star general didn’t “giv[e] a definitive answer,” but that was permission enough.

So the brigade went downtown. Lt. Gen. Wallace, swiftly getting over his surprise, told Perkins to go for it. The regime fell.

Then, of course, the looting started and everything went downhill. The US military did not have a plan to restore order, nor the manpower, nor even that “common understanding of what you think the problem is” that would let someone take the initiative.


*The Strategy Problem*

Perkins’ seizing the initiative and Saddam’s palace in 2003 highlighted both the tactical strengths and the glaring strategic weaknesses of the American Army. Despite all our tactical and operational skills, Perkins told reporters at AUSA, we still need to step up our strategic game: “The strategic level, that’s another level of difficulty, but that’s really where we want our nation to prevail.”

So far, we haven’t, neither in Afghanistan, where the outcome remains in doubt as we draw down, nor in Iraq, where we are being drawn back in. US forces won rapid victories in both countries in 2001-2003, but after toppling the regimes, we couldn’t “conclude the deal” by delivering lasting _strategic_ gains, said Lt. Gen. Charles Cleveland, head of U.S. Army Special Operations Command (USASOC).

It’s not the sergeants and junior officers that were at fault, Cleveland told the AUSA conference: “My own experience is failure occurs actually on the colonel to general level, because…we haven’t given these guys the tools to think about the problems properly.”





Lithuanian president Dalia Grybauskaite greets the 173rd Airborne Brigade during a deployment to deter Russia.

That has to change, said Perkins. Instead of waiting for War College to teach strategic issues, the service needs to imbue strategic awareness from the start. “We have this company commander from the 173rd [Airborne Brigade] meeting with the president of Lithuania,” Perkins told reporters at AUSA. “He has to understand the strategic aspect, [and] that has been a failing in previous Army Operating Concepts.”

So the new Army Operating Concept released this month, _Win In A Complex World, _makes a point of addressing strategy. “This concept, for the first time, focuses on all three levels of war; tactical, operational, and strategic,” Perkins writes in his foreword. “The problem we are focusing on is how to ‘Win in a Complex World’ [and] ‘Win’ occurs at the strategic level.”

That new emphasis on strategy, however, has implications for how the military deals with its civilian masters.

“There’s a lot of lies in military doctrine,” said former Pentagon official Janine Davidson at the AUSA panel on the new concept. “There’s a lot of myths…that basically tell you all the civilians are somehow divinely inspired enough to know exactly what endstate they want when something bad happens.” Not so, she said. “When the civilians look to the military leadership for answers, they want options…they want creativity — and this is also what I see in this concept.”

“We, the Army, need to provide our policymakers multiple options,” not “ultimatums,” Perkins said at AUSA. But what kind of “creative” input does the military need to offer? Since war is an extension of politics and a contest of wills, Perkins said, invoking Clausewitz, any savvy enemy will target America’s political will to fight. That means US military leaders have to understand domestic politics and what military options it can stomach, he said: “You have to _influence_ the US policymakers’ political risk analysis.” (Emphasis mine).





Janine Davidson and Gen. David Perkins at AUSA.

*The Enduring Advantage*

The generals’ new willingness to question politicians is the high-level analog to soldiers’ new willingness to question the generals. TRADOC is now seeking to cultivate “critical thinking” from boot camp up. “It’s inadequate to say, ‘well, it ought to be an elective at the War College,’” Gen. Perkins said during a panel discussion at AUSA. “We’re actually changing aspects of basic training so they have to start applying critical thinking skills between the bus and the drill sergeant.”

By contrast, Perkins says, when he was a young lieutenant in West Germany during the Cold War, what the Army wanted from him was not critical thinking but compliance: precise execution of a predefined plan against the thoroughly studied and slow-changing Soviet Union. But even the stodgy Russians are making surprising use of proxies and hackersthese days. Compliance without creativity won’t cut it anymore.

“What you can do is train in ways and develop leaders in ways that allow them to adapt to whatever the circumstances are,” said McMaster, Perkins’ deputy, when I caught him in the halls at AUSA. Officers will still learn conventional combined-arms warfare using infantry, tanks, artillery, and air support in lightning maneuvers — skills eroded over a decade of counterinsurgency — “but we place these [training scenarios] now in the kind of complex environments that replicate all those human, social, political dynamics we have to consider….as an integral part of war and warfare, not as something separate.”





Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster

What kind of war should those troops be training for, precisely? With a frankness that’s refreshing — if hardly reassuring — the new Army Operating Concept says that we don’t know:

“The environment the Army will operate in is unknown. The enemy is unknown, the location is unknown, and the coalitions involved are unknown,” Perkins writes in his foreword. Indeed, although the concept only makes this point implicitly, it’s even unknown whether the US military will still enjoy the across-the-board technological superiority — aka “overmatch” — it’s counted on for decades. It probably won’t. But if technology isn’t our enduring advantage, what is?

“We _want_ to have the best technology to overmatch the enemy,” McMaster told me. “Obviously, in an activity that involves killing and the prospect of death, right, you want to make sure you can have overmatch, [but] our competitive advantage is not any single technology, it’s how we combine…different technologies together in combined arms and joint operations.” That requires a level of skill and inter-service cooperation that adversaries can’t easily replicate, no matter how much technology they buy or steal.

“We are the best at doing the whole joint thing,” Perkins told reporters. “Though not perfect…. we probably do it better than anybody else and we’ve been forced to do it since [the] Goldwater-Nichols [Act of 1986].”

“We don’t want to lose that,” Perkins continued. “In fact, we want to get even better at it — which is not what usually happens during interwar periods: You generally go back to your corners because it’s all about competition for resources.”







Gen. Ray Odierno unexpectedly takes the floor at AUSA.

*Getting Beyond The Budget Wars*

Some skeptics, myself included, wondered how the Army could even think about the future when it’s fighting for every dollar today.

Both the war abroad — the need to train and equip those fighting in Afghanistan — and the war at home — sequestration and other budget pressures — have greatly complicated the Army’s ability to plan, Flournoy told Colin Clark. “I’m told the Army last year did seven POMSs [Program Objective Memorandums, the five-year budget plan]. If you’re doing that, there isn’t much bandwidth left….You are trying to simply survive today.”

No less a figure than the Army Chief of Staff acknowledged the problem when he unexpectedly took the floor at the AUSA panel. “Everybody’s heard my feelings onsequestration,” said Gen. Ray Odierno, “[but] the Army Operating Concept is based on what we believe the future environment we’re going to have to operate in…no matter how much money we have.”

In fact, thinking through the future “becomes more important the less money we have,” Odierno said. “The one thing we can’t ever back off on is leader development and our ability to continue to adjust and adapt.”

Since 1775, the enduring advantage of the American soldier has been his ability to take initiative, innovate, and adapt, without waiting for orders — or even necessarily following the orders he had. Since George Washington took command, the Army’s enduring dilemma has been how to reconcile that initiative with a disciplined professional force. That is the challenge the new doctrine takes on.



_Colin Clark also contributed to this story._

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LeveragedBuyout

A companion piece to the previous post. Again, apologies if this kind of post falls outside the parameters of the thread, or if it's too dumbed-down for the main readers of this thread.

----
The Army Wants To Fully Integrate Conventional and Special Operations Forces - Defense One

*The Army Wants To Fully Integrate Conventional and Special Operations Forces*
By Col. Michael Rauhut

October 22, 2014

Among the many conceptual arguments posited by the U.S. Army’s new Operating Concept (AOC), “Win in a Complex World,” one of its more practical directions is the explicit embrace of special and conventional force integration. A decade’s worth of joint, interorganizational, and multinational combat experience has validated the utility of combining special operations and conventional forces and its critical importance for success in future operational environments. Further innovating special and conventional force integration will provide strategic flexibility to the nation and its leaders while also expanding the range of strategic options.

Last week at the Association of the U.S. Army’s (AUSA) annual conference, Army Chief of Staff General Raymond Odierno, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Commander General David Perkins, and panelists of “Persistent Influence and the Strategic Quality of Landpower,” made abundantly clear that the Army intends to apply this past decade’s lessons. Their candid perspectives highlight important points the Army must explore further during future concept experimentation, “Force 2025 and Beyond_.” _How special operations and conventional forces “combine capabilities across warfighting functions” must lead to innovative outcomes. To paraphrase author Marshall Goldsmith, “What got us here, won’t get us there”.

There are both enduring and evolving aspects of conventional-special operations force integration and interdependence. On one level—much like it has done since special operations force inception—the conventional force provides capacity. Conventional forces provide the human capital from which to draw special operators. Soldiers often gain years of conventional force experience before attending a rigorous assessment, selection, and qualification process that tests candidates’ physical, emotional, and mental suitability for continued special operations service. Individually qualified and further trained as teams, these deployed, experienced special operations forces thus prove very capable in achieving strategic effects.

Conventional forces also enable the sustained commitment of special operations forces, either _directly_ by performing warfighting functions on its behalf or _indirectly_ as an economy of force, freeing limited numbers of special operators to pursue other strategic objectives. Directly, special operations forces may tap into existing conventional forces for maneuver support, protection, or even sustainment. Indirectly, conventional force employment in foreign internal defense (FID) or security force assistance (SFA) functions—both of which Army forces conduct to help partner nations strengthen their own ability to perform security-related tasks—may allow the strategic reallocation of special operations forces to other theaters where their special skill sets are required.

On another level, operations around the world—most prominently in Iraq and Afghanistan—have proven the mutual benefits derived through joint operations. Operating in shared spaces and against common foes allowed conventional and special operations forces to leverage respective strengths and mitigate vulnerabilities. Mutually supporting, intelligence-driven operations build understanding and present enemies complex problems enemies otherwise would not face if allowed to address in detail.

Small-team centric special operations forces often derive a degree of wider area protection and depth afforded by contiguous, larger conventional formations. Likewise, conventional forces often rely on special operations forces for expertise and intelligence. Integrated combinations of conventional and special operations forces thus achieve better effects. These positive—and necessary—adaptations “got us here,” but alone are not sufficient to meet the demands of the future operational environment and “harbingers of future conflict.”

Operations around the world—most prominently in Iraq and Afghanistan—have proven the mutual benefits derived through joint operations. 

The AOC rightfully recognizes the benefits of this symbiosis—and others—using terms like “simultaneity” and “endurance” to describe respectively “overwhelm[ing] the enemy physically and psychologically” while retaining our “ability to sustain efforts for sufficient duration with the capacity necessary to accomplish the mission.” It acknowledges the necessity to deal with the nexus of transnational terrorist and criminal organizations which operate across current geographic and functional command authority lines.The AOC also amplifies how the Army must integrate special operations and conventional forces to engage regionally, respond globally, and consolidate gains, “shaping security environments and preventing conflict” by combining special operations and regionally aligned conventional forces.

The Army envisages special and conventional forces combining capabilities in progressively more innovative ways to maintain or establish “a global land network of relationships” with the security services of our partners. These relationships, the argument goes, further enable combatant, functional, and joint force commanders to engage regionally and (by design) achieve desired strategic effect. The AOC makes allowance for a range of mission-centered activities for whichever force—special, conventional, or both—is best suited to lead the effort given desired outcomes, required methods, and available resources.

*(Related: Inside America's Shadow War on Terror—and Why It Will Never End)*

It rightly follows that the Army is adding special operations to its operating concept as an Army core competency. Doing so for the first time acknowledges war’s enduring nature, evolving characteristics, and the need for military’s to innovate. Special operations and conventional force integration must achieve an interdependent homeostasis to deliver what the AOC requires; but the AOC’s desired outcomes go beyond this more narrow aspect. To achieve the strategic outcomes it describes, the AOC must foster a conversation within the Department of Defense, other U.S. government departments and agencies, and its international partners—or risk coming up short.

Whether the AOC generates this needed and broader national security discussion within and among U.S. government departments remains to be seen. Smart action will require reflection, dialogue, and positive action by all stakeholders to leverage the instruments of national power in an era of increasing complexity. On the other hand, preemptive or reactive measures will suffer for lack of coherence.

You can watch the entirety of the October 15 panel discussion on the “Persistent Influence and Strategic Quality of Landpower” here.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## senheiser

*‘Loss of confidence’: US Air Force fires two more nuclear commanders, disciplines third*
Published time: November 04, 2014 04:46
Get short URL







Two Air Force nuclear commanders have been fired, with a third facing disciplinary measures, after the service cited a “loss of confidence” in their ability to lead their units, once again drawing attention to troubles within the US nuclear corps.

The terminations come as the Air Force continues to reckon with leadership problems. Earlier this year, nine nuclear commanders were fired in connection to a test-cheating scandal, which implicated dozens of missile launch officers.

Col. Carl Jones, the No. 2 commander of the 90th Missile Wing at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming, was the most high-profile of the two commanders to be dismissed on Monday. Jones was responsible for 150 Minuteman 3 nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles – the Air Force has 450 total – but his superiors determined there was “a loss of trust and confidence in his leadership abilities."

According to Air Force Global Strike Command spokesman Lt. Col. John Sheets, Jones displayed conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman, as well as mistreatment of those below his rank.

_“In four separate instances, Jones acted in a manner that degraded his status as a senior officer and wing leader, including maltreating a subordinate,”_ Sheets told AP.

Meanwhile, Lt. Col. Jimmy "Keith" Brown was also fired due to questions over his leadership, with Sheets saying he _“engaged in unlawful discrimination or harassment.”_ Brown apparently _“made statements to subordinates that created a perception within his squadron that pregnancy would negatively affect a woman's career.”_







AFP Photo/ US Air Force



Finally, Col. Michael Pagliuco, commander of the 91st Operations Group, was disciplined for failing to_“promote and safeguard the morale, well-being and welfare of the airmen under his command.”_ Details of his punishment were not released.

Based on the statements made by Sheets, it is unclear if the latest round of discipline meted out by the Air Force is directly related to the cheating scandal that erupted last year and claimed the job of its top commander. At the heart of the matter was that officers were texting each other the answers to the exams they needed to pass.

Back in January, some 34 nuclear missile launch officers were implicated in the scandal and stripped of their security clearance. In March, nine nuclear missile base commanders were fired. They were not found to be explicitly involved in the cheating, but they were let go for failing their leadership responsibilities.

_“There was cheating that took place with respect to this particular test. Some officers did it. Others apparently knew about it, and it appears that they did nothing, or at least not _

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## osama zafar

All that equipment and training is good but what of it in Afghanistan ? whats happened there do you know the reality do you know what this is being used for?


----------



## AMDR

*Pictures from the first landing of an F-35 on a carrier (USS Nimitz)*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

*GBU-53/B SDB II*




The Raytheon GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb II is now in development, it will be equipped with a multimode terminal seeker and two way datalink, and is intended to enter full rate production in 2017. Intended production numbers in 2010 were 17,000 rounds, of which 12,000 are intended for the USAF, and 5,000 for the US Navy/Marines.
The design objectives for the GBU-53/B are quite different from those for the GBU-39/B. The GBU-39/B is a weapon optimised for fixed targets, especially hardened infrastructure and basing, whereas the GBU-53/B is intended for attacks on moving battlefield targets, especially vehicles and heavy armour. In the simplest of terms the GBU-53/B is a glidebomb equivalent to the AGM-65 Maverick missile, but with a more flexible and countermeasures resistant seeker.
The GBU-53/B guidance system combines seeker with a GPS/inertial autopilot, and a Rockwell Collins TacNet bidirectional dual band datalink, which provides JTIDS connectivity with aircraft and a UHF link with a ground designator. This is a refinement of the JTIDS based arrangement trialled for moving target engagements using the JDAM tailkit.

The tri-mode seeker employs semi-active laser homing, MMWI radar, and uncooled thermal imaging components to maximise flexibility in employment and counter-measures resistance. The semi-active laser mode permits the use of the SDB II with legacy airborne and ground based designators, against fixed and moving targets. The MMWI and thermal imaging modes permit autonomous fire-and-forget engagements, under a wide range of weather conditions, accepting that some fog and haze conditions will impair both thermal imaging and MMWI acquisition. The seeker optical dome is protected by a clamshell shroud which is jettisoned before the seeker is activated.




The warhead design is optimised for battlefield targets, parked aircraft, and unhardened structures, combining a shaped charge with blast/fragmentation effects. It will also be highly effective against unhardened and hardened air defence targets, such as SAM batteries, and maritime targets such as warships. A redesign of the warhead was performed during the development cycle to provide the capability to disable or kill main battle tanks.
Initial deployment is planned for the F-15E and later F-35. Initial weapon sizing was done to fit the F-22A Raptor, which could carry up to 8 rounds.

From : Boeing GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb I / Raytheon GBU-53/BSmall Diameter Bomb II

2 GBU-53s + AMRAAM in the weapons bay of an F-22 






GBU-53 on a F-15E









Concept Video by Raytheon




 






*
*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*Army To Hold New Pistol Competition Next Year*

U.S. Army weapons officials announced it plans to launch a competition to replace the M9 9mm pistol in January after a recent meeting with interested pistol makers.

Program Executive Office Soldier hosted a third industry day for the Modular Handgun System Oct. 28-29 – an event that drew representatives from 20 companies, according to Debi Dawson, spokeswoman for PEO Soldier.

Attendees discussed the Army’s draft solicitation for the new weapon system, which will replace the current M9 standard Army sidearm, Dawson said in an Oct. 31 Army news release. The Army issued the draft solicitation, which identifies design and performance requirements for the new handgun system, Sept. 29. The draft solicitation calls for a commercially available weapon tailored to the unique needs of the military services.

The solicitation specified no particular caliber, but the Army is seeking a handgun system that outperforms its current sidearm. The Army is also seeking a modular weapon, meaning it allows adjustments to fit all hand sizes.

Since the M9 entered the Army’s inventory in 1986, handgun technology has advanced significantly with the introduction of lighter weight materials, ergonomics and rails for accessories, Dawson said. Through the competition, the Army intends to replace the M9 with a state-of-the-art handgun.

Current plans call for the Army to purchase more than 280,000 handguns from a single vendor, with delivery of the first new handgun systems scheduled for 2017. The Army also plans to buy approximately 7,000 sub-compact versions of the handgun. The other military services participating in the MHS program may order an additional 212,000 systems above the Army quantity.

Army officials plan to release a final solicitation for the MHS in January, Dawson said in the release.

The Army held two previous industry days at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J., Dec. 18, 2013, and July 29. The purpose of these industry days was to enhance vendor-government communications by involving likely competitors throughout the planning process. The days also allowed the Army to obtain their feedback on whether the products and proposed strategy are achievable and affordable.

During the industry day meetings, Army representatives discussed details about the “more accurate, ergonomic, reliable, durable and maintainable” handgun system the service seeks to buy through full and open competition, Dawson said.

Throughout the process, the Army encouraged industry attendees to suggest ways in which the Army can improve the plan and process. The Army has adopted a number of suggestions and ideas, according to the release.

The competition itself will choose a handgun that performs best in the hands of warfighters who will play a critical part in the evaluation. More than 550 military personnel from all of the services will participate and provide feedback on the performance of each of the candidate system after firing them in simulated combat scenarios. This particular warfighter assessment is an important part of the evaluation process.

The Army spent years on an effort to search for a replacement for its M4 carbine, but ended up terminating the competition before it was complete and adopting the improved M4A1 version used by special operations forces.

Beretta officials maintain that the company has offered to upgrade M9 many times. The Marine Corps adopted the M9A1 in 2006 that features a rail for attaching lights or lasers, checkering on the front and back of the grip and a beveled magazine well for smoother magazine changes.

From Army To Hold New Pistol Competition Next Year | Kit Up!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hakan

LeveragedBuyout said:


> Excellent idea--have you heard anything from the admins about whether they have agreed to create such a forum, and what the timetable might be?
> 
> Sorry for the late reply, but I seem to be missing a lot of functionality these days. My bookmarks are gone, and now I don't seem to get alerts anymore, so apologies to anyone who tags me and doesn't get a response.


I havnt heard any news but ill remind them to make one.

In the mean time we should pick a picture for the forum. You know those little thumbnail things.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SvenSvensonov

LeveragedBuyout said:


> @SvenSvensonov Thanks for opening this thread to provide a much-needed mini-forum for the US. I see that much of the thread thus far seems to focus on various systems or military history, both of which are beyond my area of competence. However, I try to keep up to date with the high-level geopolitical and strategic issues, at least, but please let me know if the following article doesn't fit what you are trying to achieve here.



Hi LeveragedBuyout;

Your contributions are absolutely welcomed here! For clarification, anything relating to the US military is acceptable, even if it is negative as our Russian "friend" would offer us. Technical information, financial and budgetary news, past, present and future projects, humanitarian efforts, joint training, political news (if it involves the military such as the reopening of a foreign base or the establishment of a missile shield in a foreign nation, or something similar), personal experiences, pictures, they are all very much welcomed.



Hakan said:


> I havnt heard any news but ill remind them to make one.
> 
> In the mean time we should pick a picture for the forum. You know those little thumbnail things.



I'm thinking something like this, but I'm open to suggestions as well. Nothing says "Merica, F*** Yeah!" like a hot chick with a gun!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Chak Bamu

Glad to see this. Exciting addition to PDF.

As someone who loves USA for its Constitutional values (but not foreign policy), I welcome this.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LeveragedBuyout

SvenSvensonov said:


> Hi LeveragedBuyout;
> 
> Your contributions are absolutely welcomed here! For clarification, anything relating to the US military is acceptable, even if it is negative as our Russian "friend" would offer us. Technical information, financial and budgetary news, past, present and future projects, humanitarian efforts, joint training, political news (if it involves the military such as the reopening of a foreign base or the establishment of a missile shield in a foreign nation, or something similar), personal experiences, pictures, they are all very much welcomed.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm thinking something like this, but I'm open to suggestions as well. Nothing says "Merica, F*** Yeah!" like a hot chick with a gun!



Agreed, my vote is for the girl with the gun, but we need to find one wearing a stars and stripes bikini.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carrier

http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideaircraftcarriers/cvn21.htm

Designation: CVN
Length: App 1100 ft
Width: 250+ ft
Beam: 135+ ft
Displacement: 102,000 tons
Propulsion: 2 nuclear reactors, 
4 shafts
Speed: 30+ knots
Crew: App. 4,600 (includes air crew)
Airwing: 85 fixed, UAV, rotary
Armament:
- 2 x 08 ESSM SAM (16 missiles)
- 2 x 21 RAM SAM (42 missiles)
- 3 x 20mm CIWS Phalanx
- 4 x .50 cal MG
Elevators: 3
Catapaults: 4
Ships in class: 2 building, 10 planned
CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford (Outfit)
CVN-79 John F. Kennedy (Build)
CVN-80 Enterprise (Named)
:
USS Gerald R. Ford, CVN-78, was first floated in dry dock on October 11, 2013, and was officially launched and christened on November 9, 2013. She has been moved out of her building dry-dock to Pier 3 at Nweport News Shipbuilding where she will continue outfitting and thereafter undergo builders and acceptance trials and be commissioned in 2015-2016. She is the first of class, and her sister ship, second in class, USS John F. Kennedy, CVN-79, will now begin building in that same dry-dock, and then follow the Gerald R. Ford in five years, followed by USS Enterprise, CVN-80, six years after that. Altogether ten of these vessels are expected to be built to replace the ten Nimitz class nuclear aircraft carriers currently in use by the United States Navy.
The new CVN21 aircraft carrier is designated the USS Gerald R. Ford class, named after the 40th President of the United States, Gerald R. Ford, who served in the U.S. Navy aboard aircraft carriers in World War II, and who passed away in December 2006. In December 2012, with the decommissioning of CVN-65, USS Enterprise, the Secretary of the Navy announced that the 3rd Ford Class carrier, CVN-80, would be named USS Enterprise. It is expected that 10 of the new class will be built, replacing the US Nimitz class carriers on a one for one basis every 6 years. They will be the largest warships ever built. They will be the mainstay of the US Navy's power projection and sea lane protetction capabilities throughout the 21st century.

Each of these vessels will carry an airwing of fixed wing aircraft, VSTOL aircraft, helicopters, and unamanned arial vehicles (UAV) that is larger and more powerful than many nation's complete air force. By having the resources, the experience, and the capability to operate these vessels (where each vessel is surrounded by an extensive force of other surface and sub-surface combatants that make up each Carrier Strike Group (CSG)), the United States will remain the unchallenged, dominant sea force on earth.

The USS George HW Bush, CVN-77, was christened on October 7, 2006, and replaced the USS Kitty Hawk, CV-63 in 2008. Although officially listed as a Nimitz class carrier, CVN-77 also represents a transformation step in US carrier development from the Nimitz class towards the Ford Class.

Initial steel cutting for the USS Gerald R. Ford was accomplished in August of 2005. The keel laying occurred in late 2009. In January 2013, the new integrated island was lifted onto the deck of the Ford. In May 2013, the last section of the catrapault was lifted, completing the flight deck and placing the vessel at 100% structurally complete and on track for launch. USS Gerald R. Ford, CVN-78, will replace the USS Enterprise, CVN-65, America's first nuclear powered aircraft carrier, which, as stated, was decommissioned in December 2012.

First steel for the second in class, USS John F. Kennedy, CVN-79, was cut in February of 2011 and she had proceeded to a point where she take the yard space that the Ford is currently occupying.

The Ford Class carriers are being built by Newport News Shipbuilding (Renamed Northrup Grumman Shipbuilding), which built the USS Enterprise, and all ten Nimitz class carrirrs.

Diesign Considerations and Featuers:
Among the design innovations and features that the Ford class carriers will introduce are:

A much more efficent nuclear reactor system providing three times more power.
Electromagnetic aircraft launch and recovery replacing current steam catapaults and current arrestor systems.
A redesigned, more efficent, and more stealthy island.
More automated systems, providing for reduced manpower requirements and more efficent aircraft weapons handling, battle management, and damage control operations.
Potential exotic defensive weapons systems operating off of the increased electrical power.
20% more sortie capability for the embarked airwing.
25% more operational availability of the carrier.
With these innovations, and the many others that will be developed into the new carrier, the US Navy is making a direct statement that its 21st century, next-generation carrier fleet will 
continue to have as its centerpiece large-deck, nuclear-powered vessels that can project power and protect sea lanes anywhere in the world, at any time.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SvenSvensonov

AMDR said:


> Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carrier
> 
> WorldWideAircraftCarriers.com - Nimitz Class Page
> 
> Designation: CVN
> Length: App 1100 ft
> Width: 250+ ft
> Beam: 135+ ft
> Displacement: 102,000 tons
> Propulsion: 2 nuclear reactors,
> 4 shafts
> Speed: 30+ knots
> Crew: App. 4,600 (includes air crew)
> Airwing: 85 fixed, UAV, rotary
> Armament:
> - 2 x 08 ESSM SAM (16 missiles)
> - 2 x 21 RAM SAM (42 missiles)
> - 3 x 20mm CIWS Phalanx
> - 4 x .50 cal MG
> Elevators: 3
> Catapaults: 4
> Ships in class: 2 building, 10 planned
> CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford (Outfit)
> CVN-79 John F. Kennedy (Build)
> CVN-80 Enterprise (Named)
> :
> USS Gerald R. Ford, CVN-78, was first floated in dry dock on October 11, 2013, and was officially launched and christened on November 9, 2013. She has been moved out of her building dry-dock to Pier 3 at Nweport News Shipbuilding where she will continue outfitting and thereafter undergo builders and acceptance trials and be commissioned in 2015-2016. She is the first of class, and her sister ship, second in class, USS John F. Kennedy, CVN-79, will now begin building in that same dry-dock, and then follow the Gerald R. Ford in five years, followed by USS Enterprise, CVN-80, six years after that. Altogether ten of these vessels are expected to be built to replace the ten Nimitz class nuclear aircraft carriers currently in use by the United States Navy.
> The new CVN21 aircraft carrier is designated the USS Gerald R. Ford class, named after the 40th President of the United States, Gerald R. Ford, who served in the U.S. Navy aboard aircraft carriers in World War II, and who passed away in December 2006. In December 2012, with the decommissioning of CVN-65, USS Enterprise, the Secretary of the Navy announced that the 3rd Ford Class carrier, CVN-80, would be named USS Enterprise. It is expected that 10 of the new class will be built, replacing the US Nimitz class carriers on a one for one basis every 6 years. They will be the largest warships ever built. They will be the mainstay of the US Navy's power projection and sea lane protetction capabilities throughout the 21st century.
> 
> Each of these vessels will carry an airwing of fixed wing aircraft, VSTOL aircraft, helicopters, and unamanned arial vehicles (UAV) that is larger and more powerful than many nation's complete air force. By having the resources, the experience, and the capability to operate these vessels (where each vessel is surrounded by an extensive force of other surface and sub-surface combatants that make up each Carrier Strike Group (CSG)), the United States will remain the unchallenged, dominant sea force on earth.
> 
> The USS George HW Bush, CVN-77, was christened on October 7, 2006, and replaced the USS Kitty Hawk, CV-63 in 2008. Although officially listed as a Nimitz class carrier, CVN-77 also represents a transformation step in US carrier development from the Nimitz class towards the Ford Class.
> 
> Initial steel cutting for the USS Gerald R. Ford was accomplished in August of 2005. The keel laying occurred in late 2009. In January 2013, the new integrated island was lifted onto the deck of the Ford. In May 2013, the last section of the catrapault was lifted, completing the flight deck and placing the vessel at 100% structurally complete and on track for launch. USS Gerald R. Ford, CVN-78, will replace the USS Enterprise, CVN-65, America's first nuclear powered aircraft carrier, which, as stated, was decommissioned in December 2012.
> 
> First steel for the second in class, USS John F. Kennedy, CVN-79, was cut in February of 2011 and she had proceeded to a point where she take the yard space that the Ford is currently occupying.
> 
> The Ford Class carriers are being built by Newport News Shipbuilding (Renamed Northrup Grumman Shipbuilding), which built the USS Enterprise, and all ten Nimitz class carrirrs.
> 
> Diesign Considerations and Featuers:
> Among the design innovations and features that the Ford class carriers will introduce are:
> 
> A much more efficent nuclear reactor system providing three times more power.
> Electromagnetic aircraft launch and recovery replacing current steam catapaults and current arrestor systems.
> A redesigned, more efficent, and more stealthy island.
> More automated systems, providing for reduced manpower requirements and more efficent aircraft weapons handling, battle management, and damage control operations.
> Potential exotic defensive weapons systems operating off of the increased electrical power.
> 20% more sortie capability for the embarked airwing.
> 25% more operational availability of the carrier.
> With these innovations, and the many others that will be developed into the new carrier, the US Navy is making a direct statement that its 21st century, next-generation carrier fleet will
> continue to have as its centerpiece large-deck, nuclear-powered vessels that can project power and protect sea lanes anywhere in the world, at any time.
> 
> View attachment 145327
> 
> View attachment 145329
> View attachment 145336
> View attachment 145328
> View attachment 145325
> View attachment 145324




Some extra information:

The US Navy's programme CVN 21 for the future generation aircraft carrier programme was previously known as the CVN(X).

In January 2007, The US Navy announced that the new class would be called the Gerald R Ford Class.

The first two ships, USS Gerald R Ford (CVN 78) and USS John F Kennedy (CVN 79), will be commissioned in 2015 and 2019, and further ships of the class will enter service at intervals of five years. A total of ten Ford class carriers are planned with construction continuing to 2058.

The CVN 78 will replace USS Enterprise (CVN 65), which entered service in 1961 and will approach the end of its operational life by 2015. The total acquisition cost of the CVN 21 is expected to be $11.7bn.

The US Department of Defense awarded Northrop Grumman Newport News in Virginia a $107.6m contract in July 2003, a $1.39bn contract in May 2004 and $559m to prepare for the carrier construction and to continue the design programme on the ship's propulsion system.

The CVN 78's first steel was cut in August 2005. A $5.1bn contract for the detailed design and construction was awarded to Newport News in September 2008. The keel was laid in November 2009.

Northrop Grumman was awarded a contract for the planning and design of the second carrier, CVN 79, in November 2006. In May 2011, the US Navy announced that the carrier will be called John F Kennedy (CVN 79).

Construction of the USS John F Kennedy (CVN 79) began in February 2011 and is expected for completion in 2020.

*CVN 21 future aircraft carrier design*
The Gerald R Ford class carriers will have the same displacement, about 100,000t, as its predecessor, the Nimitz class George HW Bush (CVN 77), but will have about 500 to 900 fewer crew members.

The manpower reduction was a key performance parameter added to the original four outlined in 2000 in the operational requirements document for the CVN 21 programme. It is estimated that the new carrier technologies will lead to a 30% reduction in maintenance requirements and a further crew workload reduction will be achieved through higher levels of automation.

The other main differences in operational performance compared with the Nimitz Class are increased sortie rates at 160 sorties a day (compared with 140 a day), a weight and stability allowance over the 50-year operational service life of the ship, and increased (by approximately 150%) electrical power generation and distribution to sustain the ship's advanced technology systems. Another key performance requirement is interoperability.

*CVN 21 aircraft carrier hull*
All US Navy aircraft carriers since the 1960s have been built at Northrop Grumman Newport News. Northrop has extended its design and shipbuilding facilities with a new heavy plate workshop and burners, a new 5,000t thick plate press, covered assembly facilities and a new 1,050t-capacity crane.

The hull design is similar to that of the current Nimitz Class carriers and with the same number of decks. The island is smaller and moved further towards the aft of the ship.

The island has a composite mast with planar array radars, a volume search radar operating at S band and a multifunction radar at X band, and also carries the stern-facing joint precision approach and landing system (JPALS), which is based on local area differential global positioning system (GPS), rather than radar.

The aircraft carrier traditionally carries the flag officer and 70 staff of the carrier battle group. The flag bridge, which was previously accommodated in the carrier's island, was relocated to a lower deck in order to minimise the size of the island.

The ship's internal configuration and flight deck designs have significantly changed. The lower decks incorporate a flexible rapidly reconfigurable layout allowing different layouts and installation of new equipment in command, planning and administration areas.

The requirement to build in a weight and stability allowance will accommodate the added weight of new systems that will be installed over the 50-year operational life of the ship. The removal of one aircraft elevator unit and reducing the number of hangar bays from three to two have contributed to a reduction of the weight of the CVN 21.

*Weapons*
The carrier will be armed with the Raytheon evolved Sea Sparrow missile (ESSM), which defends against high-speed, highly manoeuvrable anti-ship missiles. The close-in weapon system is the rolling airframe missile (RAM) from Raytheon and Ramsys GmbH.

*Gerald Ford Class carrier aircraft*
The carrier will be capable of carrying up to 90 aircraft including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, F / A-18E / F Super Hornet, E-2D Advanced Hawkeye,EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft, MH-60R / S helicopters and unmanned air vehicles and unmanned combat air vehicles.

The flight deck has a relocated and smaller island, and there are three rather than four deck edge elevators. Deck extensions also increase the aircraft parking areas. The aircraft service stations are located near the 18 refuelling and rearming stops.

General Atomics was awarded the contract to develop the EMALS electromagnetic aircraft launch system, which uses a linear electromagnetic accelerator motor. EMALS demonstrators were tested at the Naval Air Systems Command (NASC) Lakehurst test centre in New Jersey. It is planned that EMALS will replace the current C-13 steam catapults.

If successful, EMALS technology offers the potential benefit of finer aircraft acceleration control, which leads to lower stresses in the aircraft and pilots and provides a slower launch speed for unmanned air vehicles and allows a wider window of wind-over-deck speed required for the launch sequence.

The contract for the development of an advanced turbo-electric arrestor gear has been awarded to General Atomics. The electro-magnetic motor applies control to the synthetic arrestor cable to reduce the maximum tensions in the cable and reduce the peak load on the arrestor hook and on the aircraft fuselage.

Aircraft weapons loading
The flow of weapons to the aircraft stops on the flight deck were upgraded to accommodate the higher sortie rates. The ship carries stores of missiles and cannon rounds for fighter aircraft, bombs and air-to-surface missiles for strike aircraft, and torpedoes and depth charges for anti-submarine warfare aircraft.

"Sortie rates for the CVN 21 increased to 160 sorties a day compared with 140 a day for the Nimitz Class."
Weapons elevators take the weapons systems from the magazines to the weapons handling and weapons assembly areas on the 02-level deck (below the flight deck) and express weapons elevators are installed between the handling and assembly areas and the flight deck. The two companies selected by Northrop Grumman to generate designs for the advanced weapons elevator are the Federal Equipment Company and Oldenburg Lakeshore Inc.

The deployment of all-up-rounds, which are larger, rather than traditional weapons requiring assembly will require double-height magazines and store rooms and will also impact on the level of need for weapons assembly facilities.

The US Navy outlined a requirement for a minimum 150% increase in the power-generation capacity for the CVN 21 carrier compared with the Nimitz Class carriers. The increased power capacity is needed for the four electro-magnetic aircraft launchers and for future systems such as directed energy weapons that might be feasible during the carrier's 50-year lifespan.

Sensors
Raytheon was contracted in October 2008 to supply a version of the dual-band radar (DBR) developed for the Zumwalt Class destroyer for installation on the Gerald R Ford. DBR combines X-band and S-band phased arrays.

Propulsion
Northrop Grumman is developing the advanced nuclear propulsion system and a zonal electrical power distribution system for the CVN 21.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*A long read, but this is information about CVN-78, and the Gerald Ford Class's Duel Band Radar:*

The AN/SPY-3 consists of three active arrays and the Receiver/Exciter (REX) cabinets abovedecks and the Signal and Data Processor (SDP) subsystem below-decks. The VSR has a similar architecture, with the beamforming and narrowband down-conversion functionality occurring in two additional cabinets per array. A central controller (the resource manager) resides in the Data Processor (DP). The DBR is the first radar system that uses a central controller and two active-array radars operating at different frequencies.1

The DBR gets its power from the Common Array Power System (CAPS), which comprises Power Conversion Units (PCUs) and Power Distribution Units (PDUs). The DBR is cooled via a closed-loop cooling system called the Common Array Cooling System (CACS). The power and cooling systems are not shown in Figure 1.

The X-band has, in general, favorable low-altitude propagation characteristics, which readily support the horizon search functionality of the AN/ SPY-3. A large operating bandwidth is required to mitigate large propagation variations due to meteorological conditions (i.e., evaporative

ducting). The X-band arrays are smaller and lighter than the S-band arrays. This allows the X-band radar to be positioned higher, which results in improved performance in low-flyer detection and tracking.2 The VSR provides a high-power-aperture product (the power-aperture product is a figure of merit of radar systems, the product of the total average radar transmitted power and the antenna area), and sufficiently small beam widths to support accurate target tracking. The VSR’s primary role is to perform the volume search function.

The AN/SPY-3 and the VSR are both advanced, solid-state, active phased-array radars. Solid-state arrays offer several advantages:

• Lower transmit and receive losses relative to passive arrays

• Higher operational availability

• Graceful transmit degradation versus a single transmitter system2

The REX consists of a digital and an analog portion. The digital portion of the REX provides system-level timing and control. The analog portion contains the exciter and the receiver. The exciter is a low-amplitude and phase noise system that uses direct frequency synthesis. The radar’s noise characteristics support the high clutter cancellation requirements required in the broad range of maritime operating environments that DBR will likely encounter. The direct frequency synthesis allows a wide range of pulse repetition frequencies, pulse widths, and modulation schemes to be created. The receiver has high dynamic range to support high clutter levels caused by close returns from range-ambiguous Doppler waveforms. The receiver has both narrowband and wideband channels, as well as multichannel capabilities to support monopulse processing and sidelobe blanking. The receiver generates digital data and sends the data to the signal processors.

The DBR uses IBM commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) supercomputers to provide control and signal processing. DBR is the first radar system to use COTS systems to perform the signal processing. Using COTS systems reduces development costs and increases system reliability and maintainability. Referencing Figure 1, the high-performance COTS servers perform signal analysis using radar and digital signal-processing techniques, including channel equalization, clutter filtering, Doppler processing, impulse editing, and implementation of a variety of advanced electronic protect algorithms. The IBM supercomputers are installed in cabinets that provide shock and vibration isolation. The DP contains the resource manager, the tracker, and the command and control processor, which processes commands from the combat system.

The DBR utilizes a multitier, dual-band tracker, which consists of a local X-band tracker, a local S-band tracker, and a central tracker. The central tracker merges the local tracker data together and directs the individual-band trackers’ updates. The X-band tracker is optimized for low latency to support its mission
of providing defense against fast, low-flying missiles, while the VSR tracker is optimized for throughput due to the large-volume search area coverage requirements.

The combat system develops doctrine based on the current tactical situation and sends the doctrine to the DBR. The combat system also has control of which modes the radar will perform. Unlike previous-generation radars, the DBR does not require an operator and has no manned display consoles. The system uses information about the current environment and doctrine from the combat system to make automated decisions, not only reducing reaction times, but also reducing the risks associated with human error. The only human interaction is for maintenance and repair activities.

The DBR supports the modes of operation as shown in Figure 2. The primary modes for AN/ SPY-3 are horizon search/track while scan, surface search/navigation, periscope detection and discrimination, and environmental mapping. During engagements, AN/SPY-3 also performs precision
tracking, ownship missile tracking, missile communications, and target illumination. The primary mode of operation for VSR is continuous volume search, precision tracking, and environmental mapping. Several modes can be performed by either band as directed by the resource manager, such as limited volume search, precision tracking, or cued acquisition. This allows the radar flexibility if one of the bands is taxed due to other modes being performed, such as when the AN/SPY-3 is performing illuminations.

Previously, the Navy utilized separate radar systems for air traffic control (ATC), target illumination, target tracking, surface search and navigation, missile tracking, and environmental mapping. The DBR suite integrates these functions into one system, providing a robust and effective solution for the Navy. An integrated system has several advantages over a collection of separate systems—lower cost, lower weight, lower ship space required, and most importantly, less manning is required.

*Engineering Development Model (EDM) Integration & Test*
The DBR integration and test effort has been separated into two parallel efforts. The first effort focuses solely on AN/SPY-3, whose development started much earlier than VSR. The second effort focuses solely on integrating VSR. Both systems continue to be integrated and tested separately at Wallops Island until late 2009, when both systems will be integrated to form the DBR.

*AN/SPY-3 Integration and Test*
This section discusses the integration and testing at Wallops Island on the Self-Defense Test Ship (SDTS), and at the Surface Warfare Engineering Facility (SWEF).

*Wallops Island Land-Based *

*Testing*
The AN/SPY-3 Development Contract, awarded to Raytheon in 1999, produced an EDM that was installed at Wallops Island, Virginia, in 2003. This installation is shown in Figure 3. At this location, the AN/SPY-3 EDM System was integrated, and full-power radiation was achieved for the first time. Previous subsystem integration activities were limited to single-element radiation inside a near-field range. As the system
matured, the effort transitioned from a hardware verification activity to a system functionality test program, which specifically focused on the Air Search and Track functionality. The test program adopted an incremental strategy that began with tracking low-cost targets (e.g., Learjets) and culminated with testing against target drones.

*Self-Defense Test Ship (SDTS) Testing*
After completing the land-based testing in 2005, the AN/SPY-3 system was shipped to Port

Hueneme, California, to be installed upon the SDTS, the decommissioned USS _Paul F. Foster_ (DD 964). Figure 4 shows the SDTS and identifies the location of the AN/SPY-3 radar on the ship. The test objectives remained similar, but these tests were conducted in an operational environment with ship-motion and land-clutter backgrounds. The AN/SPY-3 completed its testing program in 2006 but remained on the SDTS until 2008 to observe Ship Self-Defense System (SSDS) testing. The testing, completed while installed on the SDTS, was essential to production decisions and gave insight into the operational environment.

*VSR Integration & Test*
The VSR development produced an EDM that was installed in the SWEF located at Port Hueneme, California, in 2007. This installation is shown in Figure 5. This test period focused on hardware characterization, including measurements of Effective Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP) and system stability. (EIRP is a figure of merit for antenna systems and is a way to compare the radiated power of antennas.) In 2008, the system was shipped to Wallops Island, Virginia, to be installed in the WIETC, shown in Figure 6.

*Platform Integration*
The DBR is being integrated into both the _Zumwalt_-class destroyer and the _Ford_-class aircraft carrier. Each platform introduces its own set of design considerations, which range from prime power type to sensor priority differences. The examples listed in this section are not intended to be complete; they represent only a sampling of the platform design considerations for both _Zumwalt_ and _Ford_.

*DDG 1000 Zumwalt-Class Destroyer*
The physical arrangement of the sensors in the _Zumwalt_ deckhouse is illustrated in Figure 7. To accommodate integration into the _Zumwalt_ class, the DBR design has been uniquely influenced in the areas of prime power type, array structure, and VSR radome design. With the introduction of the Integrated Power System (IPS) for _Zumwalt_, the 440-VAC EDM design was changed to accommodate the ship-power-supplied 4160 VAC. The CAPS design is being updated to accommodate the voltage change.

*CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford-Class Aircraft Carrier*
The physical arrangements of the sensors in the _Ford_-class island are illustrated in Figure 8. To accommodate integration into _Ford_ class, the DBR design has been uniquely influenced in the areas of prime power type and sensor priorities. Similar to the design changes in _Zumwalt_, _Ford_ class will supply CAPS with 13.8 kVAC. Design updates to CAPS are in process to accommodate this change.

In addition to being the primary antiair warfare (AAW) sensor for the _Ford_ class, DBR is also the primary ATC sensor. To accommodate this added functionality, DBR has added a short-range search fence to the baseline functionality set that runs concurrently with other functionalities, such as long-range volume search and track, horizon search and track, etc. To date, the combat system and ATC mission areas have had dedicated sensors on aircraft carrier platforms. The concept of sharing the DBR across mission areas is a new concept and requires careful consideration of how the system is integrated.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*Navy Expects LCS Mine Killing Drone Prototype by 2016*

The Navy is building a 40-foot-long unmanned surface vehicle designed to launch from a Littoral Combat Ship and detonate and destroy underwater mines while keeping ships and sailors at a safe distance, service officials said.

The first prototype, scheduled to be finished by 2016, will pave the way for initial production of the Unmanned Influence Sweep System, or UISS, Capt. David Honabach, program manager, unmanned maritime systems, told Military.com.

The Navy hopes to have the UISS in the fleet by 2017.

“UISS is a program to satisfy the Navy’s need for rapid, wide-area mine-clearance capability to neutralize magnetic and acoustic mines. We can hunt for mines, sweep mines and neutralize them,” Honabach explained.

The system consists of an unmanned surface vessel with an acoustic generator and magnetic cable underneath the boat, designed to emulate the acoustic and magnetic signature of a surface warship.

The technology is engineered to sweep an area for mines and spoof a mine into detonating by mirroring the acoustic and magnetic characteristics of an actual warship, Honabach said.

“Mines have different triggers. Some mines will detonate with an acoustic trigger and some with a magnetic trigger – and some with both. We generate a magnetic field that emulates a warship and we acoustically emulate a warship,” he said. “We use a Mark 104 acoustic generator and a magnetic cable that trails behind the boat with an electric current that passes through it.”

In September of this year, the Navy awarded Textron Systems a $118 million deal to build a prototype to be followed by six vehicles.

“Textron has two years to finish the final design and construction of the EDM (engineering design model). Then, there is a test program to validate the design before moving into low-rate initial production to deliver six UISS’,” Honabach added.

The Navy, which plans to have a deployable system by 2019, began development of the technology in 2008 by working on prototype vehicles and launch and recovery equipment. The unmanned surface vehicle is being constructed with special ruggedized materials so that the boat can withstand the shocks from the detonation of nearby underwater mines, he said.

“The shock factor has to be built into the craft so it can withstand those types of stresses. We toughened the USV beyond what you would see in a normal boat, giving it additional capabilities to withstand the higher shocks. It is unmanned. Equipment can withstand a lot higher G-forces than humans can,” Honabach explained.

The idea is to build an unmanned surface vehicle that can adapt to and embrace newer mine-clearing technologies as they emerge.

In total, the Navy plans to acquire at least 40 UISS systems, Honabach added.

Designed to be launched and recovered from an LCS, the UISS is networked with infrared sensors and communications gear to a command and control center on-board the ship.

The unmanned surface vessel is navigated with what’s called semi-autonomous navigation technology. It uses an inertial navigation system updated with GPS. The boat is pre-programmed to drive itself to specific areas or “way points” along a certain route, Honabach added.

“The vessel is executing a pre-programmed track and feeding back video, IR (infrared) and radar back to the operator,” he explained.

The LCS uses a multiple vehicle communications system which allows the ship to simultaneously communicate with other ships, sensors and unmanned systems.

The UISS is designed to fit in the mission bay area of a Freedom variant or Independence variant LCS.

The Navy already has several unmanned boats equipped with sonar to detect mines and plans to acquire several more next year.

“We’re switching from sweeping systems with men to mine systems that are sweeping without people,” he said.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LeveragedBuyout

SvenSvensonov said:


> Regrettably there is little to offer with all conditions met.
> 
> If Palin worked out a lit more she'd be nice, but at present is a bit on the chubby side. Then again... so is much of the US, so maybe this isn't such a bad option after all.
> 
> I see cheap beer, an american flag bikini and a crazy chick with a gun and probably a few mental health problems. Sounds 'Merican to me!
> View attachment 145452
> 
> 
> View attachment 145454
> 
> 
> I'd prefer this over Palin's crazy a**
> View attachment 145453



Sarcasm doesn't translate well in writing, so I sincerely hope that your suggestion of that fake Palin photo was along those lines. If not, perhaps we should stick to your more formal recommendations for the forum image to avoid immediately dividing ourselves along political axes.


----------



## Oldman1

F35 launched from catapult and landing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

*SMAW upgrade will put rounds on targets faster*
SMAW upgrade will put rounds on targets faster | Marine Corps Times | marinecorpstimes.com






_A Marine with 8th Engineer Support Battalion, 2nd Marine Logistics Group fires a rocket from a Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon, or SMAW, during a field operation aboard Camp Lejeune, N.C., July 29, 2013. The unit trained with SMAWs alongside service members with 2nd Assault Amphibian Battalion and 2nd Combat Engineer Battalion, 2nd Marine Division. (Lance Cpl. Sullivan Laramie / Marine Corps)_

Procurement officials are working to make the Corps’ Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon lighter and more lethal, but safer for Marines.

Current versions of the SMAW rely on an archaic targeting system. Marines must fire a series of 9mm tracer rounds to walk the weapon onto target.

Zeroing in usually takes two or more shots before a Marine can fire the main rocket.

Not only does that make neutralizing a threat slow, but it means the gunner operating the SMAW spends more time exposed to enemy fire.

“The current employment method is time consuming and adds unnecessary exposure time and ranging/targeting errors,” reads a notice to industry posted Oct. 15 to FedBizOpps.gov.

“Due to the large inventory of existing SMAW rockets, the USMC does not seek an alternative Infantry Assault Weapon System to replace SMAW,” the notice states. “Instead, the USMC intends to modify the SMAW launcher’s existing alternate targeting and ranging system components (in lieu of the spotting rifle and day optic).”

The new targeting system will use an integrated thermal weapon sight and laser range finder to make “the launcher lighter, more accurate, quicker to employ, and easier to maintain.”

Ultimately, the new targeting system must mount to the SMAW using standard Picatinny rails and compute a firing solution based on range, ambient temperature and the type of rocket being fired.

The SMAW can currently fire a high explosive, dual-purpose rocket for use against bunkers, buildings and lightly armored vehicles; a high explosive anti-armor round for use against tanks; and a novel explosive rocket for use against caves and bunkers.

In an effort to refine the service’s final request for proposal, set to be released in November, Marine Corps Systems Command held an industry day Sept. 16-17 at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia.

Following the request for proposal, a contract will be awarded by the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, 2015. Ultimately, a fielding decision will be made within about three years — during the first quarter of 2017.

The SMAW program has already seen other efforts to upgrade the system including the development of a round that can be fired from enclosed spaces.

A Marine could, for example, fire the rocket through a window from within an enclosed building. The immense back-blast from first-generation SMAWs would severely injure or even potentially kill an operator firing it from within an enclosed space.

While it remains to be seen who will ultimately submit proposals to produce the next-generation SMAW targeting system, attendees at the mid-September industry day included Defense industry giants like FLIR Systems, Inc.; Raytheon Systems; and L-3 Communications, among many more.


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*AFSOC Boss Wants Directed Energy Weapons*

The head of Air Force Special Operations Command says he is in the market for a directed energy beam weapon and plans to look at acquisitions possibilities as part of the 2017 defense budget.

Such a weapon could be used to knock out communications and power stations without the devastation and loss of life caused by bombs, rockets and missiles — something Air Force Lt. Gen. Bradley Heithold said was on the mind of many who lived through Operation Just Cause in Panama in 1989.

The operation to grab one-time U.S. ally and Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega resulted in hundreds of civilian casualties.

“All we really had were kinetic rounds coming out of the airplane and really what you were trying to do was dismantle the Panamanian defense forces, wall them off and do the mission we had in hand,” said Heithold at a meeting with reporters Monday during the 2014 Air & Space Conference in Washington.

There are capabilities already being put to him, he said, but the timing and perhaps the technology still is not right.

“I’m a fan of looking at directed energy weapons, more of a fan of non-lethal directed energy weapons, so I’ve always kept [planning] space on my AC-130s for them,” he said. His 1998 paper suggested taking out the 20mm gun and replacing it with a directed energy weapon, but the technology at the time required a space the size of a small conference room.

The technology is catching up, he said, and whenever he is at the annual conference he meets with industry representatives to find out what they have in development.

“The more mature the capability becomes the more intriguing it is to me,” he said.

Heithold said he has not set a timeframe for seeing an AC-130 toting a directed energy weapon, but the soonest he expects to bring it up for funding would be for fiscal 2017. The 2015 budget is set and the budget plan for 2016 is already being briefed at the Pentagon, he said.

“So the next opportunity to make any sort of ‘muscle move’ in the programmatics of what AFSOC will look like in the future is fiscal ’17, which … we start [building] any time now,” he said.

From AFSOC Boss Wants Directed Energy Weapons | Defense Tech

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SvenSvensonov

_*How Budget Pressure Prompted the Success of Virginia-Class Submarine Program*

The following is an excerpt from the book F.I.R.E. – How Fast, Inexpensive, Restrained and Elegant Methods Ignite Innovation, Copyright © 2014 by Dan Ward. Reprinted courtesy of Harper Business, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers_

In 1995 Congress terminated the US Navy’s Seawolf submarine program (SSN-21) citing a mismatch between the projected $33.6 billion cost for twelve submarines and the fact that the Soviet navy was not quite the threat it had been in the early 1980s when Seawolf began.

Original plans called for as many as twenty nine Seawolves, but the Navy ended up with three, at an estimated cost of approximately $4.4 billion each. As so often happens on defense programs, the costs and delays had piled up significantly over the years. A 1993 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) calculated that “it will cost $683 million… which is 125 percent over the original contract cost estimate.”

Other aspects of the program had similar problems, so Congress told the sea service to cut its losses and start over. The Navy needed something much less expensive and less complex than the Seawolf. Thus the Virginia-class (SSN-774) submarine program was born.

Let’s skip straight to the punch line: in December 2011, the Virginia- class USS _Mississippi_(SSN-782) was commissioned a year ahead of schedule and $60 million under budget. This was an impressive encore to the USS _New Hampshire _(SSN-778), which in 2008 came in eight months early and with $54 million left over. Prior to that, the USS _New Mexico_ (SSN-779) was delivered four months early, having required a million fewer work hours than its predecessor, the USS North Carolina— you get the picture. These continuous cost underruns came on top of an already reduced price tag, and in the final accounting each Virginia sub cost a bit under $2 billion, which as you recall is less than half the price of a $4.4 billion Seawolf.

The Navy’s Virginia team relentlessly pursued features that were less expensive, required less maintenance, lasted longer and were less complicated to install, without reducing the boat’s ability to do the job. One such feature was a “wet” sonar system instead of the pricier, more complicated sonar array used on other subs. Another was the payload integration module, which offered a modularized, mission- configurable weapons bay. This allowed the boat to adapt as mission needs changed, and reduced costs by $20 million per hull.

No policy, regulation or law required this approach. Instead, the project leaders genuinely believed it was important to be fast, inexpensive, restrained, and elegant and they made decisions accordingly. They pursued speed, thrift, simplicity, and control at every opportunity, understanding that these principles would enhance not only programmatic performance (cost and schedule) but also the final product’s operational performance. The result was a fleet of submarines that was not only delivered early and under budget, but also performed impressively at sea.

In what are perhaps my favorite lines from any government report ever, a GAO report explains the Navy modified three critical requirements by making them less demanding: The original requirements, they determined, “were unrealistic and would not be worth the cost needed to achieve them.” In addition, they noted, “the change will not affect operations.”

I love everything about those two comments, but I’m particularly smitten by the second: the change will not affect operations. Obviously, changes like this make sense only if the resulting system can still get the job done. And indeed, the Virginia submarines passed their sea trials and are serving proudly today. Even if you’re not in the submarine business, I suggest enshrining those two lines on a brass plaque, or at the very least on one of those yellow sticky notes, and posting them somewhere prominent.

Now, the Virginia- class submarines are not perfect. In 2010 they had a little problem when sonar- absorbing coatings sloughed off at sea, reducing the sub’s stealthiness. I don’t want to trivialize this situation, but I also don’t want to make too much of it. The Navy resolved the problem in relatively short order, with minimal impact to operations.

Such technical problems should not be taken lightly, but neither should they be treated as an indictment of the high- speed, low- cost approach to development. Similar problems regularly pop up in more traditionally managed programs. Spending more time and money on the Virginia subs might— might— have prevented this particular problem, but would have surely introduced any number of new problems, both technical and programmatic. As proof, allow me to direct your attention back to the terminated Seawolf program.

At the end of the day, the Virginia- class submarines offer compelling evidence for the feasibility of building high-tech stuff under budget and ahead of schedule. The Navy’s experience shows that delays and overruns are not inevitable, and if it can do this on such a big, expensive project, surely the rest of us can do it on our projects as well.

From Opinion: How Budget Pressure Prompted the Success of Virginia-Class Submarine Program - USNI News

My Comments:

Apart from being my favorite piece of Navy kit, the Virginia's follow a blueprint all future navy systems should. Under-budget and delivered early, these systems are cost effective, high tech designs that will serve proudly for many years.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Oldman1



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

*Mexican Standoff: Berlin Crisis of 1961*

Berlin Crisis

During the 1950s a steady outflow of refugees from the Soviet occupation zone to the West consisted primarily of young people of working age. By 1950 some 1.6 million had migrated to the western zones. Between 1950 and 1961, the refugee flow continued at a rate of 100,000 to 200,000 annually. Workers were attracted by the economic opportunities open to them in West Germany, and in the early 1950s, they and their families formed the majority of emigrants. By the late 1950s, a growing proportion of those leaving were professional people and students whose skills were sorely needed for internal development. In 1959 about 144,000 persons fled; in 1960 the figure rose to 199,000; and in the first seven months of 1961, about 207,000 left the country.

In November 1958, Soviet Premier Khrushchev issued an ultimatum giving the Western powers six months to agree to withdraw from Berlin and make it a free, demilitarized city. At the end of that period, Khrushchev declared, the Soviet Union would turn over to East Germany complete control of all lines of communication with West Berlin; the western powers then would have access to West Berlin only by permission of the East German government. The United States, Great Britain, and France replied to this ultimatum by firmly asserting their determination to remain in West Berlin and to maintain their legal right of free access to that city.

In 1959 the Soviet Union withdrew its deadline and instead met with the Western powers in a Big Four foreign ministers' conference. Although the three-month-long sessions failed to reach any important agreements, they did open the door to further negotiations and led to Premier Khrushchev's visit to the United States in September of 1959. At the end of this visit, Khrushchev and President Eisenhower stated jointly that the most important issue in the world was general disarmament and that the problem of Berlin and "_all outstanding international questions should be settled, not by the application of force, but by peaceful means through negotiations."_

During the early months of 1961, the government actively sought a means of halting the emigration of its population to the West. By the early summer of 1961, East German President Walter Ulbricht apparently had persuaded the Soviets that an immediate solution was necessary and that the only way to stop the exodus was to use force. This presented a delicate problem for the Soviet Union because the four-power status of Berlin specified free travel between zones and specifically forbade the presence of German troops in Berlin. Although it is not known who made the actual decision to erect the Berlin Wall, it is generally accepted that overall operations were directed by Marshal Ivan Konev, commander in chief of the GSFG. Apparently Konev appointed Major General Martin Blek of the NVA as the operational commander.

During the spring and early summer, the East German regime procured and stockpiled building materials for the erection of the Berlin Wall. Although this extensive activity was widely known, few outside the small circle of Soviet and East German planners believed that East Germany would be sealed off. Approximately 32,000 combat and engineer troops were used in building the Wall. Once their efforts were completed, the Border Police assumed the functions of manning and improving the barrier. The Soviet Army was present to discourage interference by the West and presumably to assist in the event of large-scale riots.

In June 1961 Premier Khrushchev created a new crisis over the status of West Berlin when he again threatened to sign a separate peace treaty with East Germany, which he said, would end existing four-power agreements guaranteeing American, British, and French access rights to West Berlin. The three powers replied that no unilateral treaty could abrogate their responsibilities and rights in West Berlin, including the right of unobstructed access to the city.

As the confrontation over Berlin escalated, on 25 July President Kennedy requested an increase in the Army's total authorized strength from 875,000 to approximately 1 million men, along with increase of 29,000 and 63,000 men in the active duty strength of the Navy and the Air Force. Additionally, he ordered that draft calls be doubled, and asked the Congress for authority to order to active duty certain ready reserve units and individual reservists. He also requested new funds to identify and mark space in existing structures that could be used for fall-out shelters in case of attack, to stock those shelters with food, water, first-aid kits and other minimum essentials for survival, and to improve air-raid warning and fallout detection systems.

On 30 August 1961, President John F. Kennedy had ordered 148,000 Guardsmen and Reservists to active duty in response to Soviet moves to cut off allied access to Berlin. The Air Guard's share of that mobilization was 21,067 individuals. ANG units mobilized in October included 18 tactical fighter squadrons, 4 tactical reconnaissance squadrons, 6 air transport squadrons, and a tactical control group. On 1 November; the Air Force mobilized three more ANG fighter interceptor squadrons. In late October and early November, eight of the tactical fighter units flew to Europe with their 216 aircraft in operation "Stair Step," the largest jet deployment in the Air Guard's history. Because of their short range, 60 Air Guard F-104 interceptors were airlifted to Europe in late November. The United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) lacked spare parts needed for the ANG's aging F-84s and F-86s. Some units had been trained to deliver tactical nuclear weapons, not conventional bombs and bullets. They had to be retrained for conventional missions once they arrived on the continent. The majority of mobilized Air Guardsmen remained in the U.S.

East Germans, stirred by the crisis, fled to West Berlin in increasing numbers. In July alone there were some 30,000. The construction of the Berlin Wall started at 2:00 A.M. on August 13, 1961. The Wall effectively sealed off the best escape route open to disenchanted East Germans, thus halting the mass movement of people to the West. After its construction, the number of refugees entering West Berlin and West Germany fell drastically.

The Soviets also tried to prevent Allied access to the eastern half of the city. In response, the United States deployed men and planes to Europe. Numerous USAF Reserve and Air National Guard units were mobilized to increase Tactical Air Command [TAC] combat strength and in November, TAC deployed more than 200 Federalized ANG airplanes and thousands of personnel under "Operation Stair Step" to France, Germany, and Spain to augment units already on duty in Europe. During "Operation Stair Step," the largest overseas movement of a fighter force since WWII), not a single plane was lost.

The Berlin Crisis saw US Army troops facing East German Army troops in a stand-off, until the East German government backed down. The crisis ended in the summer of 1962 and the personnel returned to the United States. President Kennedy who visited the city in June 1963 and said:

"All free men,
wherever they may live,
are citizens of Berlin.
Therefore, as a free man,
I take pride in the words
'Ich bin ein Berliner'."

Though intending this final phrase to mean "I am a Berliner," in one of the memorably humorous footnotes to Cold War history, Kennedy's words would be more accurately translated as "I am a donut" since a "Berliner" is a popular German pastry.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the lesser known events in US military history that almost resulted in a skirmish between US forces in Europe and Soviet-backed East Germany

Soviet T-54/55s in the back, US M48s in the Front, Checkpoint Charlie, Berlin October 27 1961

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
2


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*Army Testing Rapid-Zoom Rifle Scope*

U.S. Army weapons officials are testing a sophisticated rifle-scope that let's shooters zoom in and out on near and far targets faster than ever before.

Brett Bagwell, a former Army Special Forcesofficer, has developed what's known as the Rapid Adaptive Zoom for Assault Rifles, or RAZAR, scope, using a patented active optical zoom system, called "adaptive zoom."

Traditional optical zoom changes magnification by adjusting the positions of the lenses along the optical axis in the same way a 35-mm camera mechanically moves the lenses as you zoom in on or out on a subject.

Adaptive zoom changes the focal lengths of two or more lenses by varying the curvature of the lenses' surfaces to provide optical zoom without changing their overall positions relative to one another. This allows the user to view either a wide-angle image or zoom in on an area of interest with a compact, low-power system, according to a recent Army news release.

"The impetus behind the idea of push-button zoom is you can acquire what you're interested in at low magnification and – without getting lost – zoom in for more clarity," said Bagwell, now an optical engineer with Sandia National Laboratories.

Bagwell began work on RAZAR in 2006 responding to the military's interest in a compact zoom riflescope that could rapidly toggle between magnifications. Early work had been funded by Sandia's Laboratory Directed Research and Development program, the release states.

It took years to meet the military's power usage, speed and accuracy requirements, Bagwell maintains.

"As an engineer, I was impressed with our progress," Bagwell said. "But as an operator, I was constantly dissatisfied. We had to make it smaller. We had to make it lighter. It's got to toggle faster."


Representatives from U.S. Special OperationsCommand first tested the RAZAR in late 2012 at Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center near Edinburgh, Indiana.

"The guys picked it up and when they pushed the button and it zoomed, and then instantly it zoomed back out; they were like kids at Christmas," Bagwell said.

"There was this look of astonishment and pleasure. That's very gratifying. Here's this grizzled veteran looking at me like I've just created magic."

*Complex Design*

RAZAR'S adaptive zoom technology -- invented by Sandia optical engineer David Wick – relies on three core technologies.

A polymer lens core has two flexible, hermetically sealed membranes, which encapsulate a polymer fluid. The three-quarter-inch lenses are aligned with glass lenses to complete the optical design.

A piezoelectric actuator electro-mechanically changes the flex of the lenses, achieving the correct position within 250 milliseconds to an accuracy of 100 nanometers, about 1/100th the thickness of a human hair. These actuators operate the way the muscles of the human eye change the curvature of the eye's lens to focus far away or up close.

Variable-focal length system design tools had to be developed from scratch, including analytical expressions and computer models that trace rays of light through optical systems.

Adaptive zoom accomplishes true optical zoom -- as opposed to digital zoom -- by changing the focal length of two or more lenses in concert, without the normal mechanical motion, reducing the size and power requirements of the zoom lens, Wick said.

The theory that underlies zoom scopes hadn't changed significantly since the 1960s, until the adaptive zoom technology came along, according to the release. Using adaptive zoom, Sandia's team worked for 18 months to achieve an optical quality of about half a wavelength of light.

Sandia had to perfect the manufacturing process of the lenses so the quality of the prototype could be replicated. When the polymer is sealed, no air bubbles or specks of dust could remain in the lenses or on the surrounding rings, Bagwell said.

Freddie Santiago, who at the time was a doctoral candidate in physics and in Sandia's Student Internship Program, developed the process for making the lenses.

"You have to start from the basics: How do we make the polymer? How do we stretch the polymer and make it an optical surface? We had to understand the process, from mixing the polymer all the way to the final product and we had to do it in a systematic way," Santiago said.

*Game Changer*

Many of the technologies and designs that make up the riflescope came from mechanical engineers, robotics experts, chemists and other Sandia experts, but Bagwell went outside the labs for the actuator to flex the lenses, seeking help from Dynamic Structures and Materials, LLC, a small business in Franklin, Tennessee.

Matthew Stefanick, who was the company's lead engineer on the project, said the team used an ultrasonic piezo motor to actuate the flex in the lenses. A voltage is applied at an ultrasonic frequency to vibrate and move a rotor and lead screw, which causes the lens to flex.

Stefanick said the decision to use an ultrasonic motor provided a key feature, a "zero-power hold" that maintains the last selected focus, even if the power is lost.

The feature allows users to complete 10,000 actuations on two AA batteries, Bagwell said.

John Heinsohn, project Manager Soldier Weapons called the RAZAR a "monumental achievement."

"This is a leap-ahead technology," Heinsohn said. "What this liquid lens technology allows us to do is take something that could be as big as our current optics and increase the performance – five, 10-fold."

Michael Squire, a former sergeant first class with Special Operations Research Support Element, said the ability to zoom between near and far targets within seconds, without taking his hand off the weapon, is "game-changing."

"The difference that can make, especially with somebody shooting back, could mean life or death," he said.

From Army Testing Rapid-Zoom Rifle Scope | Military.com

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

Report: US to Purchase Iron Dome Battery


Report: US to Purchase Iron Dome Battery | Missile ThreatMissile Threat







New interest has arisen among foreign countries in purchasing the Iron Dome missile defense system.

Countries like Poland, Ukraine and South Korea have all expressed interest in purchasing the system, but the US has once again taken the lead and is the first country to purchase the very system that only months earlier they had refused to fund, NRG reported.

The US has attained one battery, and pending trials, will invest in purchasing numerous other Iron Dome batteries for their offshore military assets, having little or no need for anti-missile defense systems on the homefront.

In the early stages of development and deployment, the US was not confident that the Iron Dome system would be effective. This led US officials to not allocate a funding for the system among the regular military aid payments that the US gives Israel. Rather, a separate budget had to be created specifically for the defensive system after Israel had solely funded the creation and deployment of the first two batteries.

Private Israeli defense firm Rafael has agreed to work with US-based Raytheon group to develop one battery on US soil. The development of this battery will allow Israel to purchase future batteries from the US under the regular yearly aid package that Israel receives, thereby cutting down costs for the Israeli taxpayers.

The joint venture between Rafael and Raytheon will also allow the partner countries to offer other interested parties to purchase the Iron Dome system.

Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon visited the US last week to discuss a variety of potential partnerships between the two nations. During the visit, Ya’alon cancelled an order for six V-22 heliplanes claiming financial constraints on the IAF budget. Also discussed was the increase of the manufacturing of ‘Leopard’ APC’s on US soil.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*U.S. Army to deactivate long-serving 'Iron Brigade' in South Korea*

An Army combat brigade that has anchored the U.S. military presence in South Korea for nearly 50 years will be deactivated and replaced with a rotational unit as the service shrinks in size due to budget cuts, defense officials said on Thursday.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel approved deactivation of the 2nd Infantry Division's 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team effective next summer, officials said. The unit, the so-called "Iron Brigade," has been permanently stationed in South Korea since 1965, staffed by individual soldiers sent to serve a year.

Army Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman, said the move was long-planned and did not represent a reduction in U.S. commitment to South Korean security. In fact, he said, similarly sized, fully trained units would be rotated into South Korea for nine-month tours.

Defense officials said the rotation of units that had trained together beforehand, rather than individuals who had to get to know their fellow soldiers upon arrival, could improve unit cohesion and readiness of U.S. forces in South Korea.

"There's not loss in capability," Warren said. "Some would argue that the capability might even be slightly higher because it's a trained unit that arrives there in Korea."

Warren said the first rotational unit would be the 4,600- member 2nd Brigade Combat Team from the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, Texas. It is due to begin its tour in South Korea in June 2015.

The shift is part of an Army plan originally conceived in 2013 to have some brigades overseas on a rotational basis rather than stationed permanently abroad. A continuous rotational presence would enable different units to gain experience training with allies.

The decision to deactivate the "Iron Brigade" in South Korea is part of the Army's effort to cut the overall size of its force as a result of budget reductions enacted in 2011.

The action will reduce the need for 4,500 military jobs. Soldiers currently with the brigade would be deployed to other units. But Army officials said it would allow the service to shed that number of positions by attrition and other means, moving closer to its planned force size.

The Army currently has about 505,000 active duty soldiers and is in the process of shrinking to 490,000. It is expected to reduce further during the coming year, dropping to between 440,000 and 450,000.

The job cuts come as the Pentagon tries to reduce projected spending by nearly a trillion dollars over a decade. Congress and the president agreed to the cuts in the 2011 Budget Control Act.

From U.S. Army to deactivate long-serving 'Iron Brigade' in South Korea| Reuters



AMDR said:


> Report: US to Purchase Iron Dome Battery
> 
> 
> Report: US to Purchase Iron Dome Battery | Missile ThreatMissile Threat
> 
> New interest has arisen among foreign countries in purchasing the Iron Dome missile defense system.
> 
> Countries like Poland, Ukraine and South Korea have all expressed interest in purchasing the system, but the US has once again taken the lead and is the first country to purchase the very system that only months earlier they had refused to fund, NRG reported.
> 
> The US has attained one battery, and pending trials, will invest in purchasing numerous other Iron Dome batteries for their offshore military assets, having little or no need for anti-missile defense systems on the homefront.
> 
> In the early stages of development and deployment, the US was not confident that the Iron Dome system would be effective. This led US officials to not allocate a funding for the system among the regular military aid payments that the US gives Israel. Rather, a separate budget had to be created specifically for the defensive system after Israel had solely funded the creation and deployment of the first two batteries.
> 
> Private Israeli defense firm Rafael has agreed to work with US-based Raytheon group to develop one battery on US soil. The development of this battery will allow Israel to purchase future batteries from the US under the regular yearly aid package that Israel receives, thereby cutting down costs for the Israeli taxpayers.
> 
> The joint venture between Rafael and Raytheon will also allow the partner countries to offer other interested parties to purchase the Iron Dome system.
> 
> Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon visited the US last week to discuss a variety of potential partnerships between the two nations. During the visit, Ya’alon cancelled an order for six V-22 heliplanes claiming financial constraints on the IAF budget. Also discussed was the increase of the manufacturing of ‘Leopard’ APC’s on US soil.



More great news on the missile development and procurement front:


*Navy Plans to Arm LCS With Long-Range Surface Missile*

Navy developers plan to arm the service’s Littoral Combat Ship with a long-range surface-to-surface missile by 2020 to defend against fast attack craft, ships and patrol boats, service officials said.

The long-range missile plan is intended as a follow-on effort to the Navy’s near-term move to arm the LCS with a shorter-range Hellfire Longbow missile, said Navy Capt. Casey Moton, LCS mission modules program manager.

“Hellfire will meet the short-range missile requirements. We have a requirement to go to a longer range missile,” Moton said. “We have a surface warfare package increment, Increment 4, which requires a longer-range, over-the-horizon type missile capability. Right now our plan is to have that be a competitive procurement.”

The Hellfire, which has already been tested and integrated onto the LCS platform, is slated to be operational on ships by 2017. The Hellfire, which features an all-weather millimeter wave seeker, already exists in the Army stock as it is widely used by helicopters and drones.

“We are essentially taking that missile (Hellfire) and its fire control system and modifying it to do a vertical launch from the ship and go against maritime targets,” Moton said.

The new long-range LCS missile, which will be acquired through a planned future competition among vendors, will be both offensive and defensive, he added. The longer-range surface missile would enable the LCS to engage targets without being in close proximity to a threat or potential attacker.

“We have a short range requirement against small, fast targets – which Hellfire will meet. There is a second requirement for a long-range surface missile to work against bigger craft for the LCS,” Moton explained.

Analysts and lawmakers have criticized the LCS platform for not being survivable or protected enough to perform its envisioned range of missions and address anticipated threats.

Both the Hellfire and the new long-range missile for 2020 will function as part of the LCS’ Surface Warfare Package, or SUW, a collection of technologies designed to add lethality and transition on and off the LCS platform as needed.

The Surface Warfare Package, which is slated to deploy this year on-board the USS Fort Worth, or LCS 3, includes MH-60 helicopters, two 30mm guns and 11-meter RIBs, or rigid hull inflatable boats, for fast-attack, rescue or maneuver operations.

Future SUW increments will also include the Fire Scout UAS for additional intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance technology. The Navy has already successfully tested the Fire Scout on-board the LCS and plans to include it on the upcoming deployment of the USS Fort Worth. The SUW package deployed on board the first LCS, the USS Freedom, which deployed to Singapore and other parts of Asia last year. LCS 2, the USS Independence, participated this past summer in the large Rim of the Pacific, or RIMPAC, exercise with the SUW package on board.

The Navy also conducted SUW testing this past summer on board the forth LCS, the USS Coronado; it was the first time on the tri-moran hull or Independence variant of the LCS wherein integrated fires were performed with the ship’s combat system, Moton explained.

*Missile Options*

Although the formal competition for the long-range LCS surface missile has yet to get underway, the Navy and some industry partners are already exploring a handful of possible options.

“We’ve already done background work on some of the missile capability. A lot of prep work still needs to be done,” Moton added.

For instance, the Navy recently test-fired a Norwegian long-range precision strike missile from the deck of its Littoral Combat Ship to assess whether the weapon should be permanently integrated onto the ship, service officials said.

A live-fire demonstration of the Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile took place Sept. 23 aboard the USS Coronado, or LCS 4, Navy officials said, resulting in the missile achieving a direct-hit on a mobile ship target.

“We look at foreign weapon systems to see how good they are. We want to see if they can be integrated into our systems and to see if they are competitive. It was a successful firing,” Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told reporters Sept. 30.

The Kongsberg NSM is a long-range precision strike missile currently used on Norwegian Nansen-class frigates and Skjold-Class missile torpedo boats. The missile is also used by the Polish Coastal Missile Division, Navy officials said.

At the same time, Raytheon is testing a new extended range Griffin missile which triples the range of the existing weapon and adds infrared imaging guidance technology, company officials said.

“We start off with a baseline Griffin and add an extended range rocket motor. This more than triples the range of the current Griffin and it has more than twice the range of the Hellfire,” James Smith, the business development lead for Raytheon’s advanced missile systems, told Military.com several weeks ago.

The existing Griffin missile, which can be launched from the air, sea or land, uses GPS and laser guidance technology. The new variant now being tested allows infrared technology to work in tandem with laser designation, Smith explained.

“It is a semi-active laser sensor which we have in the current Griffin. With the new missile, we have both a semi-active laser system and an imaging infrared dual mode. You can use the semi-active laser to point out the target to the missile. The imaging infrared captures the target and then navigates on its own,” he added.

The extended range Griffin also features a data link in order to allow the weapon to receive in-flight target updates, he added. Smith said this technology could prove particularly useful on a platform such as the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship, or LSC.

Smith explained that the targeting technology could help destroy small fast-moving surface targets such as swarming boats and also help fast-moving ships reach targets as well.

“An LCS moves fast. Before the seeker finds the target you may want to continue to update the target location until the missile then finds the target on its own,” Smith added.

The Griffin does not have millimeter wave technology, like the Hellfire, but is capable of operating in some difficult weather conditions, Smith said. Overall, however, the extended range Griffin is engineered to operate in reasonably clear weather conditions. The new missiles infrared guidance system is configured with computer algorithms which enable the weapon to distinguish targets from nearby objects, Smith added.

“The imaging infrared is passive and uncooled so there is no cooling involved. Once the laser spot is removed, the imaging infrared seeker takes over on its own. You don’t have to keep the laser on the target you can move the laser onto another target,” he added.

Raytheon plans to continue testing of the weapon for another year and hopes the new missile will be considered for a range of ground applications, surface ships and air platforms including patrol craft and even unmanned aerial systems.

From Navy Plans to Arm LCS With Long-Range Surface Missile | Defense Tech

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*Army Upgrades Stinger Missiles*

The U.S. Army has begun a plan to upgrade and extend the service life of its Stinger Block 1 missiles, service officials at the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant said recently.

The portable infrared heat-seeking surface-to-air missiles, first produced in the 1980s, will have their expected service life extended by an additional ten years after workers replace aging components, an Army statement said.

The Stinger service life improvement extension program will upgrade 850 Army missiles and 1,155 for the Marine Corps. The $11 million project is being done by Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, Ala.

In addition to extending the service life, the Stinger upgrade program will install a warhead section equipped with a proximity fuse, Army officials said in a statement.


The proximity fuse is designed to increase the weapon’s effectiveness against unmanned aerial systems.

The new upgraded Stinger missile will be redesignation as the FIM-92J. Work is expected to continue through 2016, Army officials said.

from Army Upgrades Stinger Missiles | Kit Up!

My Comments

Honestly, I don't see any reason to retain the stinger in the first place, but at least they aren't being neglected either. It's a system that almost never sees use by the US military, so I'm not sure why its been retained all these years.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*DARPA Tests New Close Air Support Technology*
DARPA Tests New Close Air Support Technology | Defense Tech

The Pentagon’s top research arm and Raytheon will test a new system designed to massively speed up air-ground coordination and reduce targeting time for close air support from as long as an hour — down to as little as six minutes.

A program called Persistent Close Air Support, or PCAS, connects pilots in real time with the ground-based Joint Terminal Attack Controllers, or JTACS, there to help establish and confirm target information.

“The way we are able to decrease the timeline from 30 to 60 minutes to six minutes or less is by having digital communications tablet-to-tablet between the pilot and the JTAC, having autonomous decision aides and sharing situational awareness,” said Dave Bossert, senior engineering fellow, Raytheon.

The PCAS program, which began four years ago and is now involved in what’s called phase three, plans a close air support weapons drop demonstration next February from an A-10 Warthog at the Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range, Ariz. Phase three of PCAS involves a $25.5 million DARPA deal with Raytheon.

The DARPA effort, which in total includes a roughly $45 million developmental deal with Raytheon, is moving forward under the watchful eye of interested Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps observers, Bossert said. The system could be ready for operational use by May of next year.

The first flight test of the PCAS system took place on an A-10 in October of this year and a test-flight to verify the on-board sensors is slated for December, Bossert explained.

Right now, most close-air-support is done using only voice radio to identify and confirm target information or coordinates, a process which can at times be lengthy in order to ensure the pilot and JTAC have correctly confirmed a given target location.

With PCAS, pilots and JTACs have digital messaging capability and are essentially networked through software programmable radio, technology which can wirelessly transmit IP packets of voice, video and data in real-time. Through the use of android-based digital tablets on the ground and in the cockpit of the aircraft, pilots and JTACs can view and exchange relevant targeting information using icons, digital maps and display screens.

Using what’s called smart launcher electronics, the PCAS system integrates software programmable radio with a processor and a digital tablet in the cockpit of the aircraft. The smart launcher electronics includes a computer to host the PCAS software, radios, an ethernet switch and a GPS/inertial navigation systems unit, Bossert explained.

The digital tablet, used by both the pilots and the JTACs, leverages digital navigation technology and mapping information gleaned from a Navy and Air Force program called Electronic Fight Bag. Electronic Flight Bag is an effort to replace paper maps in the cockpit with a tablet-based digital map database, Bossert said.

With PCAS, the standard so-called “nine-line” targeting information form no longer needs to be relayed only by voice but can be viewed simultaneously in real time by pilots and JTACs using a digital tablet, Bossert explained.

“The nine-line is a standardized methodology to pass target information. It is a format and a form that has nine pieces of information on it used to describe the target and its location. Right now they read it off. We’ve implemented the form digitally. Through this IP-based network, we want it to be like the pilot and the JTAC are sitting side by side,” Bossert said.

As a result of being networked through IP-based radio, PCAS allows a JTAC to view a pilot’s airborne targeting pod control picture and, similarly, permits a pilot to view target-grid coordinates and other displays from a JTAC’s tablet on the ground.

In addition, the PCAS technology uses what’s called autonomous decision aides, allowing things like weapons employment planning on the JTAC tablet. While a ground commander and pilot will be the humans in the loop finalizing targets, the PCAS system will use algorithms to recommend which weapons might be best-suited to attack a given target.

“Not only do we have digital representation of the target but digital representation of the surrounding friendlies so you will be able to cycle through the different weapons effects and say ‘that is the weapon that I want.’ Then, the system will make a recommendation. The pilot and the JTAC can choose whatever weapon they want,” Bossert added. “We aren’t changing anything in terms of how the weapon is initialized and how the weapon is passed to the target.”

The targeting information can be networked to other air and ground platforms in the vicinity as well, he said.

“Anybody that is on the network that has an IP-based radio can get this information as well,” he said.

The A-10 is merely a demonstration platform for the technology, meaning the PCAS apparatus could easily migrate to other fixed-wing platforms able to provide close air support.

“You have increased situational awareness, so this has the potential to reduce collateral damage, decrease the likelihood of friendly fire incidents and save lives on the battlefield,” Bossert added.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

SvenSvensonov said:


> *Army Testing Rapid-Zoom Rifle Scope*










SvenSvensonov said:


> Honestly, I don't see any reason to retain the stinger in the first place, but at least they aren't being neglected either. It's a system that almost never sees use by the US military, so I'm not sure why its been retained all these years.



For use against helicopter gunships.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*Air Force Ready to Fight Ebola with Virus-killing Robot*

Air Force doctors at Joint Base Langley-Eustis in Virginia have a germ-killing robot ready to help keep rooms clean should any returning service member show symptoms of Ebola.

The 366th Medical Group at Langley is responsible for housing and monitoring troops returning from Ebola aid missions to West Africa during a mandatory 21-day quarantine period.

The 5’2”-inch robot, named Saul, is essentially a germ terminator whose pulses of high-intensity, high-energy ultraviolet rays can destroy viruses lurking in areas where hazmat-suited humans using traditional cleansers cannot reach, according to the Air Force.

“Saul will provide an extra measure of safety for both our patients and our intensive care unit staff,” Col. Marlene Kerchenski, chief nurse of the 633rd Medical Group at Langley said. Saul’s role is to do a final mop-up in contaminated environments.

There are about 1,800 American troops in Liberia and Senegal for the Ebola mission, as well as about 100 contractors and close to 60 Defense Department civilians, according to the Pentagon. The quarantine is mandatory only for service members.

Langley-Eustis is one of five U.S. bases chosen by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey to look after troops returning from West Africa during a 21-day isolation period. The other bases are Fort Hood and Fort Bliss, Texas; Fort Bragg, North Carolina; and Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington. The quarantine is mandatory for service members, though not for Defense Department civilians.

The robot is made by Xenex of San Antonio, which has sold more than 200 of their “germ zappers” to hospitals, according to the company.

The ultraviolet ray pulses emitted by Saul are 25,000 times brighter than florescent lights, Geri Genant, Xenex’s health care services manager. The rays split open bacterial cell walls and kill pathogens.

“Xenex has tested its full spectrum disinfection system on 22 microorganisms, studying nearly 2,000 samples in several independent labs all over the world,” said Genant.

The machine has already shown it can kill a single strand of ribonucleic acid, a virus similar to Ebola, two meters out in any direction, within five minutes, at an efficiency rate of 99.9 percent, Genant said.

Kerchenski said Saul will be used throughout the hospital on a rotating basis.

“Our surgical services groups have already been trained on this, so we will use them as well as our service representative for a train the trainer type program,” she said.

From Air Force Ready to Fight Ebola with Virus-killing Robot | Defense Tech

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Oldman1

SvenSvensonov said:


> *Army Upgrades Stinger Missiles*
> 
> The U.S. Army has begun a plan to upgrade and extend the service life of its Stinger Block 1 missiles, service officials at the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant said recently.
> 
> The portable infrared heat-seeking surface-to-air missiles, first produced in the 1980s, will have their expected service life extended by an additional ten years after workers replace aging components, an Army statement said.
> 
> The Stinger service life improvement extension program will upgrade 850 Army missiles and 1,155 for the Marine Corps. The $11 million project is being done by Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, Ala.
> 
> In addition to extending the service life, the Stinger upgrade program will install a warhead section equipped with a proximity fuse, Army officials said in a statement.
> 
> 
> The proximity fuse is designed to increase the weapon’s effectiveness against unmanned aerial systems.
> 
> The new upgraded Stinger missile will be redesignation as the FIM-92J. Work is expected to continue through 2016, Army officials said.
> 
> from Army Upgrades Stinger Missiles | Kit Up!
> 
> My Comments
> 
> Honestly, I don't see any reason to retain the stinger in the first place, but at least they aren't being neglected either. It's a system that almost never sees use by the US military, so I'm not sure why its been retained all these years.



Thats equivalent to saying no reason to have man portable anti-tank weapons.


----------



## SvenSvensonov

Oldman1 said:


> Thats equivalent to saying no reason to have man portable anti-tank weapons.



I don't think so. Man portable anti-tank weapons have been used in conflict by US forces, even in our most recent wars (Iraq and Afghanistan saw US forces use anti-tank weapons in an anti-tank and anti-bunker role), but the Stinger hasn't seen any action with the US military. I understand what you're saying and I agree that it is a good idea to have an option to deal with an eventuality, even if said eventuality never comes, but the Stinger isn't likely to see action as the forces the US is prone to fighting, or expecting to fight, lack the air power that would make the Stinger a relevant weapon. Against China or Russia, the Stinger isn't going to be much help and against ISIS or any other radical group they aren't needed. The Stinger isn't a versatile weapon that can be used for other uses, such as anti-bunker or personal, and is much more limited in its role than are anti-tank weapons with have a greater versatility.


----------



## Oldman1

SvenSvensonov said:


> I don't think so. Man portable anti-tank weapons have been used in conflict by US forces, even in our most recent wars (Iraq and Afghanistan saw US forces use anti-tank weapons in an anti-tank and anti-bunker role), but the Stinger hasn't seen any action with the US military. I understand what you're saying and I agree that it is a good idea to have an option to deal with an eventuality, even if said eventuality never comes, but the Stinger isn't likely to see action as the forces the US is prone to fighting, or expecting to fight, lack the air power that would make the Stinger a relevant weapon. Against China or Russia, the Stinger isn't going to be much help and against ISIS or any other radical group they aren't needed. The Stinger isn't a versatile weapon that can be used for other uses, such as anti-bunker or personal, and is much more limited in its role than are anti-tank weapons with have a greater versatility.



And yet in Iraq and Afghanistan insurgents with no air force was able to defend themselves with MANPADs against a superior force. If there is a war with countries like China and Russia with attack helicopters or aircraft providing close air support, the U.S. forces on the ground needs them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

Army Buys More Self-Propelled Howitzers, M109A7s

Army Buys More Self-Propelled Howitzers | DoD Buzz


The U.S. Army has awarded a $142 million contract to BAE Systems new M109A7 self-propelled howitzers and M992A3 ammunition carriers.

The follow-on contract calls for BAE to build 18 M109A7 howitzers and 18 carrier ammunition, tracked vehicles for the low-rate initial production deal.

BAE Systems is proud to partner with the Army to continue production on this important upgrade program,” Adam Zarfoss, director for Artillery and Recovery Systems at BAE Systems, said in a recent BAE release.

“The M109A7 is a significant leap forward in technology for the field artillery, addressing the current system shortfalls while providing significant margin for growth to help position the service for the long term.”

BAE Systems was originally awarded a one-year base contract for the M109A7, formerly the Paladin Integrated Management program, in October 2013.

In total, the Army intends to purchase a total of 66.5 vehicle sets plus spares, kits, and technical documentation. One set includes a M109A7 Paladin Self Propelled Howitzer along with its battlefield companion, the M992A3 Carrier Ammunition, Tracked.

The M109A7 program is a significant upgrade over the vehicle’s predecessor, the M109A6 Paladin Self-Propelled Howitzer, BAE officials maintain.

The design includes a Bradley–common chassis, engine, transmission, suspension, steering system, and improved survivability, while leveraging technologies developed during the Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon program such as a 600 volt on-board power system.

The state-of-the-art “digital-backbone” and power generation capability provides significant growth potential for future payloads as well as accommodating existing battlefield network requirements.

Work on the M109A7 is currently underway at Anniston Army Depot, Alabama, and BAE Systems’ York, Pennsylvania, facility. Final production will take place at the company’s Elgin, Oklahoma, facility, with the first vehicles scheduled to be delivered to the Army in early 2015.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

US seeks to purchase small UAS for battle against Islamic State - 11/11/2014 - Flight Global

US President Barack Obama has asked for $55 million worth of small, tactical unmanned air vehicles as part of a $5.6 billion request to Congress for the US fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Obama on 10 November issued a request for amendments to his fiscal year 2015 budget request for “activities to degrade and ultimately defeat” ISIS. The funds would be added to the US government war budget, called overseas contingency operations (OCO) funding, which brings total OCO requests for the year to $63.6 billion.

The document lists $544.5 million for “classified purposes” for the Air Force, one of the largest single sums requested.

The funding request specifically earmarks $55 million for the navy for procurement of small, tactical unmanned aerial systems in support of Operation Inherent Resolve, as the fight against ISIS is named. The document does not specify a platform and Naval Air Systems Command did not immediately return calls seeking information.

The most likely candidates are the Boeing Insitu Scan Eagle or RQ-21 Blackjack, which can launch and be recovered aboard ship or by Marine UAV squadrons ashore to provide real-time tactical surveillance. Their limited range means that in Iraq and Syria, they likely will be operated by personnel at one of the two staging bases the Obama administration announced would be built outside Baghdad and in Anbar province. At least 1,500 troops in addition to those 1,500 already in Iraq will be sent to man those bases, which are tasked with supporting the Iraqi army’s fight against ISIS militants.

Small tactical UAS (STUAS) are designated by the navy as Group II aircraft, which generally require mechanically assisted launch. The Marine Corps initially established the STUAS programme of record to have 10h endurance and a ceiling of 15,000ft (4,572m) and an operational radius of 50nm.

The additional funding is aimed at “sustaining personnel forward deployed to the Middle East to provide training, advice and assistance to partner security forces” fighting ISIS, says Obama’s letter to Congress. It also will provide “intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms and support that are essential to conduct comprehensive counterterrorism operations”.

Obama has also requested $24 million for Lockheed Martin AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles for the army and air force and Boeing GBU-39 small-diameter bomb to replace those already fired against ISIS targets. Another $54.3 million would pay for Raytheon BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles and AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missiles for the Navy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Aepsilons

SvenSvensonov said:


> I don't think so. Man portable anti-tank weapons have been used in conflict by US forces, even in our most recent wars (Iraq and Afghanistan saw US forces use anti-tank weapons in an anti-tank and anti-bunker role), but the Stinger hasn't seen any action with the US military. I understand what you're saying and I agree that it is a good idea to have an option to deal with an eventuality, even if said eventuality never comes, but the Stinger isn't likely to see action as the forces the US is prone to fighting, or expecting to fight, lack the air power that would make the Stinger a relevant weapon. Against China or Russia, the Stinger isn't going to be much help and against ISIS or any other radical group they aren't needed. The Stinger isn't a versatile weapon that can be used for other uses, such as anti-bunker or personal, and is much more limited in its role than are anti-tank weapons with have a greater versatility.



@SvenSvensonov , 

Did you hear reports from PACOM that there will be 4 months next year wherein there will be no US Carrier in the 7th Fleet AOI ? Just read reports from JMSDF article. Can you verify this as true or not? JMSDF noted that its due to cost issue or something ? This is rather worrisome to me and others.


----------



## SvenSvensonov

Nihonjin1051 said:


> @SvenSvensonov ,
> 
> Did you hear reports from PACOM that there will be 4 months next year wherein there will be no US Carrier in the 7th Fleet AOI ? Just read reports from JMSDF article. Can you verify this as true or not? JMSDF noted that its due to cost issue or something ? This is rather worrisome to me and others.



Link? PACOM isn't reporting anything, their last news update is about the CARAT 14 drills, from 10 November. Given the importance of the Pacific region to the US military, relative to other regions, and a lack of money problems at the moment, even the sequester and its auto budget cuts are likely to be roled back by republicans, I couldn't fathom the veracity of this report.


----------



## Aepsilons

SvenSvensonov said:


> Link? PACOM isn't reporting anything, their last news update is about the CARAT 14 drills, from 10 November. Given the importance of the Pacific region to the US military, relative to other regions, and a lack of money problems at the moment, even the sequester and its auto budget cuts are likely to be roled back by republicans, I couldn't fathom the veracity of this report.




_"TOKYO -- Security policymakers in Japan and the U.S. are privately voicing concern about the absence of U.S. aircraft carriers from East Asian waters for four months next year. 

Budget restrictions in the U.S. and turmoil in the Middle East is putting pressure on the fleet's capability and will mean not a single aircraft carrier is deployed in East Asia.

Japanese and U.S. officials fear having no U.S. carriers in the region could provide China and North Korea with an opportunity to take military action.

The USS George Washington, the only U.S. aircraft carrier with an overseas homeport, is to leave its base in Japan for refueling and extensive maintenance. Until the USS Ronald Reagan arrives at the Japanese port of Yokosuka to replace the ship, there will be no American carrier in East Asia for about four months, according to U.S. and Japanese officials.

The U.S. Navy has not disclosed details about the replacement, but it is expected sometime between spring and autumn next year."_



Japan frets over coming absence of US aircraft carriers- Nikkei Asian Review

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Aepsilons

SvenSvensonov said:


> Link? PACOM isn't reporting anything, their last news update is about the CARAT 14 drills, from 10 November. Given the importance of the Pacific region to the US military, relative to other regions, and a lack of money problems at the moment, even the sequester and its auto budget cuts are likely to be roled back by republicans, I couldn't fathom the veracity of this report.



Lastly, this is worrisome for us. There are already growing trends and voices in Japanese defense forums calling for Japan to strip self-imposed bans on offensive platforms. This includes the ban on the building and deploying of Aircraft carriers. I think that this will be necessitated. Given the threat of North Korea's missiles other asymmetrical factors.


----------



## SvenSvensonov

Nihonjin1051 said:


> _"TOKYO -- Security policymakers in Japan and the U.S. are privately voicing concern about the absence of U.S. aircraft carriers from East Asian waters for four months next year.
> 
> Budget restrictions in the U.S. and turmoil in the Middle East is putting pressure on the fleet's capability and will mean not a single aircraft carrier is deployed in East Asia.
> 
> Japanese and U.S. officials fear having no U.S. carriers in the region could provide China and North Korea with an opportunity to take military action.
> 
> The USS George Washington, the only U.S. aircraft carrier with an overseas homeport, is to leave its base in Japan for refueling and extensive maintenance. Until the USS Ronald Reagan arrives at the Japanese port of Yokosuka to replace the ship, there will be no American carrier in East Asia for about four months, according to U.S. and Japanese officials.
> 
> The U.S. Navy has not disclosed details about the replacement, but it is expected sometime between spring and autumn next year."_
> 
> 
> 
> Japan frets over coming absence of US aircraft carriers- Nikkei Asian Review



Fear, but nothing concrete. That's a relief for me. No disclosure about a replacement might be available, but one will be found. Even with the problems the Middle East has, the Asia-Pacific is the most important region to the US.

I'll keep an eye out for updates, and post any I find, but right now there is no news coming from Navy sources.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Aepsilons

SvenSvensonov said:


> Fear, but nothing concrete. That's a relief for me. No disclosure about a replacement might be available, but one will be found. Even without the problems the Middle East has, the Asia-Pacific is the most important region to the US.
> 
> I'll keep an eye out for updates, and post any I find, but right now there is no news coming from Navy sources.



Thanks, buddy. I hope that they can deploy another carrier into the region. 4 months is too long of a time span.


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*Pentagon Wants to Build Aircraft Carriers in the Sky*

The Pentagon’s main research arm wants to find out what a flying “aircraft carrier” carrying a fleet of small aerial drones might look like and how much it would cost the military.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency announced Sunday it would open a competition for proposals to build a large aircraft — similar to a C-130 — that could carry and distribute aerial drones across a large area. DARPA officials said they wanted to see proposals for a system that could both launch the drones, but also recover them mid-flight.

Flying conventional airstrikes with large manned aircraft is both expensive and risky for the human pilot, DARPA officials explained. Therefore, the Pentagon wants to consider a “blended approach” that would lengthen the range of small drones by carrying them to combat aboard a manned aircraft.

“We want to find ways to make smaller aircraft more effective, and one promising idea is enabling existing large aircraft, with minimal modification, to become ‘aircraft carriers in the sky’,” said Dan Patt, DARPA program manager.

DARPA wants the proposals to allow for a flight demonstration of the aircraft and the drones within four years. Officials expect to use the proposals to build an official DARPA program for the system.

Leaders emphasized in the announcement that DARPA wants the drones to be small and cheap. Military commanders want cost effective options to execute airstrikes and this program should provide it.

From Pentagon Wants to Build Aircraft Carriers in the Sky | Defense Tech

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## AMDR

*Declining F-35 Prices Bode Well For Lockheed's Future*
Declining F-35 Prices Bode Well For Lockheed's Future - Forbes

Lockheed Martin recently announced that it has reached an agreement in principle with the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) for the eighth production lot of F-35s. Importantly, the average unit price of F-35 in this lot 8 will be around 4% lower than that in lot 7.Exact cost details will be announced once a definite agreement is reached between the company and DoD. However, in our view, the lower unit price of F-35 is a positive trend for Lockheed as it will help generate more orders from both the U.S. government and international partners of the F-35 program.

From the point of view of Lockheed, what is important is that the company must be able to generate its initially targeted 3,100 orders for the F-35. If the company is able to generate these many orders, then its upfront investment in research and development of the F-35 will provide a healthy return. But for the company to be able to achieve 3,100 orders – roughly 2,400 from the U.S. defense forces and the remaining from other countries – F-35′s unit price will have to come further down. In the previous production lot 7, F-35′s unit price came below $100 million. This was a significant improvement from initial production lots in which F-35′s unit price was well above $100 million.

In our opinion, this steady decline in F-35′s price indicates growing program maturity. And, as the F-35 program shifts from low-rate initial production to full rate production over the next 3-4 years, we figure additional cost savings from improved manufacturing efficiencies will likely further lower F-35′s unit price.

*Lower F-35 Prices Will Help Generate More Orders*

The F-35 program constitutes about 18% of Lockheed’s revenue. So, success in this program is crucial for growth in the company’s overall results. And in our opinion, lower F-35 price is the single most important factor which will determine success of the F-35 program.

Production under Lockheed’s previous fighter jet program – F-22 Raptor – was terminated after just 195 production units due to high price of F-22 – about $150 million a unit – among other factors.Although F-35 program is different from the F-22 program as F-35 has many international orders while the U.S. government banned exports of F-22, we figure further declines in F-35′s price are essential for this fighter jet’s success. And it seems Lockheed is on the right track on the cost front. In July, the company announced its blueprint for affordability agreement with the DoD under which the company would bring down the price of F-35 to under $80 million a unit by 2019.We figure this is a huge boost for international buyers who will likely find it easier to make their purchase decisions with this improved foresight on prices.

Eventually, Lockheed expects to bring down the price of F-35 to the equivalent of today’s fourth-generation fighter jets. The company plans to achieve this price reduction through improved manufacturing efficiencies driven by higher production volume. Currently, F-35s are being produced under low-rate initial production, however, once testing and development is fully complete by around 2018, then the program will shift to full rate production improving manufacturing efficiencies. Another factor that will likely help reduce F-35′s price is declining employee costs for Lockheed. During the initial development years of F-35, Lockheed had raised a huge workforce of scientists, engineers and IT professionals. However, with significant development work over and complete development work expected to be over by around 2018, the company will likely reduce its development workforce. At the same time, the decline in development workforce is not expected to be fully offset by increase in the company’s production workforce. So, Lockheed will achieve cost savings from a reduced overall employee headcount as the F-35 program transitions from development phase to production phase in coming years.

Effectively, declining F-35 prices will propel international buyers and the U.S. government to place more orders for this fifth-generation fighter jet. It will also help address concerns of international buyers who in the past have expressed disappointment with F-35′s high procurement cost. Till now, ten countries apart from the U.S. have placed orders/commitments for the F-35. These countries include the U.K., Norway, Netherlands, Italy, Israel, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Japan and South Korea. From the point of view of U.S., more international orders will help save money for the government. This is so because with a larger production volume, overall development and fixed production costs will get spread over a larger number of fighter jets, lowering F-35′s unit price. Lower unit price in turn will help lower the government’s total procurement cost.

In all, if Lockheed is able to reduce F-35′s price to match that of today’s fourth generation fighter jets, then we figure the company should be able to generate its initially targeted 3,100 orders. This large production volume in turn will likely drive the company’s results through the next decade. So, declining F-35 prices bode well for Lockheed’s future.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Eventually, Lockheed expects to bring down the price of F-35 to the equivalent of today’s fourth-generation fighter jets"

Incredible. Export outlook seem bright.

Thoughts?
@SvenSvensonov @Nihonjin1051

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## SvenSvensonov

AMDR said:


> *Declining F-35 Prices Bode Well For Lockheed's Future*
> Declining F-35 Prices Bode Well For Lockheed's Future - Forbes
> 
> Lockheed Martin recently announced that it has reached an agreement in principle with the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) for the eighth production lot of F-35s. Importantly, the average unit price of F-35 in this lot 8 will be around 4% lower than that in lot 7.Exact cost details will be announced once a definite agreement is reached between the company and DoD. However, in our view, the lower unit price of F-35 is a positive trend for Lockheed as it will help generate more orders from both the U.S. government and international partners of the F-35 program.
> 
> From the point of view of Lockheed, what is important is that the company must be able to generate its initially targeted 3,100 orders for the F-35. If the company is able to generate these many orders, then its upfront investment in research and development of the F-35 will provide a healthy return. But for the company to be able to achieve 3,100 orders – roughly 2,400 from the U.S. defense forces and the remaining from other countries – F-35′s unit price will have to come further down. In the previous production lot 7, F-35′s unit price came below $100 million. This was a significant improvement from initial production lots in which F-35′s unit price was well above $100 million.
> 
> In our opinion, this steady decline in F-35′s price indicates growing program maturity. And, as the F-35 program shifts from low-rate initial production to full rate production over the next 3-4 years, we figure additional cost savings from improved manufacturing efficiencies will likely further lower F-35′s unit price.
> 
> *Lower F-35 Prices Will Help Generate More Orders*
> 
> The F-35 program constitutes about 18% of Lockheed’s revenue. So, success in this program is crucial for growth in the company’s overall results. And in our opinion, lower F-35 price is the single most important factor which will determine success of the F-35 program.
> 
> Production under Lockheed’s previous fighter jet program – F-22 Raptor – was terminated after just 195 production units due to high price of F-22 – about $150 million a unit – among other factors.Although F-35 program is different from the F-22 program as F-35 has many international orders while the U.S. government banned exports of F-22, we figure further declines in F-35′s price are essential for this fighter jet’s success. And it seems Lockheed is on the right track on the cost front. In July, the company announced its blueprint for affordability agreement with the DoD under which the company would bring down the price of F-35 to under $80 million a unit by 2019.We figure this is a huge boost for international buyers who will likely find it easier to make their purchase decisions with this improved foresight on prices.
> 
> Eventually, Lockheed expects to bring down the price of F-35 to the equivalent of today’s fourth-generation fighter jets. The company plans to achieve this price reduction through improved manufacturing efficiencies driven by higher production volume. Currently, F-35s are being produced under low-rate initial production, however, once testing and development is fully complete by around 2018, then the program will shift to full rate production improving manufacturing efficiencies. Another factor that will likely help reduce F-35′s price is declining employee costs for Lockheed. During the initial development years of F-35, Lockheed had raised a huge workforce of scientists, engineers and IT professionals. However, with significant development work over and complete development work expected to be over by around 2018, the company will likely reduce its development workforce. At the same time, the decline in development workforce is not expected to be fully offset by increase in the company’s production workforce. So, Lockheed will achieve cost savings from a reduced overall employee headcount as the F-35 program transitions from development phase to production phase in coming years.
> 
> Effectively, declining F-35 prices will propel international buyers and the U.S. government to place more orders for this fifth-generation fighter jet. It will also help address concerns of international buyers who in the past have expressed disappointment with F-35′s high procurement cost. Till now, ten countries apart from the U.S. have placed orders/commitments for the F-35. These countries include the U.K., Norway, Netherlands, Italy, Israel, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Japan and South Korea. From the point of view of U.S., more international orders will help save money for the government. This is so because with a larger production volume, overall development and fixed production costs will get spread over a larger number of fighter jets, lowering F-35′s unit price. Lower unit price in turn will help lower the government’s total procurement cost.
> 
> In all, if Lockheed is able to reduce F-35′s price to match that of today’s fourth generation fighter jets, then we figure the company should be able to generate its initially targeted 3,100 orders. This large production volume in turn will likely drive the company’s results through the next decade. So, declining F-35 prices bode well for Lockheed’s future.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> "Eventually, Lockheed expects to bring down the price of F-35 to the equivalent of today’s fourth-generation fighter jets"
> 
> Incredible. Export outlook seem bright.
> 
> Thoughts?
> @SvenSvensonov @Nihonjin1051



Thank's for the share!!! My thoughts are the same as they have always been for any US military program. People complain about the cost, but rarely the capabilities, and once the cost drops people stop complaining and move on. The F-35 is a great aircraft with fantastic systems, and like the F/A-18, F-16, B-1 and all other US military projects before it, it has some problems that are slowly being sorted out. Sure, it's a bit overdue, but the main sticking point that people have is becoming less and less relevant as each day goes by. The cost is dropping, new orders are being placed and the F-35's future is looking very, very bright.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Solomon2

*MILESTONES: 1899–1913*

*The Philippine-American War, 1899–1902*

After its defeat in the Spanish-American War of 1898, Spain ceded its longstanding colony of the Philippines to the United States in the Treaty of Paris. On February 4, 1899, just two days before the U.S. Senate ratified the treaty, fighting broke out between American forces and Filipino nationalists led by Emilio Aguinaldo who sought independence rather than a change in colonial rulers. The ensuing Philippine-American War lasted three years and resulted in the death of over 4,200 American and over 20,000 Filipino combatants. As many as 200,000 Filipino civilians died from violence, famine, and disease.






*“Battle of Manila Bay”*​
The decision by U.S. policymakers to annex the Philippines was not without domestic controversy. Americans who advocated annexation evinced a variety of motivations: desire for commercial opportunities in Asia, concern that the Filipinos were incapable of self-rule, and fear that if the United States did not take control of the islands, another power (such as Germany or Japan) might do so. Meanwhile, American opposition to U.S. colonial rule of the Philippines came in many forms, ranging from those who thought it morally wrong for the United States to be engaged in colonialism, to those who feared that annexation might eventually permit the non-white Filipinos to have a role in American national government. Others were wholly unconcerned about the moral or racial implications of imperialism and sought only to oppose the policies of President William McKinley’s administration.

After the Spanish-American War, while the American public and politicians debated the annexation question, Filipino revolutionaries under Aguinaldo seized control of most of the Philippines’ main island of Luzon and proclaimed the establishment of the independent Philippine Republic. When it became clear that U.S. forces were intent on imposing American colonial control over the islands, the early clashes between the two sides in 1899 swelled into an all-out war. Americans tended to refer to the ensuing conflict as an “insurrection” rather than acknowledge the Filipinos’ contention that they were fighting to ward off a foreign invader.






*Emilio Aguinaldo*​
There were two phases to the Philippine-American War. The first phase, from February to November of 1899, was dominated by Aguinaldo’s ill-fated attempts to fight a conventional war against the better-trained and equipped American troops. The second phase was marked by the Filipinos’ shift to guerrilla-style warfare. It began in November of 1899, lasted through the capture of Aguinaldo in 1901 and into the spring of 1902, by which time most organized Filipino resistance had dissipated. President Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed a general amnesty and declared the conflict over on July 4, 1902, although minor uprisings and insurrections against American rule periodically occurred in the years that followed.

The United States entered the conflict with undeniable military advantages that included a trained fighting force, a steady supply of military equipment, and control of the archipelago’s waterways. Meanwhile, the Filipino forces were hampered by their inability to gain any kind of outside support for their cause, chronic shortages of weapons and ammunition, and complications produced by the Philippines’ geographic complexity. Under these conditions, Aguinaldo’s attempt to fight a conventional war in the first few months of the conflict proved to be a fatal mistake; the Filipino army suffered severe losses in men and material before switching to the guerrilla tactics that might have been more effective if employed from the beginning of the conflict.

*




President Theodore Roosevelt*​

The war was brutal on both sides. U.S. forces at times burned villages, implemented civilian reconcentration policies, and employed torture on suspected guerrillas, while Filipino fighters also tortured captured soldiers and terrorized civilians who cooperated with American forces. Many civilians died during the conflict as a result of the fighting, cholera and malaria epidemics, and food shortages caused by several agricultural catastrophes.

Even as the fighting went on, the colonial government that the United States established in the Philippines in 1900 under future President William Howard Taft launched a pacification campaign that became known as the “policy of attraction.” Designed to win over key elites and other Filipinos who did not embrace Aguinaldo’s plans for the Philippines, this policy permitted a significant degree of self-government, introduced social reforms, and implemented plans for economic development. Over time, this program gained important Filipino adherents and undermined the revolutionaries’ popular appeal, which significantly aided the United States’ military effort to win the war.

In 1907, the Philippines convened its first elected assembly, and in 1916, the Jones Act promised the nation eventual independence. The archipelago became an autonomous commonwealth in 1935, and the U.S. granted independence in 1946.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Aepsilons

Solomon2 said:


> View attachment 151078
> 
> 
> *MILESTONES: 1899–1913*
> 
> *The Philippine-American War, 1899–1902*
> 
> After its defeat in the Spanish-American War of 1898, Spain ceded its longstanding colony of the Philippines to the United States in the Treaty of Paris. On February 4, 1899, just two days before the U.S. Senate ratified the treaty, fighting broke out between American forces and Filipino nationalists led by Emilio Aguinaldo who sought independence rather than a change in colonial rulers. The ensuing Philippine-American War lasted three years and resulted in the death of over 4,200 American and over 20,000 Filipino combatants. As many as 200,000 Filipino civilians died from violence, famine, and disease.
> 
> 
> View attachment 151079
> 
> *“Battle of Manila Bay”*​
> The decision by U.S. policymakers to annex the Philippines was not without domestic controversy. Americans who advocated annexation evinced a variety of motivations: desire for commercial opportunities in Asia, concern that the Filipinos were incapable of self-rule, and fear that if the United States did not take control of the islands, another power (such as Germany or Japan) might do so. Meanwhile, American opposition to U.S. colonial rule of the Philippines came in many forms, ranging from those who thought it morally wrong for the United States to be engaged in colonialism, to those who feared that annexation might eventually permit the non-white Filipinos to have a role in American national government. Others were wholly unconcerned about the moral or racial implications of imperialism and sought only to oppose the policies of President William McKinley’s administration.
> 
> After the Spanish-American War, while the American public and politicians debated the annexation question, Filipino revolutionaries under Aguinaldo seized control of most of the Philippines’ main island of Luzon and proclaimed the establishment of the independent Philippine Republic. When it became clear that U.S. forces were intent on imposing American colonial control over the islands, the early clashes between the two sides in 1899 swelled into an all-out war. Americans tended to refer to the ensuing conflict as an “insurrection” rather than acknowledge the Filipinos’ contention that they were fighting to ward off a foreign invader.
> 
> 
> View attachment 151080
> 
> *Emilio Aguinaldo*​
> There were two phases to the Philippine-American War. The first phase, from February to November of 1899, was dominated by Aguinaldo’s ill-fated attempts to fight a conventional war against the better-trained and equipped American troops. The second phase was marked by the Filipinos’ shift to guerrilla-style warfare. It began in November of 1899, lasted through the capture of Aguinaldo in 1901 and into the spring of 1902, by which time most organized Filipino resistance had dissipated. President Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed a general amnesty and declared the conflict over on July 4, 1902, although minor uprisings and insurrections against American rule periodically occurred in the years that followed.
> 
> The United States entered the conflict with undeniable military advantages that included a trained fighting force, a steady supply of military equipment, and control of the archipelago’s waterways. Meanwhile, the Filipino forces were hampered by their inability to gain any kind of outside support for their cause, chronic shortages of weapons and ammunition, and complications produced by the Philippines’ geographic complexity. Under these conditions, Aguinaldo’s attempt to fight a conventional war in the first few months of the conflict proved to be a fatal mistake; the Filipino army suffered severe losses in men and material before switching to the guerrilla tactics that might have been more effective if employed from the beginning of the conflict.
> 
> *
> View attachment 151081
> 
> President Theodore Roosevelt*​
> 
> The war was brutal on both sides. U.S. forces at times burned villages, implemented civilian reconcentration policies, and employed torture on suspected guerrillas, while Filipino fighters also tortured captured soldiers and terrorized civilians who cooperated with American forces. Many civilians died during the conflict as a result of the fighting, cholera and malaria epidemics, and food shortages caused by several agricultural catastrophes.
> 
> Even as the fighting went on, the colonial government that the United States established in the Philippines in 1900 under future President William Howard Taft launched a pacification campaign that became known as the “policy of attraction.” Designed to win over key elites and other Filipinos who did not embrace Aguinaldo’s plans for the Philippines, this policy permitted a significant degree of self-government, introduced social reforms, and implemented plans for economic development. Over time, this program gained important Filipino adherents and undermined the revolutionaries’ popular appeal, which significantly aided the United States’ military effort to win the war.
> 
> In 1907, the Philippines convened its first elected assembly, and in 1916, the Jones Act promised the nation eventual independence. The archipelago became an autonomous commonwealth in 1935, and the U.S. granted independence in 1946.




My honest opinion: the United States should have incorporated the Islands as it did with Hawaii and Puerto Rico.


----------



## SvenSvensonov

Monday, 10 November, was the birthday of the US Marine Corp! In honor of the "Devil Dogs" I'm posting some of my favorite and most bada** pics of the USMC.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*A History of the US Marine Corp*

On November 10, 1775, the Continental Congress passed a resolution stating that "two battalions of Marines be raised" for service as landing forces with the fleet. This established the Continental Marines and marked the birth of the United States Marine Corps. Serving on land and at sea, early Marines distinguished themselves in a number of important operations, including their first amphibious raid on foreign soil in the Bahamas in March 1776, under the command of the Corps' first commandant, Capt. Samuel Nicholas. The 1783 Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War and as the last of the Navy's ships were sold, the Continental Navy and Marines disbanded.

Following the formal re-establishment of the Marine Corps on July 11, 1798, Marines fought in conflicts with France, landed in Santo Domingo and conducted operations against the Barbary pirates along the "Shores of Tripoli."

Marines participated in numerous operations during the War of 1812, including the defense of Washington at Bladensburg, Md. They also fought alongside Andrew Jackson in the defeat of the British at New Orleans. Following the War of 1812, Marines protected American interests around the world in areas like the Caribbean, the Falkland Islands, Sumatra and off the coast of West Africa, and close to home in operations against the Seminole Indians in Florida.

During the Mexican War, Marines seized enemy seaports on both the Gulf and Pacific coasts. While landing parties of Marines and Sailors were seizing enemy ports, a battalion of Marines joined General Winfield Scott's army at Pueblo and marched and fought all the way to the "Halls of Montezuma," Mexico City.

Although most Marine Corps service during the Civil War was with the Navy, a battalion fought at Bull Run, and other units saw action with blockading squadrons at Cape Hatteras, New Orleans, Charleston and Fort Fisher. During the last third of the 19th century, Marines made numerous landings around the world, especially in the orient and the Caribbean.

Following the Spanish-American War in 1898, Marines fought during the Philippine Insurrection, the Boxer Rebellion in China, in Nicaragua, Panama, The Dominican Republic, Cuba, Mexico and Haiti.

In World War I, Marines distinguished themselves on the battlefields of France, as the 4th Marine Brigade earned the title of "Devil Dogs" for actions at Belleau Wood, Soissons, St. Michiel, Blanc Mont and the final Muesse-Argonne offensive. Marine aviation, which began in 1912, was used for the first time in a close-air support role during WWI. More than 309,000 Marines served in France and more than a third were killed or wounded in six months of intense fighting.

During the two decades before World War II, the Marine Corps began to more completely develop its doctrine and organization for amphibious warfare. The success of this effort was proven at Guadalcanal, Bougainville, Tarawa, New Britain, Kwajalein, Eniwetok, Saipan, Guam, Tinian, Peleliu, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. By the war's end in 1945, the Corps had grown to include six divisions, five air wings and supporting troops, about 485,000 Marines. Nearly 87,000 Marines were killed or wounded during WWII and 82 earned the Medal of Honor.

As the Marine Corps attempted to modify the Fleet Marine Force (FMF) for operations in the nuclear age, the Corps began a decade long struggle to save the FMF and, in affect, its own existence. The Marine Corps had peaked in strength in 1945 at nearly half a million men in six divisions and five aircraft wings. The postwar Corps shrank to fit federal budgets rather than adjust realistically to fit the contingency needs of the Cold War era. Available manpower fell to 83,000 men in 1948 and dropped to just over 74,000 by the spring of 1950. About 50,000 men were assigned to the operating forces, but the FMF had only about 30,000 men in the two skeltal divisions and aircraft wings. Fewer than 12,000 Marines comprised FMFPac which included the 1st Division at Camp Pendleton and the 1st Marine Aircraft Wing (MAW) at El Toro, California. On the East Coast, the 2d Division at Camp Lejeune and the 2d MAW at Cherry Point, making up FMFLant, numbered just under 16,000 Marines. At the outbreak of the Korean War, no Marine unit of any size was based or deployed in the Far East.

The Corps' supporting establishment was so small and its tasks for maintaining Marine Corps bases so extensive that many FMF troops spent more time housekeeping than training. The Marine Corps share of the federal budget was simply not enough to buy adequate manpower, training, or new equipment. The main threat to the nation was seen in inflation and unbalanced budgets rather than in the Soviet armed forces. On the eve of the Korean War, the FMF seemed doomed to fall to six battalion landing teams and twelve squadrons in 1950.

While Marine units were taking part in the post-war occupation of Japan and North China, studies at Quantico, Va., concentrated on attaining a "vertical envelopment" capability for the Corps through the use of helicopters. Landing at Inchon, Korea, in September 1950, Marines proved that the doctrine of amphibious assault was still viable and necessary. After the recapture of Seoul, the Marines advanced to the Chosin Reservoir only to see the Chinese Communists enter the war. In March, 1955, after five years of hard fighting, the last Marine ground forces were withdrawn. More than 25,000 Marines were killed or wounded during the Korean War.

The realities of the Korean War brought major changes in the basing and deployment of Marine Corps forces. The Corps strength ballooned to 192,000 men in June 1951, to 232,000 a year later and nearly 250,000 by June 1953. More than half the troops actually served in the operating forces, and the 1st Marine Division and 1st MAW, operationally employed in Korea, were kept up to strength. In the meantime, the 2d Marine Division and 2d MAW reached full strength for their European contingencies. In June 1951 Headquarters activated the 3d Marine Brigade, built around the 3d Marines at Camp Pendleton. In 1952 the brigade expanded to become the 3d Marine Division, and the same year the 3d MAW formed and occupied a new base in Miami. In another important reorganization, Headquarters in 1951 formed an organization known as Force Troops in order to provide the heavy artillery and other combat support and combat service support units necessary to sustain a Marine division in a land war.

The three-division/three-wing force structure decreed by the June 1952 passage of the Douglas-Mansfield Act, gave legislative support to the stated roles and missions of the Corps. The defense assumptions and programs of the Eisenhower Administration, however, left the Marine Corps role, and the corresponding basing and deployment strategy, less clearly defined. The emphasis on strategic forces over conventional forces, coupled with domestic economic implications of high defense costs and unbalanced federal budgets, challenged Marine Corps leaders of this period.

During the years 1953 to 1955, significant changes in the basing and deployment of Marine forces were realized. The 3d Marine Division deployed from Camp Pendleton to the Far East in the summer of 1953. Based in Japan, the Division followed regimental landings in Japan and Okinawa with a full-dress division landing exercise on Iwo Jima in March 1954. Significantly, the division began redeploying from Japan to Okinawa in 1955 and by February 1956 the Headquarters of the 3d Marine Division was moved to Okinawa where its remains today. Teamed with the 3d Division, the bulk of the 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, in Japan with headquarters at Atsugi, provided the air portion of a ready U.S. expeditionary force in the Far East.

The 1st Marine Division, meanwhile, which had been in Korea since the summer of 1950, was returned to Camp Pendleton in 1955. The 3d MAW during the same period moved from the East to the West Coast to support Pacific deployments.

In 1954, the 1st Provisional Marine Air-Ground Task Force, built around a reinforced infantry regiment and a reinforced air group, was established at Hawaii in response to strategic requirements in the Pacific Theater. One reinforced regiment of the 3d Marine Division, together with elements of the 1st Marine Aircraft Wing were shifted from the Far East to Oahu to build the task force, later called the 1st Marine Brigade, to desired strength.

On the other side of the world, the commitment of a Marine battalion landing team to the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean, which began in 1948, continued except for brief periods in 1950-51 and 1955. During the Korean War, this practice was briefly interrupted due to wartime needs and during 1955 a reduction in amphibious shipping forced the termination of the rotating assignment for nearly a year. The deployment to the Sixth Fleet was designed to give the fleet commander a ready landing force in an area left unstable in the aftermath of World War II.

Events in the Far East from 1955 on likewise pointed out the need for a ready battalion of Marines afloat with the fleet, and from 1960 on, the 3d Marine Division maintained such a floating battalion under Commander Seventh Fleet.

In July 1958, a brigade-size force landed in Lebanon to restore order. During the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, a large amphibious force was assembled, but not landed. In April 1965, a brigade of Marines landed in the Dominican Republic to protect Americans and evacuate those who wished to leave.

The period from 1956-1960 witnessed the Corps' continuing development of a permanent base structure to support its force in readiness mission as well as the procurement of supplies and equipment for a wide range of contingencies. Bases were developed stateside for cold-weather training at Pickel Meadows, and for desert warfare and supporting arms training at Twentynine Palms, both in California. Budget cuts and resulting reduced end strengths, however, became formidable obstacles to meeting desired manning levels for FMF units. The reductions resulted in all three divisions being placed on reduced manning levels in 1957 and total Marine Corps strength fell below 200,000. Commandant of the Marine Corps Annual Reports for the years 1957 through 1960 reflect the reduced manning levels throughout the FMF, stating of the Divisions and Wings, "their capability for sustained combat has been seriously diminished." Reserve training also suffered during this period due to lack of funding.

By 1960, Marine Corps strength had fallen to 170,000 - down 30,000 in just three years. Over the same period the Marine Corps "green dollar" budget dropped from an already austere $942 million in FY1958 to $902 million in FY1961. Certain elements of the FMF had to be placed in cadre status. Perhaps just as damaging to the Corps' readiness posture was the low priority given in the "blue dollar" budget to the construction of amphibious shipping and particularly helicopter-carrying ships, which threatened the development of the vertical assault mission.

To improve readiness in the Pacific, a system was implemented to rotate infantry battalions between the 3d and 1st Divisions. Beginning in 1959, the "transplacement" program had battalions forming and training in the 1st Division, then deploying to Okinawa for fifteen months' service as a cohesive unit. The 2d Division began a similar program in 1960 which aided personnel stability and continuity, but as in the Pacific, it meant that several battalions could not be easily deployed in a crisis.

Nevertheless, in 1960 the Marine Corps began a five-year surge in its readiness that brought it to its highest level of peacetime effectiveness by the eve of the Vietnam War. The results of the Presidential election of 1960, coupled with internal redirection in the Corps, combined to form the highly favorable conditions for the Marine Corps to consolidate its amphibious force in readiness mission. The "Flexible Response" strategy of the new administration was ideally suited to the Marine Corps -- stressing conventional force improvements in manpower, equipment modernization, and strategic mobility. Marine Corps budgets grew, as did the strength ceilings, and just as significantly, improvements were realized in obtaining amphibious shipping. During this period, as well, Headquarters enhanced the readiness of the Reserve with the formation of the 4th Marine Division and 4th Marine Aircraft Wing in the Marine Corps Organized Reserve.

The combination of increased amphibious exercises and contingency deployments kept the tactical units of the FMF busy during the early 1960s. The size of the possible Marine role in Europe grew as Headquarters aimed at a larger role in NATO. In 1964 II MEF conducted Operation Steel Pike I, an amphibious exercise in Spanish waters that exceeded all earlier exercises in both the size of the Marine force deployed and the distance covered. An amphibious force of 60 ships carried 22,000 Marines and over 5,000 vehicles to the amphibious objective area.

While FMF Atlantic forces were being exercized in Europe, the Caribbean, and Africa, FMF Pacific units trained throughout the Far East, Hawaii, and California. In 1964 there were 45 landing exercises worldwide, and by the beginning of the major U.S. involvement in Vietnam, in 1965, the FMF, both regular and Reserve, was as effective a force as the Corps had ever fielded in peacetime.

The landing of the 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade at Da Nang in 1965 marked the beginning of a large-scale Marine involvement in Vietnam. By the summer of 1968, after the enemy's Tet Offensive, Marine Corps strength in Vietnam rose to about 85,000. The Marine withdrawal began in 1969 as the South Vietnamese began to assume a larger role in the fighting. The last ground forces left Vietnam by June 1971. The Vietnam War, the longest in the history of the Marine Corps, exacted a high cost, with more than 13,000 Marines killed and 88,000 wounded.

The Vietnam War proved to be the ultimate test of the Corps' basing and deployment decisions of the 1950s and early 1960s. From the March 1965 landing of Marine ground troops as Da Nang until the departure of the last large Marine units in June 1971, the war impacted drastically on all Marine forces within and outside the III Marine Amphibious Force. Peak Marine strength in Vietnam was reached in 1968 when more than 85,000 Marines were in Vietnam out of a Marine Corps numbering just over 300,000.

By 1972 the Marine Corps was once again down to 200,000 men and post-Vietnam redeployments had returned the Corps to the same basing and deployment patterns that had been in effect from 1960 to 1965. The 3d Marine Division was back on Okinawa and the 1st Marine Brigade had been reconstituted in Hawaii. The 1st Marine Division was back in Camp Pendleton and the 3d MAW remained at El Toro. On the East Coast, the 2d Marine Division and 2d MAW remained in North Carolina.

In July 1974, Marines evacuated U.S. citizens and foreign nationals during the unrest in Cyprus.

During the 1970s, the Marine Corps assumed an increasingly significant role in defending NATO's northern flank as amphibious units of the 2nd Marine Division participated in exercises throughout northern Europe.

As it moved into the 1970s, the Marine Corps once again faced close scrutiny of its missions, force structure, and personnel policies. The Marine Corps continued to emphasize global strategic flexibility and reemphasized the Corps' amphibious mission, developing the concept of "sea-basing," which aimed at greatly increasing sea-borne logistic support. At the same time, FMF Atlantic launched its first time NATO exercise outside the Mediterranean when a Marine Amphibious Unit (MAU) conducted maneuvers in Norway and northern Germany in 1975. These exercises, which became annual and expanded to brigade size, and their underlying mission of preparing to assist in the defense of NATO's Northern flank, represented the Marine Corps single most significant change in deployment patterns until the end of the decade.

The revolution in Iran, the seizure of the U.S. Embassy and hostages there, and the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979 gave impetus to a Department of Defense plan to improve U.S. non-NATO military capability. The Rapid Deployment Force was created in response to the realization of the range of contingencies short of general war that faced the United States. In particular, the CONUS-based joint task force, with designated forces from all four services, was created with responsibility for operational planning, training, and exercises for designated rapid deployment forces worldwide with the initial focus on Southwest Asia and the Indian Ocean. The new force widened the FMF's force in readiness role without compromising its amphibious mission.

The Corps played a key role in the development of the Rapid Deployment Force, a multi-service organization created to ensure a flexible, timely military response around the world. The Maritime Pre-Positioning Ships (MPS) Program was instituted in late 1979 with the goal of providing three Marine amphibious brigades ready for airlift to potential crisis areas where they would unite previously positioned ships carrying their equipment and supplies. The MPS concept gave the Marine Corps and the U.S. a significant new dimension in mobility, sustainability, and the global response.

An increasing number of terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies around the world took place in the 1980s. In August 1982, Marines landed at Beirut, Lebanon, as part of a multinational peacekeeping force. For the next 19 months these units faced the hazards of their mission with courage and professionalism. In October 1983, Marines took part in the highly successful, short-notice intervention in Grenada.

In December 1989, Marines responded to instability in Central America during Operation Just Cause in Panama to protect American lives and restore democracy.

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 led to the largest movement of Marine forces since World War II. Between August 1990 and January 1991, 24 infantry battalions, 40 squadrons (more than 92,000 Marines) deployed to the Persian Gulf as part of Operation Desert Shield. The air campaign of Operation Desert Storm began Jan. 16, 1991, followed by the main overland attack Feb. 24 when the 1st and 2nd Marine Divisions breached the Iraqi defense lines and stormed into occupied Kuwait. Meanwhile, the threat from the sea in the form of Marine Expeditionary Brigades held 50,000 Iraqis in check along the Kuwait coast. By the morning of Feb. 28, 100 hours after the ground war began, the Iraqi army was no longer a threat.

In December 1992, Marines landed in Somalia marking the beginning of a two-year humanitarian relief operation there. In another part of the world, land-and carrier-based Marine Corps fighter-attack squadrons and electronic warfare aircraft supported Operation Deny Flight in the no-fly zone over Bosnia-Herzegovina. During April 1994, Marines once again demonstrated their ability to protect American citizens in remote parts of the world when a Marine task force evacuated 142 U.S. citizens from Rwanda in response to civil unrest in that country.

Closer to home, Marines went ashore in September 1994 at Cape Haitian, Haiti, as part of the U.S. force participating in the restoration of democracy in that country. At the same time, Marines were actively engaged in providing assistance to America's counter-drug effort, battling wildfires in the western United States, and aiding in flood and hurricane relief operations.

The Marine Corps continued its tradition of innovation to meet the challenges of a new century. The Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory was created in 1995 to evaluate change, assess the impact of new technologies on warfighting, and expedite the introduction of new capabilities into the operating forces of the Marine Corps. Exercises such as “Hunter Warrior,” and “Urban Warrior” were designed to explore future tactical concepts, and to examine facets of military operations in urban environments.

During the late 1990's, Marine Corps units deployed to several African nations, including Liberia, the Central African Republic, Zaire, and Eritrea, in order to provide security and assist in the evacuation of American citizens during periods of political and civil instability in those nations.

Humanitarian and disaster relief operations were also conducted by Marines during 1998 in Kenya, and in the Central American nations of Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala. In 1999, Marine units deployed to Kosovo in support of Operation Allied Force. Soon after the September 2001 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., Marine units deployed to the Arabian Sea and in November set up a forward operating base in southern Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.

In 2002, the Marine Corps continued to play a key role in the Global War on Terrorism. Marines operated in diverse locations, from Afghanistan, to the Arabian Gulf, to the Horn of Africa and the Philippines. Early 2003 saw the largest deployment of Marine forces since the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91 when 76,000 Marines deployed to the Central Command area for combat operations against Iraq.

The I Marine Expeditionary Force, including Task Force Tarawa and the United Kingdom’s 1st Armored Division, were the first conventional ground units to enter Iraq in late March as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Fixed-wing and helicopter aircraft from the 3d Marine Air Wing provided continuous close air and assault support to Marine and coalition units as they drove deeper into Iraq. On the ground, Marines from I MEF moved nearly 400 miles from the Kuwait border to Baghdad and Tikrit, Iraq, and eliminated the last organized resistance by Iraqi military forces. Although I MEF would transition to stabilization and security operations and then redeploy to the U.S. by late September, I MEF began preparing for a return to Iraq in early 2004. The adaptability and reliability of Marine forces continued to be highlighted around the world from the Horn of Africa to Haiti and to the Philippines.

Across the U.S., Marine units from both coasts fought and contained wildfires, and also supported hurricane relief efforts in various parts of the country. In December, 2004, a tsunami struck numerous nations in the Indian Ocean region killing more than 150,000 and causing enormous devastation. Marine units from III MEF were immediately deployed to Thailand, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka to assist in disaster relief operations.

In early 2005, the II Marine Expeditionary Force replaced I MEF in Iraq as the primary focus began to shift to partnership operations with the Iraqi Security Forces. Marine units continued to provide air and ground support to Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. Closer to home, the flexibility and responsiveness of the Navy/Marine team was exhibited during September and October when nearly 3000 Marines and sailors conducted search and rescue, humanitarian relief, and disaster recovery operations in Louisiana and Mississippi in the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Iraqi security forces assumed responsibility for security of Al Anbar Province on o1 September 2008. The Marine Corps main area of operation, Al Anbar was the 11th of Iraq’s 18 provinces to come under provincial Iraqi control. Marines remained deployed to the area to provide support and training to the Iraqi security forces. The last of the 3,000 Marines stationed in Fallujah, Iraq, were pulled out of the city center on 14 November 2008 as part of the U.S. plan to hand security operations for the city over to Iraqi security forces. On 03 December 2008 Marines with RCT-5 finalized the demilitarization of the Haditha Dam located along the Euphrates River in Iraq. Security for the area was turned over to the Iraqi government.

Security in Afghanistan has worsened significantly in the 3 years after 2006, impeding both U.S. and international partners' efforts to stabilize and rebuild the country. The security situation, including the overall increase in insurgent attacks from 2005 to 2008, is the result of a variety of factors including a resurgence of the Taliban in the south, the limited capabilities of Afghan security forces, a continuing and thriving illicit drug trade in the south, and the threat emanating from insurgent safe havens in Pakistan. In discussing his new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan in March 2009, the President noted his goals were to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.

By 2012 nearly 20,000 Marines were conducting combat operations in Afghanistan. Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF) remained the top priority. Marines reported seeing measurable progress along all lines of operation in the Helmand Province: security, reintegration, rule of law, governance, development, education and health. Over the previous year, violence and the level of collateral damage had decreased significantly. Throughout 2012, Marines in Regional Command-Southwest [RC(SW)] continued transitioning to partnership training missions as they transfered even greater security responsibility to the maturing Afghan National Security Forces; police and army forces in Helmand province have progressed in training and capability.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AMDR

Richard Arvine Overton, the oldest Surviving American World War 2 Veteran at 108 years old

Richard Arvine Overton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## AMDR

*F-35C Joint Strike Fighter first at-sea test off SD a success*
San Diego Source > News > F-35C Joint Strike Fighter first at-sea test off SD a success





_The F-35C Lightning II carrier variant Joint Strike Fighter conducted its first carrier-based night flight operations aboard the USS Nimitz Nov. 13. LCDR Ted "Dutch" Dyckman piloted aircraft CF-03 for the inaugural night flight, taking off at 6:01 pm. Dyckman conducted a series of planned touch and goes before making an arrested landing at 6:40 pm. Photo by U.S. Navy_

Ten days into a two-week developmental test onboard the _USS Nimitz_ off San Diego, the Navy’s new F-35 carrier variant Joint Strike Fighter jet is performing well, successfully completing its first catapult launches and arrested landings on and off the aircraft carrier.

Test pilot Lt. Cmdr. Ted “Dutch” Dyckman piloted the inaugural night flight Thursday, taking off at 6:01 p.m., conducting a series of planned touch-and-goes and making an arrested landing at 6:40 p.m. Even before the night operations were completed, testing was ahead of schedule with 95 percent of the scenarios run.

“What we have remaining is we’re just going to do a night evaluation, so night taxi as well as takeoff and landings, we have catapult launches in cross-wind conditions … and then we have some additional high wind over deck recoveries — 40-45 knot recoveries,” said Cmdr. Shawn Kern, director of test and evaluation for F-35 naval variants.

In the roughly 100 catapult launches the four test pilots and _Nimitz_ crew have conducted in this first phase onboard a carrier — DT-II and DT-III will follow in the next two years — the JSF has successfully caught the wire 102 times, with 214 planned touch-and-go landings.

It technically has not boltered — landed past the fourth and final wire — though it would have one time, had the pilot been attempting to land instead of touch and go. The jet missed the fourth wire, although its hook wasn’t out.

“We’re out here conducting the Super Bowl of flight tests,” said Cmdr. Tony “Brick” Wilson, the Navy test pilot who landed the F-35C for the first time Nov. 3.

“We came out here with a well laid-out plan, and we’re executing that plan. The machine was mature and ready to come out here. Just like any other developmental test, we are learning things, but everything that we’re learning is extremely minor.”

Wilson wouldn’t comment on what the minor issues were.

This first phase of testing is focused on how the JSF hooks up to the catapult, launches, lands and integrates into the carrier environment in terms of taxiing around the flight deck and maneuvering to the hangar bay.

During the second test phase, expected in 2015, weapons will be added, but only within the jet’s bomb bay.

The third test phase, set for 2016, will gather data on the jet’s performance with weapons systems both in the bomb bay and under the wings. Any effect of the weapons’ added weight — which includes a 26 mm cannon, two air-to-air missiles and two 2,000-pound guided bombs — will be evaluated in later tests.

Thomas Briggs, air vehicle engineering department head at NAVAIR, said very little mission systems testing was conducted on the _Nimitz_, and only to gauge the interaction with the ship.

“We did a little bit of weapons testing just to load the weapons on, using the shipboard equipment in the shipboard environment,” Briggs said. “We did that; it worked fine.”

One of the bright spots in testing has been the success of the jet’s automated landing technology software within the flight control computers, called Delta Flight Path.

The software alleviates much of the multitasking pilots have to do when landing a 30,000-pound aircraft with a 35-foot wingspan in exactly the right spot to catch a wire less than 2 inches around, all on a moving ship sometimes plowing ahead at 30 knots.

“Delta Flight Path is revolutionary — it’s going to pay huge dividends for the Navy,” Wilson said. “It’s going to make landing on a boat a routine task, and right now landing on the boat is anything but a routine task. That is why the Navy invests so much money in training its pilots. … I can’t speak to whether or not we’re going to see any cost savings … but it does make landing on the boat routine. And fun.”

Landing signal officer Chris Karapostolus said he’s noticed the F-35C’s steadiness throughout the testing, even in strong and adverse wind conditions, as well as its ability to make corrections slightly faster than legacy aircraft, due to Delta Flight Path and the automation of the control laws.

One second may not sound like much, but when an entire landing occurs in just 15 to 18 seconds, it’s a big deal.

“A lot of the corrections the pilots have been able to make are something we would not typically see, or make us very uncomfortable on legacy platforms,” Karapostolus said.

“Pilots make very aggressive corrections, and the rate at which they’ll make those corrections is generally more than we’ll see out of legacy platforms. It all goes back to the control laws of how this aircraft is designed.

“If you have a Rhino aircraft, or any other legacy platform … a deviation might take you two or three seconds to get back to that center line on glide slope. This aircraft can do it a little bit quicker.”

During this testing phase, successful landings have been done manually, with Delta Flight Path, and in approach power compensator mode.

While the two Joint Strike Fighters on the _Nimitz_ have been performing well, the program itself has come under fire almost since its inception because of its high cost. At about $400 billion, it’s the most expensive weapons system ever — and there have been problems with its engine and software.

The cost per carrier-variant bird is now down to $130 million, although *Lockheed Martin* (NYSE: LMT), which built the aircraft, projects that will drop to $87 million when in full production.

The Navy has been ordering about two F-35Cs per year, with initial operating capability expected in 2018. At that point, the first complement of F-35C’s will be 10 jets in one squadron, and one squadron per aircraft carrier. As more come online, decisions will be made about increasing either squadron size or squadrons per ship to replace FA-18C Hornets.

“It’s been very positive feedback,” Kern said of the test results. “Obviously seeing the F-35 operate successfully in and around the carrier environment tells a positive story about the level of systems maturity we’ve got in the platform right now.

“I will say also the F-35C is envisioned in the Navy’s strategy as a replacement for the FA-18C, and obviously we’ve been well positioned with the FA-18 E and F to ensure we’ve got adequate combat capability in our fleet for quite some time.

“So the need for replacement on the Navy side is just starting to come to a head, as we see overhead costs for FA-18C and service-like limits for FA-18C starting to be reached.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"the JSF has successfully caught the wire 102 times, with 214 planned touch-and-go landings."

Seems like there is more good news about the F-35 every day

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AMDR

*Navy Upgrades Ship-Based Electronic Warfare*
Navy Upgrades Ship-Based Electronic Warfare | DoD Buzz

The Navy is upgrading its suite of electronic warfare technology currently on surface ships across the fleet in order to keep pace with emerging threats, service officials said.





_AN/SLQ-32 Electronic Warfare Suite_

The Navy has configured an Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer, the USS Bainbridge, with what’s called Block 2 of its SLQ-32 Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program, or SEWIP – a suite of upgraded electronic warfare sensors able to detect a wider range of threat signals than the existing system.






Block 2 SEWIP is an upgraded version of the existing AN/SLQ-32 electronic warfare system designed to provide early detection, signal analysis and threat warnings against anti-ship missiles and other threats, Navy officials said.


The USS Bainbridge is currently involved in operational testing as the Navy acquires its first 24 Block 2 SEWIP units. The technology is being produced by Lockheed Martin in a deal that could be worth up to $147 million, said Joe Ottaviano, SEWIP program director, Lockheed Martin.





_USS Bainbridge (DDG-96)_

“SEWIP is the Navy’s continued push to keep electronic warfare excellence ahead of the threat. It is an incremental set of upgrades to the SLQ-32 which was designed in the late 70s and deployed in the 80s. It gives the Navy the ability to upgrade and outpace the threat. It provides the ability to quickly upgrade processing as new threats come online and become more complex without overhauling the antenna,” Ottaviano said.

The Block 2 SEWIP advancements include upgrades to the antenna and digital receiver, Ottaviano said. Block 2 upgrades also include the addition of new software engineered to ensure the system is equipped to recognize new, emerging threat signals.

“It provides the digital architecture so it can quickly upgrade and provide additional capability as threats increase in capability,” Ottaviano added.

The Navy plans to configure as many as 140 surface ships with Block 2 SEWIP technology, including carriers, cruisers, destroyers and amphibs, among others.

The hardware to the system consists of above and below deck components including a display screen and processing technology, he added.

The hardware may be configured differently depending upon the structure of a given ship, Ottaviano explained. For example, the EW antenna on the Navy’s new destroyer, the DDG 1000, is conformed to align with the ship’s hull.

Following SEWIP Block 2, the Navy plans to develop and acquire a Block 3 SEWIP electronic attack technology, Navy and Lockheed officials said. In addition to “listening” or passive electromagnetic detection, Block 3 will include the ability to transmit signals and potentially jam or disrupt enemy signals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program *(SEWIP)
The US Navy -- Fact File: Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP)

*Description*
The AN/SLQ-32 Electronic Warfare (EW) system, introduced in the late 1970s, performs the mission of early detection, signal analysis, threat warning and protection from anti-ship missiles. It is an integrated shipboard combat system that provides a full suite of EW capabilities that can be managed and controlled manually from a console or semi-manually/auto by the host combat management system. In 2013, there were 258 systems, in 7 variants, deployed worldwide: 147 systems on US Navy ships (CVN, DDG, CG, FFG, LCC, LHA, LHD, LPD and LSD), 17 systems on US Coast Guard Cutters, and 94 Foreign Military Sales Transfers in 12 countries. The Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) is an evolutionary development block upgrade program for the AN/SLQ-32(V) EW system offering incremental enhancements in capability. There are currently three established block upgrades and a fourth is planned.

*Features*
SEWIP Block 1 provides enhanced EW capabilities to existing and new ship combat systems to improve anti-ship missile defense, counter targeting and counter surveillance capabilities. The upgrade addresses obsolescence mitigation through introduction of Electronic Surveillance Enhancements (ESE) and Improved Control and Display (ICAD) as well as incorporation of adjunct receivers for special signal intercept including Specific Emitter ID (SEI) and High Gain/High Sensitivity (HGHS). The SEI and HGHS capability provides improved battlefield situational awareness. The SEWIP Block 1 program is designated as an ACAT II program. Block 1A, Block 1B1, and Block 1B2 are in Full Rate Production. Block 1B3 (HGHS) is in Low Rate Initial Production. 


SEWIP Block 2 will provide enhanced Electronic Support (ES) capability by means of an upgraded ES antenna, ES receiver and an open combat system interface for the AN/SLQ-32. These upgrades are necessary in order to pace the threat and improve detection and accuracy capabilities of the AN/SLQ-32. The SEWIP Block 2 program is designated as an ACAT II program. Milestone C was achieved in January 2013 with approval to begin Low Rate Initial Production. 


SEWIP Block 3 will provide Electronic Attack (EA) capability improvements required for the AN/SLQ-32(V) system to keep pace with the threat. This block upgrade will provide a common EA capability to all surface combatants outfitted with the active variant of the AN/SLQ-32. SEWIP Block 3 development will leverage technology developed under the Office of Naval Research (ONR) Integrated Topside (InTop) Science and Technology (S&T) effort. The SEWIP Block 3 program is designated as an ACAT II program and is currently in the Technology Development Phase. 


SEWIP Block 4 is a future planned upgrade that will provide advanced electro-optic and infrared capabilities to the AN/SLQ-32(V) system.

*Background*
SEWIP was established as an ACAT II program in July 2002 after cancellation of Advanced Integrated Electronic Warfare System (AIEWS). Through incremental upgrades using an evolutionary acquisition strategy, the AN/SLQ-32(V) is being modernized to mitigate obsolescence and delivery advanced ES and EA capability to the Fleet.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
5


----------



## AMDR

*U.S. Navy sees decision soon on follow-on for LCS*
U.S. Navy sees decision soon on follow-on for LCS warship| Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is expected to make a decision soon on how to make a new class of smaller warships more lethal and survivable, the Navy's top admiral said on Saturday.

Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert expected a quick decision based on a recommendation submitted by the Navy, but gave no details.

"The Secretary is very close to a decision," Greenert told Reuters in an interview at a defense conference at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

"It was our endeavor to provide an option which would provide a more lethal ship, one that is more survivable, with capabilities that can be backfit, and as much as feasible, not interrupt production."

He expected the decision to be announced in the near future, along with a description of the new plan.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel ordered a pause in the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program and asked for a review of options before the Navy ordered the last 20 ships in the 52-ship program. At the time, he expressed concerns about the survivability and firepower of the current designs.

Lockheed Martin Corp and Australia's Austal are building two separate designs of the new warships. The companies are waiting for a decision on the new "Small Surface Combatant," which could affect funding for future ships.

Navy officials have said they expect the decision to inform their fiscal 2016 budget request and an associated five-year spending plan, which will be submitted to Congress in February.

The new class of LCS ships will expand the Navy's ability to hunt mines, submarines and conduct surface warfare closer to shore than larger destroyers.

The USS Fort Worth, the third LCS ship built and the second in the Freedom-class built by Lockheed, is leaving on a 16-month deployment to Asia on Monday.

By 2018, the Navy expects to have four of the ships in the region, operating mainly out of Singapore.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*Steel Beach- When US Navy Ships Throw Giant Beach Picnic Parties*







As almost half the country watches their thermometers drop well below freezing this week, we can all take a look at how the Navy gets some warm rays without having any land in sight. 'Steel Beach,' as these events are called, evolved from your great grandfather's swim-calls. Since then they have come a long way and now can include BBQs, Volleyball, kiddie pools, carnival games, 5k runs and even beer.






Taking place on everything from the flight decks of the Navy's massive nuclear aircraft carriers, to the surfaced backs of nuclear submarines, Steel Beach gives overworked crews a day to unwind, catch some sunlight and remember that there is a life outside of their posts.

For decades, Steel Beach events were more or less a big male only beach party. Now, with the integration of the sexes across the Navy's fleet, they are a coed and a more politically correct affair.

Seeing pictures of a super carrier during a Steel Beach day can be quite daunting, especially if the entire air wing is deployed. The carrier's 4.5 acre flight deck, which looks expansive even when 25 ton fighters are operating from it, looks much smaller when thousands of people mingle pour out onto it. It is just another reminder of just how big of a floating town the super carrier really is, with about 5,500 people embarked during cruise (that is equivalent to exactly five of my high schools!).






The 'Gator Navy's' collection of LSD, LHDs and LPDs, which have both a large flight deck and a giant semi-submersible well deck, have the advantage of being able to turn their sterns into massive indoor swimming pools or literally beaches made of steel (see also the top picture in this post).






It is definitely a change of scenery when you see gobs of people in civilian clothes mingling among some of the most advanced weaponry in the world. Nothing like eating some BBQ while sitting on top of a Tomahawk Cruise missile, an SM-2/3 surface-to-air missile, or below a Super Hornet armed with AMRAAMs and Sidewinders.

_The Vertical Launch System "cell block" makes a great place to chill out during a Steel Beach picnic on this Ticonderoga Class cruiser._






Steel Beach cookouts usually go hand in hand with other smaller events and activities. Music is a staple, live or via DJ, and everything including 5k marathons, carnival-like activities, sunbathing, swim calls, basketball and volleyball games and even fishing can be a part of the day's events. Sometimes, unique activities such as boxing matches, concerts, or a fireworks displays are paired with Steel Beach events.


























In the past, on seemingly rare occasions, 'Beer Day' can coincide with Steel Beach. For 100 years US Navy ships have been technically dry (unlike many other Navies), but after 45 days of continuous sailing, with at least five days till a port of call, a Beer Day can occur at the COs discretion and on approval from higher-ups.

Beer Days seem to be a very rare occurrence these days, but I am told they do happen. During which, each crewman of age that does not have near-term staffing commitments, will be allowed to have two beers. Usually they are of the crappy variety (see Natty Light), but they are very much well invited nonetheless.

In the end, Steel Beach is a day off for many of a ship's crew more than anything else, and it is an especially useful 'tactic' when Carrier Groups have been running cyclic operations during combat situations and coming in for a port visit is not in the cards. Considering that many jobs on US Navy surface combatants, and all jobs on submarines for that matter, can mean not seeing much daylight for weeks at a time, getting out and seeing the horizon while breathing some fresh air is a sweet reward in itself. Steel Beach is just form of resourceful icing on that metaphorical cake.






From Steel Beach- When US Navy Ships Throw Giant Beach Picnic Parties

*My comments

I spent three weeks on SSN-781, for electronic systems integration and certification, when we had a chance to swim off boat or along side other navy assets two men would always stand watch over us with either an M14 or M16, not to keep us in line, but to ward off any curious sharks in the area.

@Nihonjin1051 - You guys have anything like this in the JMSDF?
@AMDR - this is what you have to look forward too if you go into the navy... in the air force you get an air conditioned office and a golf course though. Tough choice!

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## AMDR

SvenSvensonov said:


> *Steel Beach- When US Navy Ships Throw Giant Beach Picnic Parties*
> 
> View attachment 152809
> 
> 
> As almost half the country watches their thermometers drop well below freezing this week, we can all take a look at how the Navy gets some warm rays without having any land in sight. 'Steel Beach,' as these events are called, evolved from your great grandfather's swim-calls. Since then they have come a long way and now can include BBQs, Volleyball, kiddie pools, carnival games, 5k runs and even beer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taking place on everything from the flight decks of the Navy's massive nuclear aircraft carriers, to the surfaced backs of nuclear submarines, Steel Beach gives overworked crews a day to unwind, catch some sunlight and remember that there is a life outside of their posts.
> 
> For decades, Steel Beach events were more or less a big male only beach party. Now, with the integration of the sexes across the Navy's fleet, they are a coed and a more politically correct affair.
> 
> Seeing pictures of a super carrier during a Steel Beach day can be quite daunting, especially if the entire air wing is deployed. The carrier's 4.5 acre flight deck, which looks expansive even when 25 ton fighters are operating from it, looks much smaller when thousands of people mingle pour out onto it. It is just another reminder of just how big of a floating town the super carrier really is, with about 5,500 people embarked during cruise (that is equivalent to exactly five of my high schools!).
> 
> View attachment 152810
> 
> 
> The 'Gator Navy's' collection of LSD, LHDs and LPDs, which have both a large flight deck and a giant semi-submersible well deck, have the advantage of being able to turn their sterns into massive indoor swimming pools or literally beaches made of steel (see also the top picture in this post).
> 
> View attachment 152811
> 
> 
> It is definitely a change of scenery when you see gobs of people in civilian clothes mingling among some of the most advanced weaponry in the world. Nothing like eating some BBQ while sitting on top of a Tomahawk Cruise missile, an SM-2/3 surface-to-air missile, or below a Super Hornet armed with AMRAAMs and Sidewinders.
> 
> _The Vertical Launch System "cell block" makes a great place to chill out during a Steel Beach picnic on this Ticonderoga Class cruiser._
> 
> View attachment 152812
> 
> 
> Steel Beach cookouts usually go hand in hand with other smaller events and activities. Music is a staple, live or via DJ, and everything including 5k marathons, carnival-like activities, sunbathing, swim calls, basketball and volleyball games and even fishing can be a part of the day's events. Sometimes, unique activities such as boxing matches, concerts, or a fireworks displays are paired with Steel Beach events.
> 
> View attachment 152813
> 
> 
> View attachment 152814
> 
> 
> View attachment 152815
> 
> 
> View attachment 152816
> 
> 
> View attachment 152817
> 
> 
> In the past, on seemingly rare occasions, 'Beer Day' can coincide with Steel Beach. For 100 years US Navy ships have been technically dry (unlike many other Navies), but after 45 days of continuous sailing, with at least five days till a port of call, a Beer Day can occur at the COs discretion and on approval from higher-ups.
> 
> Beer Days seem to be a very rare occurrence these days, but I am told they do happen. During which, each crewman of age that does not have near-term staffing commitments, will be allowed to have two beers. Usually they are of the crappy variety (see Natty Light), but they are very much well invited nonetheless.
> 
> In the end, Steel Beach is a day off for many of a ship's crew more than anything else, and it is an especially useful 'tactic' when Carrier Groups have been running cyclic operations during combat situations and coming in for a port visit is not in the cards. Considering that many jobs on US Navy surface combatants, and all jobs on submarines for that matter, can mean not seeing much daylight for weeks at a time, getting out and seeing the horizon while breathing some fresh air is a sweet reward in itself. Steel Beach is just form of resourceful icing on that metaphorical cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From Steel Beach- When US Navy Ships Throw Giant Beach Picnic Parties
> 
> *My comments
> 
> I spent three weeks on SSN-781, for electronic systems integration and certification, when we had a chance to swim off boat or along side other navy assets two men would always stand watch over us with either an M14 or M16, not to keep us in line, but to ward off any curious sharks in the area.
> 
> @Nihonjin1051 - You guys have anything like this in the JMSDF?
> @AMDR - this is what you have to look forward too if you go into the navy... in the air force you get an air conditioned office and a golf course though. Tough choice!




Screw the air-conditioned office and the golf course!
Have a gigantic BBQ with 5,000 people on a $5 billion aircraft carrier in the middle of the Pacific? *YES
*

Seriously tho, that is awesome


----------



## gambit

I know a couple submariners when I used to live/work in Boise, ID, and subs do have 'steel beach' parties as well.


----------



## SvenSvensonov

gambit said:


> I know a couple submariners when I used to live/work in Boise, ID, and subs do have 'steel beach' parties as well.



You're absolutely right about that, the sub guys aren't left out!

Every time I watch this first video, I think the first guy jumping is going to smack his head and trigger a man-overboard situation!






This second video is a collection of pictures of submariners enjoying Steel Beach.
















Steel Beach is great unless you get stuck on shark duty!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AMDR

*Hagel lists key technologies for US Military; Launches "Offset" Strategy *
Hagel Lists Key Technologies For US Military; Launches ‘Offset Strategy’ « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

REAGAN LIBRARY: After months of build-up, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel formally launched the military’s quest for a combination of new technologies to maintain America’s military supremacy over the next 20 years in the face of Russian and Chinese challenges.

In a speech before the second Reagan National Defense Forum here, Hagel divulged some crucial details as to how America could preserve its endangered technological superiority. The next morning, the Pentagon released Hagel’s memo about the effort, below.










Inside the Pentagon, this effort is known as the “Offset Strategy,” a military-industrial term of art for a cluster of technological breakthroughs that can give the US its edge over potential enemies. Nuclear weapons and their delivery systems played this role in Eisenhower’s “New Look,” offsetting (hence the term) Soviet numbers; smart weapons, stealth, sensors, andcomputer networks were the heart of the 1970s “Offset Strategy.” also aimed at the Soviets. Other nations have followed our lead and now both nukes and, increasingly, smart weapons are proliferating around the world, dulling America’s edge. So what’s at the heart of the “Third Offset Strategy”?

There’s no exhaustive list, but after what must have been agonizing negotiation among Pentagon staffers over every word, the following technologies made it into Hagel’s speech tonight as priority areas for the Pentagon’s dwindling investment funds: “robotics,autonomous systems, miniaturization, big data, and advanced manufacturing, including 3-D printing.”

So what do these priorities mean?


“*Robotics*” and “*autonomous systems*” are two parts of the same thing: War machines that are not only unmanned, but able to assess situations and make decisions on their own — _without _the constant human monitoring by remote control that’s required for current systems like the Predator drone or bomb-handling robots. Ultimately this means computers deciding whether or not to kill people, a tremendous ethical, legal, and programming challenge. But current remote-controlled systems require many human overseers, which the military can no longer afford as personnel costs rise, and constant uninterrupted communications, which the military can no longer guarantee as potential adversaries get better at jamming and hacking.
Why *miniaturization*? If you can take the bulky human being out of a weapons system — and all the life-support equipment and armor protection a human requires — then you can make the rest of it really small and cheap. Making the most of that opportunity puts a premium on making every component smaller, from warheads to sensors to electronics. The ultimate goal is “swarms” of small, expendable autonomous weapons, perhaps a cross between a guided missile (or torpedo) and a drone.
*Big Data* has become a big buzzword in recent years. But the military knows better than anyone that you can drown in data — NSA intercepts, Predator video, etc. — if you don’t have a smart way to analyze it. Currently, the military relies all too much on rooms full of young enlisted personnel staring at screens until their eyes glaze over. Commercial techniques for analyzing “big data” can, in theory, create algorithms that do at least the preliminary winnowing of all this intelligence data without human intervention (notice a theme here?), highlighting potential patterns or anomalies for the human analysts to spend their limited time on.
*Advanced manufacturing* is a tremendously vague term — it’s widely used to mean, in essence, “manufacturing techniques I like” — but Hagel helps us out here by specifying *3-D printing* in particular. Traditional manufacturing, and traditional defense contracting for that matter, are about designing something once and then mass-producing it for years. 3-D printing allows constant, quick changes to try out brand new technology or customize existing tech for a particular situation. That’s a perfect match for a military of miniaturized autonomous weapons, where you churn out, say, mini-drones on demand to meet a specific mission. In the best case, individual warships and ground units could carry 3-D printers with them to produce spare parts as needed, freeing themselves from long lines of supply.
Notably absent from tonight’s list are cyber warfare tools, the one growing area of the budget — perhaps Hagel thought it already got enough attention? — and electronic warfare, cyber’s less publicly sexy older sister, which after two decades of neglect has gotten some traction in recent speeches by top officials. Likewise missing were hypersonics, undersea warfare, and long-range strike, three other priorities that have often come up in these discussions. But while being name-checked by the SecDef is a big deal, it hardly means technologies _not_ listed in this speech will be neglected.

After all, one of the keys for a successful strategy is that your opponents not know key details and be misled about others.

Hagel made clear he was casting a wide net to catch as many good ideas from as many sources as possible. He’s well aware that most innovation nowadays comes from outside “traditional defense contractors,” he said, “so we will actively seek proposals from the private sector, including from firms and academic institutions outside DoD’s traditional orbit.” It’s worth noting that the second-most-senior speaker at the conference, Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. James Winnefeld, pointedly mentioned he’d come to the event straight from a morning of meetings in Silicon Valley. The head of Cyber Command, Adm. Michael Rogers, also emphasized at the conference that he’s been to Silicon Valley twice in his seven months at CYBERCOM.

But this kind of outreach is just the beginning. In the near future, Hagel said, the department “will invite some of the brightest minds from inside and outside government to start with a clean sheet of paper and assess what technologies and systems DoD ought to develop over the next 3 to 5 years.”

Coordinating all these investments will be a “Long-Range Research and Development Planning Program,” a name lifted straight from the offset efforts of the 1970s. The top level of oversight will be an “Advanced Capability and Deterrence Panel” bringing in “senior leadership” from OSD policy, intelligence, the armed services, the Joint Chiefs, and the research, development and acquisition world.

Who will lead the panel? Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work, a former Marine Corps artilleryman and a hard-driving, outspoken technophile whose former thinktank, the Center for a New American Security, has pushed hard for robotics and 3-D printing in particular. (He’s also worked at the influential Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, which has published its own vision of an “offset strategy”). Before running CNAS, Work was Undersecretary of the Navy, where he tended to overshadow the softer-spoken Secretary,Ray Mabus. Hagel has already put Work in charge of overhauling the ailing nuclear force. Now he’ll also helm Hagel’s “Defense Innovation Initiative.”

“Clearly Work enjoys the full confidence of Secretary Hagel,” said CNAS scholar Shawn Brimley, who collaborated with Work to write a disconcerting study on “War in the Robotic Age.” That said, Brimley warned me in an email, “the devil is in the details, however, and we’ll see in the next few months if this rhetoric translates into budgetary reality.”

Ben Fitzgerald, another of Work’s old CNAS colleagues, agreed. Having listened to Hagel’s remarks, he told me that “I thought it was a good speech, said all the right things, but it’s also an early statement of intent, not a final product. It will be interesting to see to what extent this initiative is talking point deep or a serious implementation. Will ‘prioritizing autonomous systems,’ for example, lead to unmanned platforms instead of a mannedsixth generation fighter or will it just mean a couple of extra Switchblade variants? I hope that Pentagon and Congressional bureaucracy allow for the development and serious implementation of the vision that Hagel and Bob Work are starting to articulate.”

Hagel himself said the initiative’s “impact on DoD’s budget” will “scale up” over time. In other words, don’t expect a big impact in the 2016 budget request due early next year. The question is whether Work can find the fiscal seed corn to fund research and development of the hoped-for “game-changing” technologies.

The Defense Innovation Initiative isn’t all about technology. It relies on Under SecretaryFrank Kendall‘s business practice and acquisition reform efforts to make the new tech affordable — and conversely Kendall has said the long-awaited third iteration of his Better Buying Power initiative, BBP 3.0, will focus on enabling innovation. It will also address “new operational concepts….new approaches to warfighting…. new approaches to war-gaming and professional military education…. [and even] opportunities to reimagine how we develop managers and leaders.” But those aspects remain very vague. The specifics we have so far, such as they are, are overwhelmingly about high technology, and Robert Work is unequivocally in charge.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*Navy Makes Destroyers Look Like Fishing Boats on Enemy Radars*

The Navy’s USS Wayne E Meyer guided missile destroyer is preparing for a series of extensive upgrades to make the ship stealthier or less detectable to traditional enemy radar.

Having recently returned from a seven-month deployment to the Pacific theater, the Wayne E Meyer will go through what’s called a “maintenance availability” before entering a larger, longer upgrade period which examines the software, hardware and various designs on board the ship.

“We’ll get upgrades to multiple systems on board including everything from combat systems to engineering maintenance and management, electrical and thermal systems, ammunition upgrades, weapons systems upgrades and radar upgrades,” said Cmdr. Adam Flemming, executive officer, USS Wayne E Meyer.

Ship design and ship structure will also be a central focus of the upgrades in order to determine if there are ways to reduce the vessel’s radar signature and make the large vessel appear more like a small fishing boat to enemy radar, he said.

“We routinely review not only our own self noise but also how we look to other radar. We are constantly reviewing that process to see if we can reduce our radar-cross section and reduce the threat to the ship,” Flemming added.

These reviews include an examination of structures, shapes and contours of systems mounted to the top of the ship, he explained.

“Anything that is mounted to the top side of the ship effects our radar cross-section. The whole point is self-defense and making us a small target,” Flemming added.

Adjustments could include the use of radar absorbent material or changing the angle of poles mounted on the ship’s deck. For instance, changing angles on some of the ship’s items could impact how radar signals are bounced off and make the ship less recognizable or detectable.

“Changing the angles on the ship to reflect the radar energy that is coming in to detect us — and reflecting that off in a different direction makes us appear smaller,” he added.

The Wayne E Meyer’s Vertical Launch Systems, or VLS, are configured to fire Tomahawks, Standard Missile or SM-2s, SM-6s and Vertical Launched Anti-Submarine Rockets. The upgrades will assess potential software improvements for the VLS so that they can accommodate new weapons as they become available.

The upgrades will also improve how ship-based ammunition is handled and stored, Flemming added.

Upgrades will also examine the ship’s AN/SQQ-89 hull-mounted sonar with a mind to keeping the technology abreast of emerging and next-generation threats.

“We are constantly upgrading our data base. Electronic warfare is a constantly evolving mission area,” Flemming said.

Like other Flight IIA guided-missile destroyers, the USS Wayne E Meyer is configured for a range of missions to include surface warfare, missile defense, search and rescue and humanitarian missions.

“We have breadth of mission capability enabling us to do multiple things at once,” Flemming explained. “We’re the Swiss Army knife of the fleet.”

From Navy Makes Destroyers Look Like Fishing Boats on Enemy Radars | Defense Tech

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## AMDR

*F-22s and F-35s Fly First Operational Integration Training Missions*
F-22s and F-35s Fly First Operational Integration Training Missions | Defense Tech 






This is what Air Force generals have envisioned for decades. Two sets of fifth generation fighters flew side-by-side earlier this month to practice offensive counter air, defensive counter air and interdiction missions together over Florida out of Eglin Air Force Base.

It as the first time the F-35 and F-22 flew operational training missions together, Air Force officials said.

Both fighters have had a turbulent development and the F-35 is far from complete, but this was the vision. The F-35 and F-22 teaming up to combat a first world air force like China or Russia.

Air Force officials didn’t release many details from the training missions, but the photos sort of speak for themselves. Even the largest cynics of the program have to pause and consider the history of the two controversial stealth fighters flying training missions together.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*Fascinating 50th Anniversary Behind the Scenes Video Brings You Aboard the C-2A Greyhound*

Apparentlyhaving a mustache is a bona fide occupational requirement.
*



*

*The Fleet Logistics Support Squadron 30 (VRC-30) “Providers” has prepared a cool video to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the C-2A Greyhound, the workhorse of the U.S. Navy fleet.*

On Nov. 18, 1964, the Grumman C-2 Greyhound twin-engine, high-wing cargo aircraft, designed perform the COD (Carrier Onboard Delivery) to carry equipment, supplies and mail to and from U.S. Navy aircraft carriers, made its first flight.

Since then, the aircraft and its crews have performed a vital role supplying the carrier fleet with over a million pounds of high priority logistics.

The video, produced by VRC-30, United States Navy Fleet Logistics Support squadron based at Naval Air Station North Island with detachments all around the world, provides some amazing insight into the mission of the COD as well as the challenge/thrill of flying the COD: take a look at the skills (and amount of inputs on the control yoke) required to perform an arrested landing on the flight deck of a nuclear aircraft carrier at sea.






From The Aviationist » Fascinating 50th Anniversary Behind the Scenes Video Brings You Aboard the C-2A Greyhound

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## mike2000

AMDR said:


> *F-22s and F-35s Fly First Operational Integration Training Missions*
> F-22s and F-35s Fly First Operational Integration Training Missions | Defense Tech
> 
> View attachment 153487
> 
> 
> This is what Air Force generals have envisioned for decades. Two sets of fifth generation fighters flew side-by-side earlier this month to practice offensive counter air, defensive counter air and interdiction missions together over Florida out of Eglin Air Force Base.
> 
> It as the first time the F-35 and F-22 flew operational training missions together, Air Force officials said.
> 
> Both fighters have had a turbulent development and the F-35 is far from complete, but this was the vision. The F-35 and F-22 teaming up to combat a first world air force like China or Russia.
> 
> Air Force officials didn’t release many details from the training missions, but the photos sort of speak for themselves. Even the largest cynics of the program have to pause and consider the history of the two controversial stealth fighters flying training missions together.



Please they should release the results of training mission. i want to know who won.


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*Navy Plans for Fighter to Replace the F/A-18 Hornet in 2030s*

The Navy is beginning to work on a a next-generation carrier-launched fighter jet to replace the existing F/A-18 Super Hornet and Growler aircraft by 2030 and supplement the F-35C the Pentagon is still developing, service officials said.

The Navy effort, called the F/A-XX program, includes early work on the desired technological capabilities for the new aircraft. The idea is to have a new aircraft ready and producible by the time existing F/A-18s reach their end-of-service dates.

The Navy is analyzing industry proposals on the F/A-XX it started collecting two years ago. Navy officials are trying to pick out what they like and eliminating the rest.

This effort is going on as the Navy considers various upgrades of the existing inventory of F/A-18s in order to extend its service life well into and beyond the 2030s. Nevertheless, unless more aircraft such as Growlers are purchased for future production, Boeing’s domestic production of the F/A-18 will come to an end in the next several years.

Meanwhile, these early F/A-XX efforts are going on while the service vigorously pursues ongoing developmental testing of its F-35C, slated to be ready by 2018.

The Navy did not comment regarding whether the new aircraft would be a fifth-generation fighter or something beyond that, nor did they elaborate on what early requirements discussions were considering. Navy officials emphasized that service experts were reluctant to talk about the new aircraft because so much has yet to be determined and the project was still in the very early stages.

Meanwhile, exactly how long the F/A-18 will fly remains somewhat of an open question. At a certain point the aircraft will eventually need to be replaced, however the Navy is still interested in acquiring more Growler electronic jamming aircraft and continues to upgrade the F/A-18 platform.

There are near term efforts such as the ongoing initiative to outfit 170 F/A-18E/F Block II fighter jets with a next-generation infrared sensor designed to locate air-to-air target in a high-threat electronic attack environment.

Infrared search and track, or IRST, system, is a long range sensor that searches for and detect infrared emissions, Navy officials said. Slated to be operational by 2017, the system can simultaneously track multiple targets and provide a highly effective air-to-air targeting capability.

While the Navy is making progress with existing modifications to the platform, the service is also looking into slightly longer-term surface-warfare upgrades to the aircraft such as improving the active electronically scanned array radar and forward looking infrared radar technologies such as IRST, Navy officials said.

Alongside upgrades to the platform that are already underway such as targeting improvements and experimentation with conformal fuel tanks and an external weapons pod, the Navy is investing research dollars into upgrading the plane’s sensors, radar and computer systems, Capt. Frank Morley, program manager for the F/A-18 and EA-18G Growler aircraft told Military.com in an interview last summer.

One analyst said if Navy F/A-XX developers seek to engineer a sixth-generation aircraft, they will likely explore a range of next-generation technologies such as maximum sensor connectivity, super cruise ability and an aircraft with electronically configured “smart skins.”

Maximum connectivity would mean massively increased communications and sensor technology such as having an ability to achieve real-time connectivity with satellites, other aircraft and anything that could provide relevant battlefield information, said Richard Aboulafia, vice-president of analysis at the Teal Group, a Va.-based consultancy.

*Hypersonic Scramjets*

The new aircraft might also seek to develop the ability to fire hypersonic weapons, however such a development would hinge upon successful progress with yet-to-be-proven technologies such as scramjets, Aboulafia added.

Super cruise technology would enable the new fighter jet to cruise at supersonic speeds without needing afterburner, he explained.

Smart aircraft skins would involve dispersing certain technologies or sensors across the fuselage and further integrating them into the aircraft itself, Aboulafia said.

‘Smart skins with distributed electronics means that instead of having systems mounted on the aircraft, you would have apertures integrated on the skin of the aircraft,” he said.

This could reduce drag, increase speed and maneuverability while increasing the technological ability of the sensors.

Finally, Aboulafia said the Navy may be interested in developing a super-capable air-dominance or air-to-air fighter capability as a new, next-generation aircraft to replace the F-14 Tomcat – an aircraft known for its air-to-air fighter capability.

Also, about 20 years ago the Navy was interested in acquiring a Navy variant of the F-22 through what was called the Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter program, Aboulafia explained. This effort never came to fruition, leaving the Navy without a fifth-generation air-dominance platform.

While the Navy’s F-35C is engineered for strike missions, next-generation sensor fusion, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and air-to-air combat, experts maintain it does not have the fifth-generation air-to-air dominance and speed of the F-22.

From Navy Plans for Fighter to Replace the F/A-18 Hornet in 2030s | Defense Tech

My comments

I like to play drinking games with these types of articles. Every the "the Navy" comes up, take a drink.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*Pentagon Satellites to Persistently Stare at Targets in 10 Years*
*




*
Over the next decade, the Pentagon plans to launch satellites that offer a revolutionary leap in surveillance technology by persistently staring at targets from space for long periods of time, an official said.

Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael Vickers gave the estimate at a defense conference this week in Washington, D.C.

The Defense Department is at a “pivotal moment for intelligence” due to the rapid technological and geopolitical change underway throughout the world, he said. Adapting to the environment requires requires both short– and long-term investments, he said.

“In each of these areas, we’re trying to make some fundamental leaps,” Vickers said. “So, for example, in the global coverage area, for the first time, we’re trying to create really persistent surveillance from space, rather than having episodic surveillance, actually be able to stare at areas for real long periods of time and improve the resiliency and the integration of our architecture.

“Those will be really, really big things when they’re realized,” he added. “It will be a leap in overhead reconnaissance commensurate to anything we’ve done in the last 50 years or so, but they’ll take a decade-plus to realize.”

Vickers didn’t specify any specific programs.

The Air Force’s current Space Base Infrared System, known as SBIRS, and legacy Defense Support Program, or DSP, satellites support the Overhead Persistent Infrared Technology mission in such areas as missile warning, missile defense, technical intelligence and battlespace awareness, according to a Government Accountability Office report from January.

The service has Commercially Hosted Infrared Payload, or CHIRP, demonstration sensor employed a wide field-of-view staring technology — which provided insight into the applicability for the mission area, the document states.

During the past decade of U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon was forced to turn to the private sector and rent bandwidth on commercial satellites because its own networks couldn’t meet the constant demand from commanders for video and other data captured by drones flying over the battlefield.

From Pentagon Satellites to Persistently Stare at Targets in 10 Years | Defense Tech

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*What the Navy’s Next Generation Amphibious Ship Could Look Like*
*



*

Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) has revised its plan to use the hull form of the San Antonio-class amphibious warship (LPD-17) as a candidate for the Navy’s next generation amphibious warship— LX(R), company officials outlined to USNI News on Tuesday.

HII has pitched variants of the LPD-17 hull for at least two years to the Navy for everything from a ballistic missile defense (BMD) platform to a candidate for LX(R) as LPD Flight II.

HII’s new Flight IIA — mocked up by HII earlier this year — modifies the original LPD-17 original design by removing some of the higher end capabilities of the San Antonio and creating a so-called amphibious truck to replace the existing class of aging Whidbey Island and Harpers Ferry 16,000-ton landing ship docks (LSD-41/49).

Though the concept isn’t news, last month’s revelation that the San Antonio hull will be the basis for LX(R) — according to a memo from the Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus — and HII’s ongoing consultation with the service with the design work for the new ship gives greater credence to the company’s plan.

The largest improvement in capability will be to the ship’s communication and aviation ability.

The current LSDs have a minimal command and control (C2) capability – the ability to communicate with other U.S. military forces and coordinate different types of aircraft and smaller vessel — and no native ability to host and maintain the aircraft of the trio of ships that make up the Navy’s Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs).
*




*
At their inception, the LSDs “was really just a truck to always be married up with ARG and never go away from it,” carrying vehicles and landing craft as a compliment for the ARG LPD and big deck amphibious warships, Marine Maj. Gen. Robert S. Walsh, Director Expeditionary Warfare Division (N95), told USNI News on Wednesday.

However, modern operations have required the ARGs to split up and undertake different missions — at times hundreds of miles away from the other ships in the group.

The LSDs are currently the weakest in C2 and aviation maintenance arena of the trio.

HII’s LPD Flight IIA features a hangar smaller than the one on the LPD-17 capable of stowing two MV-22 Ospreys and eliminates the composite masts of the current San Antonio-class design.







The LX(R) will be much bigger than the ships it will be replacing — displacing about 7,000 more than the current LSDs at 23,470 tons, HII officials told USNI News on Tuesday.

Instead of the four Colt-Pielstick diesel engines, HII’s model reduces the prime mover count to two unspecified main propulsion diesel engines (MPDE).

The Flight IIA retains about half of the medical spaces on the LPD. Company officials also said the current iteration would feature two spots for the Navy’s LCAC hovercraft or one utility landing craft (LCU) — which is in line with the Navy’s current thinking for requirements for the LX(R), USNI News understands.

Other changes include reducing the troop capacity from 800 to 500 with a crew of about 400 sailors.

Though HII is original designers and builders of the LPD-17 ships, they are not guaranteed the design and construction contract for the new LX(R) ship class. General Dynamics NASSCO in San Diego, Calif. has also helped the Navy in its current push to lower the cost at the start of the acquisition process and is considered likely to bid on the final work.

“Both HII and NASSCO were helping with ideas on how to drive cost down,” Walsh said.
“When I say competition, we’d look at anyone who could compete and plan it, but those would certainly be two shipyards that would have the ability to compete in this environment.”

The Navy’s frontend analysis of alternatives process for LX(R) has been described as, “the best ship design conversation we’ve had in a long time inside the government,” NAVSEA chief Vice Adm. William Hilarides said in May.

HII officials didn’t give USNI News a cost estimate for their version, but according to past information from the Navy a San Antonio LX(R) could cost about $1.64 billion for the lead ship with follow-ons costing about $1.4 billion for a total of 11 ships.

However, recently the service has been reluctant to put a cost figure on the LX(R) program.

From What the Navy’s Next Generation Amphibious Ship Could Look Like - USNI News

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Pak_Sher

Love the diversity of the forum. Great to see an American perspective. Gentleman thanks for sharing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

*Pentagon awards US$4.1 Bn for 43 F-35s*
Pentagon awards US$4.1 Bn for 43 F-35s | Defense Update:

_The Pentagon claimed the cost of the current lot reflects a reduction of 3.6 percent over LRIP VII. More reductions will come into effect in the next batch of production, eventually bringing the aircraft cost to the level of current 4-4.5 generation fighters._

Lockheed Martin has been awarded additional a $4,123 million contract, as a modification to the F-35 program, for the production of 43 F-35s under the eighth Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP Lot VIII) lot of the F-35 Lightning II aircraft. The acquisition includes 29 F-35A models, 10 Short Take Off/Vertical Landing (STOVL) F-35Bs and four carrier based C models.

The contract combines purchases of 19 F-35A aircraft for the U.S. Air Force ($1.7 billion), 7 for the Marine Corps (F-35B and C for $557 million) and three F-35C for the Navy ($491 million). It also include funds of $788 for the manufacturing of four F-35A for Italy and Norway and four F-35B for the UK. The contract also allocates $557 million for the production of six specially configured F-35As for Japan and Israel.

These amounts are not covering $793 million allocated to the procurement of F135 propulsion systems for those fighters, included in a previous contract awarded to Pratt & Whitney last month. Additional spending were included in long lead contracts worth $333 million awarded to Lockheed Martin last year, which bring the total cost of this lot to about $5.25 billion.

The lowest cost per aircraft will be paid by the US Air Foce, receiving 19 F-35A models, which are the least costly of the series. Despite the effort to reduce the aircraft cost below $100 million, the Air Force is paying no less than $111 per plane (including engines but excluding R&D).

The actual costs of the B and C models are not clearly defined in the Pentagon announcements, due to the mix of the two models’ propulsion and long lead procurements, under the Navy’s share.

The Pentagon claim that the current procurement reflects a cost reduction of 3.6 percent over LRIP VII and that more reductions will come into effect in the next batch of production, eventually bringing the aircraft cost down to around $90 million, which is comparable to current 4.5 generation fighters.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOAR COST REDUCTIONS

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SvenSvensonov

@Hakan - I noticed that in the How do we make PDF better? | Page 18 you made mention of the need for a dedicated US Defense Forum... excellent suggestion and one that is beyond over due. If and when this gets done, I would request that this thread be merged into the US Defense Forum. Thanks (in advance)!!!

*Opinion: Iran — America’s Old/New Ally*

Today in Geneva, Iran and six world powers decided to extend their own deadline for a settlement on Iran’s nuclear program by seven months.

Secretary of State John Kerry captured the sentiment of all parties involved in the P5+1 (U.S., China, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and Iran) negotiations when he said, “given how far we have come over the past year, particularly in the last few days, this is certainly not the time to get up and walk away.”

During the delay, Iran will continue to receive partial sanctions relief and any work on its advanced nuclear program will remain frozen.

With an extension in the negotiations, the U.S. has time to explore a possible new national strategy goal regarding Iran.

The idea is based on the hypothesis: What if the U.S. set out to once again make Iran its primary strategic partner in the Persian Gulf region?

Thirty-four years of historic hindsight suggests that stability in the Persian Gulf region was thrown asunder when the U.S. lost Iran as an ally after the fall of Shah Pahlavi in 1979. In the ensuing years the U.S. sought to strengthen new alliances and has expended a great deal of blood and treasure to try and create a new balance of power in the region. While Iran has been boycotted, bottled up — and sometimes beaten back — the long lens of history reveals that we are pushing against forces of geography, history and 3,000 years of human culture that are far stronger than our idea of a new balance of power in the region.

At face value, the notion of this possibility may seem preposterous. But I offer a few lessons from history and geography that suggest that the idea may not be as outrageous as it seems.

First, Iran was a U.S. key strategic ally in the region from roughly the end of World War II until 1979’s Iranian Revolution. The fact is, Iran’s geography and culture made it the dominant power in the region for centuries. I would suggest that the past 34 years of turmoil are in many respects the exception to the longer view and this position of dominance Iran has is inherent in these geo-cultural realities.

A more recent glimpse back to the Shah’s reign may be easier for most to recall. Up to 1979 we find an Iran that was the preeminent military power in the region. That is — after all — why we followed the British after WW II and courted Iran as our key ally in the region. This is also why we provided them with some of the most advanced weapons in our inventory, like the F-4, F-14, HAWK and Harpoon missiles.

Our current popular American assumptions about Iran do not take into account the deeper cultural currents. The advantages of Iran’s geographic position, large population (65 million), and thriving ancient culture are what make this nation important. This was true in the time of Marco Polo and remains true today. It has little to do with oil.

Second — in three separate crises in the region — when the US really faced a threat, Iran did not interfere with U.S. operations.

The first of these conflicts was Operation Desert Storm. During this operation against Iran’s bitter enemy Iraq, the U.S. kept four Carrier Strike Groups (CSG) in the Persian Gulf without Iranian interference. Again, after Sept. 11, 2001, Iran cooperated with the U.S. in dismantling the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Finally, in the current operations against Islamic State of Iraq and Syria forces, Iran and the US once again find a shared interest.

The relationship between Iran and the US is thorny, and these examples are not meant to oversimplify the complexity of US-Iranian relations in the pre or post-Shah era. Rather, they simply stand as evidence that when a real threat against the US and Western interests was clear and present (1991, 2001, and 2014) not only did Iran not interfere with US operations, when it was in their national interest they actually assisted the US.

Third, consider the fact that the populations of U.S. current allies in the region have been the largest source of funding, manpower, and ideological support for the enemies we have confronted since 9-11. As often cited, of the nineteen 9-11 terrorist hijackers, 15 were from Saudi Arabia, two from the UAE, one each from Egypt and Lebanon. None were from Iran, or were funded by Iran.

Again today in the Third Iraq War against ISIS, the principle financial and manpower support for ISIS largely comes from our regional allies, not Iran.

Undeniably Iran has its own terrorist proxies, such as the Lebanese Hezbollah whom were responsible for the deadly 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon.

Proxies, such as Hezbollah and Iranian Quds forces remain a sticking point in the way forward with Iran. Perhaps a normalization of relations with Iran will dampen the need for such asymmetric threats. As noted previously, our allies in the region remain our allies, even when their native sons hijack aircraft and crash them into our symbols of power on US soil. Thus, there appears to be room for forgiveness when it is in our national interests.

What’s in it for Iran? In recent years Iran has indicated through its achievements in areas such as aerospace technology, and its gradual diplomatic opening up to the world that it may be seeking to end its semi-self-imposed isolation from the world. Iran has paid a great price economically and geopolitically for the type of threatening gestures practiced during the Ahmadinejad era. Iran now stands on the threshold of an opportunity to end the isolation and rebuild trust with the U.S. and Western powers.

With the current nuclear talks extended, the future of U.S.-Iranian relations is at this moment uncertain. To many this hypothesis may seem far-fetched based on the biases and perceptions we have formed in the context of our era.

Finally, I would offer that a past generation of Americans, would have never imagined that Japan and Germany would emerge as two of America’s most important allies. We fought a total war with those nations, and by comparison America’s conflict with Iran appears as a bitter feud between two stubborn former friends. With a careful consideration of history and geography I remain optimistic that normalized relations with Iran can and should be made a goal of the United States.

From Opinion: Iran — America’s Old/New Ally - USNI News

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LeveragedBuyout

SvenSvensonov said:


> Proxies, such as Hezbollah and Iranian Quds forces remain a sticking point in the way forward with Iran. Perhaps a normalization of relations with Iran will dampen the need for such asymmetric threats.



No, he has it backwards. When Iran stops sponsoring Hezbollah and eliminates the Quds forces, normalization will be possible, not the reverse. Iran doesn't deserve trust, then verify. It must be verify, then trust.

And no rapprochement is possible until Iran apologizes for the embassy hostage crisis, which is still an open wound to many of us.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SvenSvensonov

LeveragedBuyout said:


> No, he has it backwards. When Iran stops sponsoring Hezbollah and eliminates the Quds forces, normalization will be possible, not the reverse. Iran doesn't deserve trust, then verify. It must be verify, then trust.
> 
> And no rapprochement is possible until Iran apologizes for the embassy hostage crisis, which is still an open wound to many of us.



I'm a bit different in my thinking. I have a lot of respect for the Iranians, and their navy in particular, but little to their irregular forces. They are doing what we do in the region and if we don't apologize for our actions or supporting proxies and militants, I wont demand an apology or lessening of support from Iran either. As far as I'm concerned it's geopolitics and everyone is doing it.

We don't apologize to Turkey for supporting the Kurds, even if our support omits the PKK and its affiliates, we still annoy Turkey. But Turkey and the US still maintain a healthy relationship. Turkey is an on-again, off-again friend/enemy of Israel and sometimes goes out of it's way to annoy the Israelis. We overlook that too. Then there is the problems between fellow NATO members Greece and Turkey. We don't pay too much attention. It's just geopolitics and everybody does it.

On the Iranian embassy crisis, I too would like an apology, but sometimes we must re-approach first before a sincere apology can be given. I would like for them to come out today an apologize, but I wont complain if we become more friendly and then both sides settle their differences.

I understand where you are coming from, and believe me it's not a unique viewpoint, it's very widely held in the US - I definitely saw it while in the navy, but you and I are just going to have to disagree a bit on this.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AMDR

*USS H.W. Bush (CVN-77)


















*

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*Navy Researchers Counter Pilot Disorientation with New Simulations
*
Navy researchers have developed new simulation and training programs to help all Defense Department pilots avoid two potentially fatal spatial misperceptions during nighttime landings and in flight.

Spatial disorientation is the leading aeromedical cause of Class A mishaps not only throughout DoD aviation, but in commercial flying as well, Navy officials said in a report published this month in Naval Medical and Research Development News.

Henry P. Williams, a researcher with the Naval Medical Research Unit-Dayton, at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, who reported on the programs, said they have been forwarded to the Naval Survival Training Institute in Pensacola, Florida.

The phenomena include Black Hole Illusion, or BHI – when a pilot on a nighttime runway approach in a poorly lit area perceives he is higher than he should be and descends to a lower approach.

“If unlit high terrain or obstacles are near the approach path the results can be fatal,” Henry P. Williams, a researcher with the Naval Medical Research Unit-Dayton, at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, reported.

The unit tested a team of 38 pilots in day– and nighttime simulation landings, finding that they all flew near perfect approaching in the daylight. But 92 percent made “significantly low BHI approaches” in the nighttime simulation, the report said. On average, they were 148 feet too low when 1.5 nautical miles from the runaway, it said.

But after viewing a training video on BHI the pilots were, on average, just three feet too low at the same distance from the runway.

Another spatial disorientation problem tackled in the same study was Control Reversal Error, or CRE, which occurs when pilots lose visuals on a lead aircraft while making turns – as will happen flying into clouds, Williams reported.

When that happens pilots swap over to instrument control to recover from the turn, but in nearly a quarter of the cases pilots turned in the wrong direction and steepened the angle of bank, researchers found.

“This error can be extremely dangerous in actual instrument flight, leading to incapacitating [spatial disorientation] and a fatal departure from controlled flight,” Williams said.

From Navy Researchers Counter Pilot Disorientation with New Simulations | Defense Tech

*There was a system used previously called the "Malcolm Horizon" - here's some info on that http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a150789.pdf
*
*

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## mehboobkz

*Boeing Completes Testing on New Anti-Jamming Technology

Boeing Completes Testing on New Anti-Jamming Technology

EL SEGUNDO, Calif., Nov. 4, 2014 – Boeing [NYSE: BA] has proven its new anti-jamming communications technology is capable of operating as either a ground-based user terminal or satellite-based networking hub, enabling the military to send and receive secure communications at a significantly lower cost by using existing terminals and satellites.

The anti-jam technology uses a protected tactical waveform, which shields signals from interference by adversaries or cyber-terrorists. This demonstration complements previous on-orbit demonstrations over satellites like ViaSat-1 and the sixth Wideband Global SATCOM (WGS-6), showing the ability to operate anti-jam waveforms over existing commercial and military spacecraft.

“We’ve confirmed this technology can be applied quickly and affordably to existing assets, especially operational WGS satellites and ground terminals,” said Dan Hart, vice president of Boeing Government Satellite Systems. “With threats to secure communications becoming increasingly frequent and sophisticated, providing this enhanced capability to warfighters on the ground is critical.”

The recent test was conducted between a Boeing ground terminal using a programmable modem, designed and developed by ViaSat using one of its commercial off-the-shelf platforms and a ground terminal designed and built by MIT-Lincoln Laboratory.

This testing, done under contract for the U.S. Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center and supervised by the U.S. government, confirms that the modem meets technical interface specifications, while successfully transmitting information to and from the ground user terminal. 

A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is one of the world's largest defense, space and security businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions, and the world’s largest and most versatile manufacturer of military aircraft. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is a $33 billion business with 56,000 employees worldwide. Follow us on Twitter: @BoeingDefense.
*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*Army Testing Improved Electronic Jamming Technology*

The Army is testing a series of new electronic warfare technologies designed to address a wider range of threat signals in the electromagnetic spectrum, service officials said.

Electronic warfare can be used for a wide range of combat functions to include jamming or thwarting an electronic signal used to detonate an IED, identifying enemy communications or electronic signals, and attacking or disabling enemy electromagnetic signals.

The new EW technologies are being engineered to detect, respond to and operate in a wider range of frequencies to provide commanders with more offensive and defensive options. They are being designed as upgradable hardware and software that can accommodate new threat information as emerging signals are learned, Army officials said.

“The nature of the electromagnetic spectrum is such that it is increasingly contested and increasingly congested. You must be able to attack in the spectrum and defend in the spectrum and also ensure that you manage the spectrum. In order to do all of these things, you must gain and maintain an advantage in the electromagnetic spectrum,” said Col. Jim Ekvall, electronic warfare division chief.

The new EW systems will be configured to go on unmanned aircraft, helicopters and vehicles, among other platforms, Ekvall added.

One of the new technologies now in development is called Electronic Warfare Planning and Management Tool, or EWPMT, which allows commanders to synchronize and integrate a host of electronic warfare signals. EWPMT is slated to be ready by 2016.

Another new system, scheduled to enter formal production in 2021, is an offensive system called Multi-Function EW.

“This is an offensive oriented system consisting of airborne, mobile vehicle, man-portable and fixed-site applications. All of these variants are offensively oriented. In other words they are used to attack the enemy’s command and communications and other things that use the electromagnetic spectrum,” Ekvall said.

Defensive Electronic Attack, or DEA, is another Army EW system which attacks the enemy by preventing enemy EW systems from damaging personnel, materiel and buildings, Ekvall added. DEA is slated to enter production in 2023 after the Army completes an expected analysis.

The Army’s experience learning how to jam IED-detonating signals in Iraq and Afghanistan during more than a decade of combat has greatly informed the current EW modernization effort. As a result, the new technologies will be scalable, meaning they are being engineered to accept new frequencies and threat signal information as needed.

For example, IED-detonating electronic signals began with simple garage door openers or remotely-controlled electronic devices – and then quickly migrated to more advance frequencies using a wider range of devices such as cellphones and other technologies. New EW hardware, therefore, is being configured to accept software updates when new threat information is learned, Ekvall explained.

From Army Testing Improved Electronic Jamming Technology | Defense Tech

*So @mehboobkz provided us with new satellite jam resistant communications (up and downlink), now offensive jamming is being tested too.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Aepsilons

AMDR said:


> *USS H.W. Bush (CVN-77)
> 
> 
> View attachment 156549
> View attachment 156551
> View attachment 156552
> View attachment 156553
> View attachment 156554
> *



Such an Awesome looking ship.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

*Scientists hack a 25 year old chemical sensor into dual-use explosives detector*
Scientists hack a 25 year old chemical sensor into dual-use explosives detector | Defense Update:





_Scientists at the U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical Biological Center at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., added the ability to detect explosive materials to the Joint Chemical Agent Detector. Photo: US Army_

Scientists at the U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical Biological Centre (ECBC) at Aberdeen Proving Ground assisted by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) Smith Detection, demonstrated recently how a standard chemical agent detector can be hacked into an explosive material detection sensor.

The modified device can already detect roughly a dozen compounds including TNT, RDX and EGN. Future efforts could increase the number of detectable compounds.

In service with the US military for 25 years, Joint Chemical Agent Detector (JCAD) was originally designed as a portable, automatic chemical warfare agent detector. Currently there are approximately 56,000 chemical warfare agent detectingJCADs in service within the Department of Defense. Recent needs have required the Army to find ways to create a similar sensor capable to detect explosive materials which include various types of explosive ordnance, improvised explosive devices and improvised/homemade explosives.

To convert an ordinary JCAD into a JCAD Chemical Explosive Detector, or JCAD CED, the existing rain cap is replaced with one with a new inlet. Once in place, scientists wipe any surface using the probe swab, which then retracts back into inlet. With a simple button push, the probe swab tip with the explosives sample heats up to a certain temperature, vaporizing the explosive residue. These additional features allow an ordinary JCAD to now have the role of a portable, automated explosives detector.

Developed under an Army Technology Objective (ATO) since 2010, Army scientists have looked for ways to exploit the 56,000 JCADs deployed in the field to provide explosive detection in addition to their chemical agent detection role. The program starting in 2010, under the requirement to assess which existing detectors could also detect explosives, ECBC’s Point Detection Branch began to research different options.

*How its done?*

Towards this capability demonstration the developers had to overcome significant challenges – for example, the original JCAD is designed to detect vapours. However, explosive materials are usually low vapor pressure solids. ECBC scientists had to figure out how the JCAD could detect solid explosive materials, without changing the hardware or original intent of the detector. Given these parameters the scientists sought to determine how to modify this detector while essentially keeping it the same.

“Many of the emerging chemical threats and explosives share the challenge of presenting little to no detectable vapor for sampling. By conducting research into the detection of solid explosive residues, we have learned valuable lessons that are equally important for detecting nonvolatile solid and liquid chemical agent residues as well,” said Dr. Augustus W. Fountain III, senior research scientist for chemistry.

The add-on pieces are a new JCAD Rain Cap with a Probe Swab and an inlet. Within the JCAD itself, scientists added two on-demand vapor generators: a calibrant and a dopant. The dopant changes the chemistry of the detector so that it can detect explosives easier.

“Within the Army, there is no other automatic, near real-time explosives detector at this time. There are many explosives detectors, but not ones that are dual-use and automatic,” said Charles Harden, Ph.D., a Leidos contractor with ECBC’s Point Detection Branch. “The best part is that the technology is already out in the field, and warfighters have been trained on this equipment,” Harden said. “All we’re doing is introducing small add-ons that will have a big impact.”

“There are several advantages with the improved JCAD CED system. First, its dual-functionality accurately detects vapors as well as explosive residue. Second, scientists successfully modified the system with easy-to-use add-ons, and the upgrade is cost effective and reduces the need for yearly maintenance,” said Blethen.

Scientists plan to determine the amount of explosives that can be detected and develop a concept of operations. Other goals include developing a methodology for detecting homemade explosives, and reaching a technology readiness level 6. JCAD CED will be demonstrated in a fiscal year 2015 military utility assessment.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SvenSvensonov

China is often bashed for its corruption within its military ranks, but truth be told, the US has a problem with it as well:

*Navy's Fired Skippers Often Maintain Their Rank*

In the past five years, 90 Navy skippers have been relieved of duty for indiscretions ranging from driving under the influence to having inappropriate relationships.

But for Navy officers, losing your job doesn’t always end your career.

Based on information provided by the Navy, Stars and Stripes has found that 53 percent of all officers relieved of command since 2010 still put on the uniform each day, most without loss of rank.

Navy Cmdr. Larry Gonzales was relieved of leadership duties aboard the USS Chafee in 2009 after he was investigated for groping a subordinate and carrying on an inappropriate relationship. In 2011, he became deputy director of research and analysis at the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command in Hawaii.

In 2011, Cmdr. Timothy Murphy was relieved from Electronic Attack Squadron 129 after police cited him for driving under the influence. He later became a program team leader at the F/A-18 Hornet and EA-18G Growler Program Office in Maryland.

Last year, Capt. Lance Massey II was relieved as maintenance commander of the 33rd Fighter Wing for inappropriate behavior with female staff. Though he’s no longer in command, Massey is still with the 33rd.

While retaining commanding officers accused of inappropriate and sometimes illegal actions might look suspicious, naval scholars suggest cases must be examined individually.

The evidence and how each case is adjudicated ultimately determines the fate of those relieved.

Admirals looking at a case of alleged wrongdoing have two options, according to Navy Capt. Michael Junge, a military professor at the U.S. Naval War College who has been studying commander reliefs for more than a decade. They can pursue military charges and proceed to a court-martial — where a conviction could result in total separation from the military — or they can relieve a commander administratively. The latter is sometimes easier, especially if the evidence is weak.

Officials at the Navy Personnel Command declined to comment on the individual cases, instead referring Stars and Stripes to lower commands, which largely did not respond to requests for comment.

Junge said administrative actions would not necessarily make it into the sailor’s file, and therefore, the sailor would not be separated from the Navy.

An arrest for drunken driving or groping a colleague’s wife would likely see an officer relieved of command but not forced out of the service, Junge said. It’s likely, however, they would never command again and their career would be adversely affected.

“In the modern Navy, an officer relieved of their command doesn’t go on to command again,” he said. But, “if it isn’t a clear criminal act, then there’s no reason to send these guys out.”

Junge said the number of commanding officers who misbehave makes up a very small percentage of those who serve. Like in the civilian world, he believes some crimes or incidents of wrongdoing are mistakes, where relief of command is punishment enough. In some cases, it is better to help the individual and retain their almost 20 years’ experience, knowledge and training.

“Just because we have a zero-tolerance policy doesn’t mean you’re automatically fired,” he said. “Firing might not be the right answer all the time.”

One area that is often perplexing to Junge is who can fire whom. Sometimes an admiral will relieve a commanding officer but leave the commander’s immediate supervisor out of the loop. Other times, the immediate supervisor does the firing.

“It’s all over the place,” Junge said. “It’s hard to see who’s in charge.”

In 2009, 12 Navy commanders were fired, according to Navy information provided to Stars and Stripes. Personnel Command officials did not respond to requests detailing which commanders were still employed in the Navy.

In 2010, 17 commanders were fired, Navy officials said. As of February 2014, five of them were still in the Navy.

They include Cmdr. Jeff Cima, who was relieved from command of the USS Chicago for drunkenness in 2010, Navy officials said. As of February, he was working at the U.S. Mission to NATO in Brussels. Cmdr. Herman Pfaeffle was relieved of command after hitting a pier in the USS John L. Hall, but now is in Naval Operations.

Capt. Ronald Gero, commanding officer of the USS Ohio, was relieved by Rear Adm. James Caldwell due to a loss of confidence in Gero’s ability to command.

Loss of confidence is a response often used by Navy leadership to remove a commander early into a misconduct investigation, according to Navy spokesman Lt. Chika Onyekanne.

It is also used to remove a commander when there is not enough evidence to pursue formal charges. The information as to what the commander allegedly did is then often protected.

“‘Loss of confidence’ is a legitimate reason for a CO firing,” Onyekanne wrote to Stars and Stripes. “In many cases/situations the investigation of the incident, such as misconduct, is early in the process and ongoing. Relieving the CO also allows continuity of leadership at the command while decreasing and/or minimizing the possible distraction (at the command) of an ongoing investigation.”

Also in 2010, Cmdr. Charles Maher was relieved from the USS Memphis during the investigation of a cheating ring, Navy officials said. He was later hired at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center.

Lt. Cmdr. James Rushton was relieved from the minesweeper the USS Chief for fraternization with the executive officer to close out 2010. Earlier this year, he was stationed at Tactical Training Group Pacific.

In 2011, 23 commanders were relieved of their command for cause, Navy officials said. The number who were able to stay in doubled from the previous year to 10.

In addition to Murphy, Cmdr. Nathan Borchers was relieved from the USS Stout for a pattern of unprofessional behavior in overseas ports, according to Navy officials. He recently held a position at the Strategic Command at Colorado Springs.

Capt. William Mosk was relieved from Naval Station Rota after his command lost confidence he could effectively oversee an investigation. He wound up at Commander Carrier Strike Group 9.

Cmdr. Dave Koss was responsible for a low-flying maneuver, Cmdr. Michael Varney mishandled classified information, Cmdr. Karl Pugh was disciplined in an alcohol-related incident and Cmdr. Laredo Bell was cited for drunken driving. All remained in the service.

The reasons behind the firings of Cmdr. Joseph Nosse, Lt. Cmdr. Martin Holguin and Cmdr. Jonathan Jackson were cited as loss of confidence.

In 2012, 26 commanders were relieved for cause, Navy officials said. Of those, 14 were allowed to remain in the service, jumping to 54 percent from 43 percent the previous year.

Cmdr. Diego Hernandez was relieved for mishandling classified materials, Cmdr. Derick Armstrong for sexual harassment and fraternization, and Cmdr. Michael Ward for an extramarital affair. The justifications behind many of the firings have not been released.

From January 2013 through February 2014, 22 commanders were relieved, 21 in 2013 alone, Navy officials said. Nearly all of them (82 percent) remain in the Navy today.

From Navy's Fired Skippers Often Maintain Their Rank | Military.com

*Since these situations have been made public, they will be rectified. The US has corruption, but it also doesn't allow it to go unchecked.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AMDR

*US Navy approves Super Hornet IRST for low-rate initial production*
US Navy approves Super Hornet IRST for low-rate initial production - IHS Jane's 360






The US Navy (USN) has awarded Milestone C acquisition approval for an infrared search-and-track (IRST) system for the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet combat aircraft, the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) announced on 2 December.

Having completed its first flight aboard a Super Hornet in February, the podded AN/ASG-34 IRST will now begin low-rate initial production (LRIP) for six units needed to take the programme forward to initial operating capability (IOC).

According to NAVAIR, with the awarding of Milestone C, "performance and aeromechanical flight testing will continue to determine the IRST capability's limits within aircraft constraints and to ensure operational stability and safety".

Developed by Lockheed Martin, with Boeing and General Electric, the AN/ASG-34 is a passive system geared at giving the Super Hornet the capability to locate and engage airborne and ground targets when use of the Raytheon AN/APG-79 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar would give away the aircraft's position.

Unlike most other IRST systems that are fully integrated with their host aircraft, the AN/ASG-34 is designed to be carried in a modified centreline drop tank. Boeing officials have previously told _IHS Jane's_ that locating the IRST underneath the aircraft should have no adverse effect on its ability to identify and track aircraft that might be flying higher than the Super Hornet, and that at 10 miles (16 km) from the target aircraft it will provide unlimited visibility up to 60,000 ft (as high as any target would fly).

Further, officials claim that having a podded system has the advantage of not requiring invasive integration work with the host aircraft, and the pod is able to hold 330 US gallons (1,249 litres) of fuel so little in terms of range is lost.

The podded IRST is being developed under a USD135 million engineering, manufacturing, and development (EMD) contract awarded in 2011, and is currently planned to be deployed by 2017.

Further to the AN/ASG-34 podded IRST, the US Navy and Boeing are set to roll out a number of further enhancements for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler platforms under the Flight Plan programme. These include advanced fused sensors, an improved AESA radar, counter-electronic attack, Distributed Targeting System, multi-sensor integration, anti-surface warfare, IP-based linked networks, and advanced air-to-ground and air-to-air precision weapons operating on an open architecture.

Beyond the Flight Plan improvements, Boeing is developing further enhancements that comprise a fully integrated IRST to be mounted under the aircraft's chin, 'shoulder-mounted' conformal fuel tanks, enclosed weapons pods, an Elbit Systems large area display (LAD) 'glass' cockpit and next-generation avionics, an internal missile and laser warning system, and new General Electric F-414-400 enhanced engines.

To date, neither the US Navy or the Royal Australian Air Force (the Super Hornet's and Growler's only two customers to date) have signed up for any of these options, and while previously Boeing officials have stated that the improved economy of the F-414-400 enhanced engines made that upgrade the best bet in the near-term, any plans for a fleet-wide rollout have been stalled by continued budgetary pressures.

However, speaking at the IQPC Fighter Conference in London in November, a senior US Navy official said that the service is looking closely at adopting the conformal tanks for the Growler. The advantage of these tanks for this aircraft, he said, is that their location on the upper wing-root means that they do not impede the sensors' downwards view in the same way that underslung drop tanks do.

While he did not provide a timeline as to when these tanks might be fitted to the US Navy's aircraft, he did say that the Growler is leading the way in the service's thinking for fitting these Boeing-developed enhancements.


*Omnibus Spending Bill Includes Money for 15 Growlers, 12th San Antonio*
Omnibus Spending Bill Includes Money for 15 Growlers, 12th San Antonio - USNI News





_An EA-18G Growler from the “Shadowhawks” of Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 141 prepares to make an arrested landing on the flight deck of the U.S. Navy’s forward-deployed aircraft carrier USS George Washington (CVN-73) in 2013 US Navy Photo_

The $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill from Congress includes $1.46 billion for 15 Boeing EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft and $1 billion to start work on a 12th San Antonio-class (LPD-17) amphibious warship, according to a summary of the bill released late Tuesday.
The compromise bill agreed to by House and Senate appropriators and expected to pass both chambers will extend Boeing’s Super Hornet — the airframe on which the Growler is based — production line into 2017, according to Reuters.

The Navy gave Congress an unfunded wish list that asked for 22 Growlers at a cost of $2.14 billion. With the extra airframes, the Navy intends to expand its EA-18G squadrons from five aircraft up to seven.

The bill also gave the service $1 billion to start procurement on a 12th San Antonio-class amphibious warship — about half the total cost of the ship. The Marine Corps has been lobbying Congress and the Navy for the additional ship it says will act as a bridge to the next generation LX(R) amphibious warship which will be based on the San Antonio-hull.

Line items in the bill also fully fund the planned procurement of the Ohio-class Replacement Program ballistic missile submarine, fully funds the Navy’s Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) research and development efforts — despite restrictions in the parallel authorization bill — and includes $843 million to begin the refueling and complex overhaul of carrier USS George Washington (CVN-73).

The total Department of Defense funding included in the bill was $554.2 billion.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## osama zafar

i believed in the yanks in the world wars but now they are just hopeless.


----------



## Bratva

Albeit a old but nevertheless interesting news. What's your take on Nepotism and Corruption in US armed forces , is it rampant in Navy and airforce? From what I read , Corruption is more rampant in US Navy than in air force or army @SvenSvensonov @gambit

*Navy aviator’s career soars; pilot he downed suffers*

By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times - Thursday, February 23, 2012

When retired Air Force pilot Mike Ross learned this month that the Navyaviator who shot him down is on a nomination list for the rank of admiral, he had a visceral reaction.

“I almost got sick,” said Col. Ross, 56. “He ruined by life.”

All the horror and pain came rushing back when he read The Washington Times story about NavyCapt. Timothy W. Dorsey’s pending promotion to flag rank. The Pentagon sent his nomination to the Senate Armed Services Committee this month.

This tale of two officers began nearly 25 years ago. Col. Ross, an Air Forcecaptain at the time, was flying his RF-4C reconnaissance jet over the Mediterranean Sea in a NATO non-fire exercise.

He refueled with an Air National Guard aerial tanker and saw Lt. (j.g.)Dorsey’s F-14 Tomcat monitoring him.

“Nothing like cheating,” Capt. Ross recalled thinking after getting back to his squadron at Aviano Air Base, Italy. “This is supposed to be an exercise. You’re supposed to come find me - not sit on my tanker and then chase me for 15 minutes and then shoot me down.”

*Back-breaking whiplash*

As Capt. Ross approached the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga, Lt. Dorsey literally obeyed a radio command to fire, even though the exercise was planned to be purely simulated. He launched a Sidewinder missile, blowing the RF-4C out of the sky.

A Navy investigation found that Lt. Dorsey knew the RF-4C was friendly, saying his decision to fire was “deliberate” and “illogical.” The Navy banned him from flying, a punishment that at the time would seem to have ended the career of the Navy admiral’s son.

Capt. Ross and his back-seat weapons officer ejected just before the fireball would have killed them.

First the canopy flew off, subjecting Capt. Ross to a strong gravitational force that pushed up his body and exposed his head to a 500-knot wind. The rocket-powered ejection seat slammed beneath him, thrusting him from the cockpit.

The subsequent whiplash took a slow, excruciating toll.

Over the years, his spine degenerated, requiring painkillers and multiple surgeries. The ejection also dislocated his shoulders, broke his left hand and his left knee, and damaged an ankle.

Capt. Ross, who had no history of back problems until the shoot-down, continued his Air Force flying career.

But his degenerating spine worsened. He had his first major back surgery in 1992. Six more would follow as surgeons installed screws, plates and rods to keep a cracked and fragile spine functional.

“I’m not trying to say I flew when I was unable. I never did that,” Col. Rosssaid. “But it got to the point where I started getting myself in positions where I was doing more desk work than flying.”

He decided on a medical discharge in 1997 and retired as a lieutenant colonel.

“My body was breaking down,” he said. “I just couldn’t do it anymore.”

Since then, he has watched as several of his contemporaries, such as Gen. Norton Schwartz, the Air Force chief of staff, attained senior rank.

*‘A deliberate act’*

Col. Ross said his mentors, performance evaluations and duty assignments would have put him on track to brigadier general or higher. “I had a damned good shot,” he said.

“It’s very interesting that folks like [Lt. Dorsey] get admiral and folks like me who are on a similar track have something like that happen,” Col. Ross said.

He assumed the incident would have ended Lt. Dorsey’s naval career.

After all, the Navy investigative report said: “The September 22, 1987, destruction of USAF RF-4C was not the result of an accident, but the consequence of a deliberate act. His subsequent reaction [to the radio command] demonstrated an absolute disregard of the known facts and circumstances.

“He failed to utilize the decision-making process taught in replacement training and reacted in a purely mechanical manner. The performance ofLieutenant Timothy W. Dorsey on September 22, 1987, raises substantial doubt as to his capacity for good, sound judgment.”

Lt. Dorsey was not punished beyond the ban on flying, nor was he forced to resign.

Instead, he held support jobs and then switched to the Navy Reserve as an intelligence officer while he pursued a law degree. He now works for theNavy inspector general and is due to lead an intelligence unit in Norfolk, Va.

“It was an unfortunate incident that occurred when I was a rookie naval aviator,” he told the Virginian Pilot on Tuesday. “I regret that it occurred, but I have worked very hard over the years since that time.”

Last week, the nominee for admiral declined to be interviewed by The Washington Times.

“I’m going to have to decline to talk right now, based on the kind of job I’m going to be taking,” he said. “I’m not really big on talking to press for anything.

“It means heading up some intel factions. So it’s really not something I would typically do. … I [would] rather not see my name in the paper at all right now because of the job I’m getting ready to take. A lack of press is good on what I’m getting ready to do.”

Col. Ross, a Milton, Ga., resident, estimates he has spent well over $100,000 on medical bills, paid by depleting his savings. He lives on Air Force retirement benefits and Social Security disability checks.

In one of his dozens of surgeries, doctors three years ago performed an anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Surgeons “removed my guts” during the eight-hour operation to reach his spine, then put them back, he said.

In 2010, a flight surgeon who had begun treating him in 1991 wrote on his behalf to the Department of Veterans Affairs, which was reviewing his disability status.

“I would like to assure you that indeed his current medical problems and level of disability are unquestionably and completely attributable to his combat-related shoot down and the subsequent injuries he received in the following high-speed ejection,” wrote Lt. Col. Scott Phillips. “He can no longer walk more than a few yards without assistance.”

After being fished from the Mediterranean, Capt. Ross ended up on the Saratoga minutes after Lt. Dorsey landed his F-14.

“I’ve never heard from him,” Col. Ross said. “He didn’t come over and apologize on the boat or anything.”

Navy aviator's career soars; pilot he downed suffers - Washington Times

*Landing on USS Enterprise (CVN 65) at night*

*



*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*Video: Raytheon Test-Fires New GPS-Guided Mortar for Marines*
Video: Raytheon Test-Fires New GPS-Guided Mortar for Marines | Defense Tech
*(Cilck on link above for video)*




Raytheon recently test-fired a new GPS-guided 120mm mortar round at Yuma Proving Grounds, Ariz., demonstrating a precision-firing technology designed to help Marine Corps commanders in combat.

The Marine Corps program, called Precision Extended Range Mortar, or PERM, is aimed at developing and fielding precision-guided mortar rounds able to better pinpoint targets compared to existing mortar rounds.

The rounds are configured with a GPS antenna and an inertial measurement unit, or IMU, which tells the round how it is flying, said Raytheon program manager Ty Blanchard.

In a recent test-firing, three rounds landed within 10 meters or less of the desired target, Blanchard explained.

“Three of the GPS-guided rounds flew to the required range and hit within the required distance of their targets. One round was fired to the minimum range requirement and impacted just a few meters from an off-axis target,” Blanchard added.

The rounds were fired from a Marine Corps M327 120mm Rifled Towed Mortar. Raytheon and Israeli Military Industries are jointly developing PERM.

The idea with PERM rounds is to give a combat commander the ability to destroy an enemy target at longer ranges using fewer rounds. A typical mortar round travels about seven to eight kilometers. the PERM rounds can reach distances up to 16 kilometers, Blanchard added.

“It has an extended range so you don’t need as many mortar systems to cover a specific area. Also, it requires less personnel and fewer rounds. You don’t need to fire as many rounds to hit a target so that reduces your logistics train. The second and third order effects are massive,” Blanchard explained. “You can do a lot more pre-mission planning. There are a litany of advantages which give the commander so much more flexibility.

PERM rounds are engineered with small fins called canards designed to increase glide and extend the range of the weapon.

“We get lift from the canards so we are able to glide and reach longer ranges. We developed this round with Marine Corps funding and we will deliver 42 rounds to the Marine Corps next month,” Blanchard said.

The Marine Corps plans an upcoming shoot-off of GPS-guided mortar rounds between Raytheon and ATK, Blanchard said. The winning vendor will be awarded a procurement contract to deliver rounds to the Corps.

In the future, Raytheon plans to add semi-active laser guidance to its PERM round in order to increase the options provided to commanders.

While PERM is primarily being developed for the Marine Corps, the round is able to fire from an Army smooth-bore mortar tube as well as from a Corps rifle tube, Blanchard added.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## quang minh

These wars--which ranged from the seventeenth-century’s King Philip’s War to the Wounded Knee massacre in 1890--were a result of several complex influences on the U.S. military, including America?s emerging imperialistic impulses, technological military advances, officers


----------



## Aepsilons

@SvenSvensonov ,

Come back from time to time buddy. Miss your posts.


----------



## AMDR

Update: AMDR designated to AN/SPY-6

*SPY-6 Designation Assigned to Raytheon’s AMDR*
SEAPOWER Magazine Online
By RICHARD R. BURGESS, Managing Editor

ARLINGTON, Va. — The Navy has assigned a military designation to the next-generation shipboard Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR).

Speaking Jan. 15 to an audience at the Surface Navy Association National Symposium, RDML Jon A. Hill, the Navy’s program executive officer for integrated warfare systems, used the designation SPY-6 to refer to the Raytheon-built AMDR that will be installed on Flight III Arleigh Burke guided-missile destroyers.

The SPY-6 features an S-band and an X-band radar, as well as a Radar Suite Controller. Raytheon officials said the new radar is 30 times more sensitive than the current SPY-1, which was built by Lockheed Martin. The SPY-6 will enable greater detection capabilities against aircraft, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles, and can handle 30 times as many targets simultaneously as the SPY-1.

Hill said that the AMDR testing was going well, with “live hardware up and transmitting.”

*LRASM Completes Third Test Flight*
SEAPOWER Magazine Online

POINT MUGU SEA TEST RANGE, Calif. — The Navy, Air Force and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) completed a successful test of the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) Feb. 4, marking a significant step in maturing key technologies for the future operational weapon system, the Navy’s program executive officer for Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons announced in a Feb. 9 release.

The joint-service team, known as the LRASM Deployment Office (LDO), conducted the test to evaluate LRASM’s low-altitude performance and obstacle avoidance as part of the program’s accelerated development effort.

“We are very pleased with how LRASM performed today and we are looking forward to continuing integration efforts on the Air Force B-1, followed by our Navy F/A-18, over the next few years,” said CAPT Jaime Engdahl, the LDO’s Navy program manager. “We have a clear mission, to deliver game-changing capability to our warfighters in theater as quickly as possible.”

During the flight from the Sea Test Range in Point Mugu, the B-1 bomber released the LRASM, which navigated a series of preplanned waypoints to verify aerodynamic performance. In the final portion of the flight the missile detected, tracked and avoided an object that was deliberately placed in the flight pattern to demonstrate its obstacle avoidance algorithms.

Since completing two successful test flights in 2013, LRASM has rapidly transitioned from a DARPA demonstration to a formal, U.S. Navy program of record, with fielding set for 2018. The program reflects initiatives from Department of Defense’s Better Buying Power 3.0, which encourages rapid prototyping and other forms of innovative acquisition to keep a technological edge and achieve greater efficiency and productivity in defense spending.

“We’ve shown that by taking advantage of the Defense Department’s evolving acquisition policy, it is possible to significantly accelerate the fielding of a high-payoff technical system for the warfighter,” said Artie Mabbett, LDO director.

The LDO and industry partner Lockheed Martin are developing LRASM as an air-launched offensive anti-surface warfare weapon to counter the growing maritime threats in an anti-access/area-denial environment. When operational, LRASM will play a significant role in ensuring military access to operate in open ocean/blue waters and the littorals due to its enhanced ability to discriminate and conduct tactical engagements from 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## F-22Raptor

AMDR said:


> Update: AMDR designated to AN/SPY-6
> 
> *SPY-6 Designation Assigned to Raytheon’s AMDR*
> SEAPOWER Magazine Online
> By RICHARD R. BURGESS, Managing Editor
> 
> ARLINGTON, Va. — The Navy has assigned a military designation to the next-generation shipboard Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR).
> 
> Speaking Jan. 15 to an audience at the Surface Navy Association National Symposium, RDML Jon A. Hill, the Navy’s program executive officer for integrated warfare systems, used the designation SPY-6 to refer to the Raytheon-built AMDR that will be installed on Flight III Arleigh Burke guided-missile destroyers.
> 
> The SPY-6 features an S-band and an X-band radar, as well as a Radar Suite Controller. Raytheon officials said the new radar is 30 times more sensitive than the current SPY-1, which was built by Lockheed Martin. The SPY-6 will enable greater detection capabilities against aircraft, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles, and can handle 30 times as many targets simultaneously as the SPY-1.
> 
> Hill said that the AMDR testing was going well, with “live hardware up and transmitting.”
> 
> *LRASM Completes Third Test Flight*
> SEAPOWER Magazine Online
> 
> POINT MUGU SEA TEST RANGE, Calif. — The Navy, Air Force and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) completed a successful test of the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) Feb. 4, marking a significant step in maturing key technologies for the future operational weapon system, the Navy’s program executive officer for Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons announced in a Feb. 9 release.
> 
> The joint-service team, known as the LRASM Deployment Office (LDO), conducted the test to evaluate LRASM’s low-altitude performance and obstacle avoidance as part of the program’s accelerated development effort.
> 
> “We are very pleased with how LRASM performed today and we are looking forward to continuing integration efforts on the Air Force B-1, followed by our Navy F/A-18, over the next few years,” said CAPT Jaime Engdahl, the LDO’s Navy program manager. “We have a clear mission, to deliver game-changing capability to our warfighters in theater as quickly as possible.”
> 
> During the flight from the Sea Test Range in Point Mugu, the B-1 bomber released the LRASM, which navigated a series of preplanned waypoints to verify aerodynamic performance. In the final portion of the flight the missile detected, tracked and avoided an object that was deliberately placed in the flight pattern to demonstrate its obstacle avoidance algorithms.
> 
> Since completing two successful test flights in 2013, LRASM has rapidly transitioned from a DARPA demonstration to a formal, U.S. Navy program of record, with fielding set for 2018. The program reflects initiatives from Department of Defense’s Better Buying Power 3.0, which encourages rapid prototyping and other forms of innovative acquisition to keep a technological edge and achieve greater efficiency and productivity in defense spending.
> 
> “We’ve shown that by taking advantage of the Defense Department’s evolving acquisition policy, it is possible to significantly accelerate the fielding of a high-payoff technical system for the warfighter,” said Artie Mabbett, LDO director.
> 
> The LDO and industry partner Lockheed Martin are developing LRASM as an air-launched offensive anti-surface warfare weapon to counter the growing maritime threats in an anti-access/area-denial environment. When operational, LRASM will play a significant role in ensuring military access to operate in open ocean/blue waters and the littorals due to its enhanced ability to discriminate and conduct tactical engagements from
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> View attachment 191739



Excellent news about the LRASM test. LRASM is one of the most important naval programs over the next few years. It's a capability we needed yesterday.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## AMDR

This is honestly scary if this is true

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## AMDR

*Navy Wants 28 More Tomahawks on Virginia-Class Submarines*
Navy Wants 28 More Tomahawks on Virginia-Class Submarines | DoD Buzz






The Navy is evaluating whether it can add 28 more Tomahawk missiles to each Virginia-class submarine sooner than expected, service leaders said.

The service plans to begin production of what’s called Virginia Payload Modules, or VPM, onto Block V submarines by 2019 — a move which would add a new section of missile tubes to the ship and increase its ability to fire Tomahawk missiles from 12 up to 40, said Navy Capt. David Goggins, Virginia-class submarine program manager.

An evaluation is currently underway to assess the feasibility of adding VPM ahead of the current schedule and engineering them onto Block IV Virginia-class submarines being built earlier than 2019. A decision is expected by next month or May, Goggins said.

Speaking to lawmakers during Congressional Navy budget hearings, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert have both indicated that deliberations about possibly accelerating VPM production were currently underway.

Navy engineers have been working on requirements and early designs for a new, 70-foot module for the Virginia-class submarines engineered to house an additional 28 Tomahawk missiles. While designed primarily to hold Tomahawks, the VPM missile tubes are engineered such that they could accommodate a new payload, new missile or even a large unmanned underwater vehicle, Navy officials said.

In 2020, the Navy plans to start retiring four large Ohio-class guided-missile submarines able to fire up to 154 Tomahawk missiles each. This will result in the Navy losing a massive amount of undersea fire power capability, Goggins explained.

From 2002 to 2008 the Navy modified four of its oldest nuclear-armed Ohio-class submarines by turning them into ships armed with only conventional missiles – the USS Ohio, USS Michigan, USS Florida and USS Georgia. They are called SSGNs, with the “G” designation for “guided missile.”

“When the SSGNs retire in the 2020s – if no action is taken the Navy will lose about 60-percent of its undersea strike launchers. When we design and build VPM and start construction in 2019, that 60-percent shortfall will become a 40-percent shortfall in the 2028 timeframe. Over time as you build VPM you will eliminate the loss of firepower. The rationale for accelerating VPM is to potentially mitigate that 40-percent to a lower number,” Goggins explained.

Virginia-class submarines, engineered to replace the 1980s-era Los Angeles-class attack submarines, are being built in block increments. Blocks I and II, totaling 10 ships, have already been delivered to the Navy. Block III boats are currently under construction. In fact the first Block III boat, the USS North Dakota, was delivered ahead of schedule in August of last year.

The first several Block IV Virginia-class submarines are under construction as well — the USS Vermont and the USS Oregon. Last April, the Navy awarded General Dynamics’ Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls Industries Newport News Shipbuilding a $17.6 billion deal to build 10 Block IV subs with the final boat procured in 2023.

Also, design changes to the ship, including a change in the materials used for the submarines’ propulsor, will enable Block IV boats to serve for as long as 96-months between depots visits or scheduled maintenance availabilities, Goggins explained.

As a result, the operations and maintenance costs of Block IV Virginia-class submarines will be much lower and the ships will be able to complete an additional deployment throughout their service live. This will bring the number of operational deployments for Virginia-class submarines from 14 up to 15, Goggins explained.

Blocks I and II, totaling 10 ships, have already been delivered to the Navy. All eight Block III boats are being built under a $14 billion Navy deal with General Dynamics’ Electric Boat from December of 2008.

The Block III Virginia-class subs are built with new so-called Virginia Payload Tubes designed to lower costs and increase missile-firing payload possibilities, Navy officials explained.

Instead of building what most existing Virginia-class submarines have — 12 individual 21-inch in diameter vertical launch tubes able to fire Tomahawk missiles — the Block III submarines are being built with two-larger 87-inch diameter tubes able to house six Tomahawk missiles each.

“With the Virginia Payload Modules, we’re adding a body section that will house four additional Virginia Payload Tubes. That will allow you to go from 12 to 40 Tomahawks – that is the main driver or requirement for this new module,” Goggins said.

Goggins added that Navy engineers are also working on various hydraulic pumps needed to support the additional weapons and strike capability. The new Virginia Payload Modules are being engineered to fire the Tomahawk missile and also accommodate future weapons as they emerge, he added.

“We will have the flexibility to house a range of weapons that were too big to fit in our existing VLS tubes. We have inherent flexibility. As new payloads become available and as the demand and threat environment change – we will have the flexibility to adapt future payloads,” he said.

Ultimately, the Navy plans to build as many as 20-ships with VPM, a plan that will bring production of Virginia-class submarines out through 2033 and bring the overall fleet size up to 51 ships, Goggins explained. The soon to be released 2016 Navy 30-year Shipbuilding Plan will specify the timelines for this, he added.

Since the expected service life of a Virginia-class submarine is 33 years, the ships will be expected serve well beyond 2060.

All Virginia-class submarines are also engineered with a computerized fly-by-wire touchscreen control system wherein boat operators use a joystick to navigate, unlike the mechanical hydraulic controls used on prior models.

Also, the Block III boats and beyond will also have a Large Aperture Bow array which places a conformal sonar system in the bow of the boat, Navy officials said.

“The LAB array provides improved passive listening capabilities over traditional spherical arrays employed on earlier submarines,” Rear Adm. Joseph Tofalo, director of undersea warfare, said in a written statement last year. “The LAB array includes a medium-frequency active array. The hydrophones used to determine a bearing of either incoming passive sounds or active reflected sounds are taken directly from previous design and technology advancements.”

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Oldman1

New SSNs Washington and Colorado.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AMDR

*PEO Carriers: CVN-79 Will Have a New Radar, Save $180M Compared to Dual Band Radar*
PEO Carriers: CVN-79 Will Have a New Radar, Save $180M Compared to Dual Band Radar - USNI News





_Aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) sits pier side in the erly morning light at Newport News Shipbuilding in 2014. US Navy Photo_

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The aircraft carrier USS _John F. Kennedy_ (CVN-79) will have a different radar than the USS _Gerald R. Ford_(CVN-78), bringing the new Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) into the carrier fleet one ship earlier than planned and saving the program about $180 million, according to the Navy.

Program Executive Officer for Aircraft Carriers Rear Adm. Tom Moore said the new EASR was meant to enter the fleet in the amphibious assault ship LHA-8 and in USS _Enterprise_ (CVN-80), but a series of events made the early introduction possible.

_Ford_ has the Dual Band Radar (DBR) originally built for the truncated Zumwalt (DDG-1000) class of guided missile destroyer. When the Navy planned to build 27 destroyers, the cost of the DBR would have dropped sufficiently to make it a good fit for the carriers. But without that economy of scale, the carrier program had decided to seek a new radar for CVN-80 and beyond.

“I already have to procure a new radar for 80,” Moore told USNI News after a presentation at the Credit Suisse/McAleese 2016 Defense Programs Conference.
*“*80 is delivering in 2027. CVN-79, which really is not going to become operational until _Nimitz_ (CVN-68) leaves in 2025, is such a short gap, so I went back to the warfare systems guys and said, hey, the radar that we’re looking at for 80 … is there an opportunity to pull that back a little bit to the left and make it available for CVN-79? As it turned out, LHA-8 needed a radar anyway, and the Pentagon had an ongoing effort called basically the Common Affordable Radar – if you want it to be affordable it’s got to be common – so both N98 and N95 and N96, the three resource sponsors, got together with the [Navy acquisition chief Sean Stackley’s] office and said, hey, let’s put a series of requirements together for a radar that would meet the needs of both the aircraft carrier and the big deck amphib.

“We had this working group, they came back to us probably late last summer and said it’s possible,” he continued.
“There are off-the-shelf systems, it’s not developmental, that will meet these requirements.”

Moore said the Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems would release a request for proposals (RfP) around May, with bids due back in late summer.

“We already know there are radars out there that meet the technical specs that we need, so introducing some competition here will drive cost down,” Moore said.

Whatever radar PEO IWS selects will be less capable than the DBR, which Moore said is fine – “a $500 million radar on an aircraft carrier is overkill at this point,” he said of DBR.

The radar selected for the carriers and amphibs will likely only have volume search capability and need a fire control complement to go with it. Moore said the Navy may use a SPQ-9 fire control system or something comparable.

He also noted that the Nimitz-class carriers’ AN/SPS-48 and AN-SPS-49 radars were becoming obsolete and could be replaced by the new EASR, meaning the new radar would fill three ship class’s requirements.

“From what PEO IWS tells me, it’s a very low technical-risk solution,” Moore said.
“I suspect it will be a robust competition”

The ability to bring in this new radar one ship early – creating a one-time savings of about $180 million, Moore said – was primarily due to the Navy’s decision to switch _Kennedy_’s construction schedule to a two-phased delivery.

“That gave me a little extra time. If I had to deliver CVN-79 in 2022 when it was originally designed, it wouldn’t have had the radar on it,” Moore said.
“The two-phased strategy gives me the lowest possible cost for the ship, and the radar is a big piece of that.”

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AMDR

*US Navy readies for UCLASS competition, emphasising ISR payloads*
US Navy readies for UCLASS competition, emphasising ISR payloads - IHS Jane's 360

*Key Points*

The USN is preparing for a competition for its UCLASS programme
A senior official described UCLASS as primarily an ISR platform with some strike capability
The US Navy (USN) is just months away from opening a competition for its Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance Strike (UCLASS) programme, an aircraft development whose characteristics have been the subject of a great deal of debate within the US government.

Rear Admiral Mark Darrah, the US Navy's (USN's) Program Executive Officer for Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons, on 17 March described UCLASS as primarily an intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) platform.

"The leading payloads are ISR payloads, but there will also be strike," Rear Adm Durrah said during the Precision Strike Association's annual conference in Springfield, Virginia.

*Boeing To Select F-15 EW Upgrade Contractor In May*
Boeing To Select F-15 EW Upgrade Contractor In May | Defense content from Aviation Week

Boeing is expected to announce the winner of a multibillion-dollar program to modernize the F-15’s electronic self defenses in May.

The $7.6 billion Eagle Passive/Active Warning and Survivability System (Epawss) is part of a larger effort to finally upgrade the F-15 fleet as it is expected to remain in service to 2040, longer than planned due to the slow introduction of F-35s into the fleet and fewer-than-expected F-22s being procured for the air superiority mission. For more than a decade, Air Force leaders vowed to spend as little as possible upgrading legacy fourth-generation fighters in hopes of a swift shift to an all-stealth, fifth-generation fleet. Poor program management and high cost, however, has forced the service to rethink its plans.

The service will upgrade up to 413 F-15Cs and F-15Es with the Epawss system, according to Air Combat Command (ACC) officials. Air Force acquisition officials say the life-cycle cost of the upgrade is $7.6 billion, a hearty sum given the service’s earlier plans to stifle resources for legacy fighters.

Epawss is needed to replace the aging Tactical Electronic Warfare System (TEWS), which is based on 1970s technology. ACC officials say repair costs for TEWS have spiked 259% in the last decade, underscoring the need for a new system.

With Boeing, the F-15 manufacturer, as prime contractor and integrator, the Epawss system is expected to include a new digital internal radar warning receiver, upgraded chaff-and-flare dispenser and a new fiber-optic towed decoy. The new system will also address "capability gaps as threats evolve," ACC officials say. "The threat environment is becoming congested and contested [and] F-15s need a modern EW system to remain viable in the future operational environment."

The emergence of Digital Radio Frequency Memory technologies also has frustrated allied EW technology, driving a need for upgrades. Using DRFM, an adversary can swiftly replicate signals, allowing for fast and accurate jamming in the air battle.

Though ACC officials say TEWS "lacks performance to counter current/future threats," Epawss introduction into service is beyond the future years defense plan, or beyond 2020. Installs for developmental testing aircraft are slated for fiscal 2017, the Air Force acquisition officials say.

The service is also procuring a long-wave infrared search and track (IRST) for the F-15C aircraft, which are primarily dedicated to air superiority missions. This IRST will provide beyond-visual range identification for enemy formations, allowing for operators to distinguish the number and possibly type of aircraft in formation at extended range.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

*Pentagon to build new variable-cycle engine for F-35 and other aircraft *Pentagon to build new variable-cycle engine for F-35 and other aircraft - IHS Jane's 360

Key Points

The Pentagon's new sixth-generation engine will be built for the F-35 and several other aircraft
The new engine would be 35% more fuel efficient than existing engines, extending the range of US aircraft significantly
The Pentagon's developmental sixth-generation jet engine featuring greater fuel efficiency and thrust than existing military engines is initially being built for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a senior agency official said on 17 March.

"There are a number of threshold platforms," Alan Shaffer, the principal deputy assistant secretary of defense, research, and engineering, told _IHS Jane's_ at the Precision Strike Association's annual conference in Springfield, Virginia.

*US general: LCMR radars working well for Ukraine*
US general: LCMR radars working well for Ukraine - IHS Jane's 360

AN/TPQ-49 Lightweight Counter-Mortar Radars (LCMRs) have been highly effective for the Ukrainian military, according to the top US Army general in Europe.

Ukrainian use of the LCMR "has turned out better than expected", and Ukrainian military units have found "new ways" of using the radar, Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, head of US Army Europe (AREUR), told reporters during a 17 March breakfast meeting.

In late 2014 the US Army began delivering the first of 20 LCMRs to Ukraine, and the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence is understood to have purchased more.

The US Army defines the LCMR as a "day/night mortar, cannon, and rocket locating system".

It can be deployed in 20 minutes and is designed to automatically locate firing positions by the detecting and tracking in-flight shells and back-tracking that data to provide a weapon position, according to _IHS Jane's C4ISR and Mission Systems_ .

Still, Ukraine likely needs to get more capable at counter-jamming missions, Lt Gen Hodges added. Russian-backed separatists have been jamming Ukrainian C4ISR systems and effectively targeting Ukrainian units, which would need to either attack the source of the jamming or 'spoof' the electronic warfare systems being used against them.

*Air Force developing new F-16 radars*
Air Force developing new F-16 radars


The Air Force has budgeted $25 million to begin development of new radars for its F-16 fleet, a need especially felt by the service's homeland defense mission.

t. Gen. Stanley Clarke, director of the Air National Guard, said the upgrade is needed for surveillance and the ability to detect targets.

"It's a deficit and we need to address this," Clarke told the House Appropriations defense subcommittee Tuesday.

The service earlier this month filed a "sources sought" notice to contractors for information on the development of an active electronically scanned array radar for the F-16.

Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh told lawmakers on Tuesday that the service has budgeted money to begin development, and would like to spend about $75 million "if we can find the funding'' to build the radars for the entire F-16 fleet.

"We need to develop an AESA radar plan for our F-16s who are conducting the homeland defense mission in particular," Welsh told the House Armed Services Committee. "Our entire fleet – active, Guard and Reserve – none of them have been upgraded with that radar."

The service estimates it would spend $3.2 million per aircraft to install an integrated AESA radar.

"We think that's the way to go," Welsh said. "We're looking now at how we can do that as we move forward."

The Air Force originally sought the upgrade in the fiscal 2013 budget request, but it was cut as part of cost reductions imposed in the Budget Control Act.

First Air Force, the numbered Air Force responsible for the homeland protection mission, earlier this month filed an "Urgent Operational Need" request for radar upgrades to its F-16 fleet. 

These requests are used to identify needs "during a current conflict or crisis situation that if not satisfied in an expedited manner, will result in unacceptable loss of life or critical mission failure," the Air Force said in a statement.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

*Cyber Firm: The NSA Is Out-Hacking the Chinese and the Russians*
Cyber Firm: The NSA Is Out-Hacking the Chinese and the Russians - Defense One

The exposure of an all-star hacker group thought to be affiliated with the National Security Agency is both a feather in the spy agency’s cap and a setback for intelligence-gathering on Islamic extremists, some threat analysts say.

On Sunday, Kaspersky Lab, a research firm headquartered in Moscow, published an analysis implying the “Equation Group” is the same entity behind the so-called Stuxnet worm. That malware is believed to be a joint NSA-Israeli invention that sabotaged Iran’s nuclear centrifuges in 2009 or 2010.

Code developed by the possibly-20-year-old group can reprogram popular hard drives in a way that is virtually impossible for almost any person or machine to see. While surveilling an Islamic Jihadist discussion forum, the team took pains to infect only specific targets by checking their usernames and network addresses, according to the new analysis.

“The person responsible or the team, on the one hand, should be patting themselves on the back,” said Alex McGeorge, head of threat intelligence at security firm Immunity and a former Transportation Department cyber consultant. “I think this is work you can really be proud of from a purely technical standpoint.”

The victims resided in Iran, Russia, Syria, Afghanistan and Belgium, among some 30 other countries, according to Kaspersky. The company’s founder, Eugene Kaspersky, has worked for the Russian military, a sometimes cyber adversary of the United States, but the lab’s research is respected by security experts worldwide. 

The Equation group is “the most advanced threat actor we have seen,” researchers at Kaspersky’s Global Research and Analysis Team said. Over the past several years, the team has investigated more than 60 advanced attackers.

McGeorge said the group seems to be exercising discretion during its operations.

“No one is really going to come out and say you shouldn’t deploy this stuff against ISIS,” he said. “All you’ve got to do is look at the news and see that ISIS are the worst bad guys since the Nazis.”

To snoop on some targets, the group mailed a spyware-laced CD-ROM of materials from a Houston conference to select attendees, according to Kaspersky.

“Realistically, this is what taxpayers pay the intelligence community to do,” McGeorge said. “This team was deploying this against appropriate people. This is not Procter & Gamble in New Jersey. This is enemies foreign.”

*Several Days’ Work Down the Drain*
The outing of the group could foil some NSA plans, if the agency is indeed involved, he said. However, the amount of time lost will not be measured in years.

“It’s definitely going to be a setback. It’s definitely going to ruffle a lot of feathers and ruin several days,” McGeorge said, but “I don’t think this is the end of a career or the end of our intelligence gathering capability against ISIS.”

His firm, Immunity, was founded by Dave Aitel, an offensive cyber expert who used to work at NSA. 

NSA spokeswoman Vanee Vines on Monday declined to comment on any claims raised in the report, but told _Nextgov_ that “broadly speaking, any time these kinds of allegations are made publicly, there is always a risk of harm to our national security.”

The Equation group has breached perhaps tens of thousands of individuals in sectors spanning government, telecommunications, energy, encryption and academia, just to name a few, according to Kaspersky.

Relative to the agency’s massive data sweeps, this NSA effort is somewhat more discreet, but still damaging to the security of the Internet, says Bruce Schneier, a world-renowned technologist. He also happens to be a former NSAemployee, but has eschewed the agency’s alleged practices of weakening encryption and inserting “backdoor” bugs in communications technologies to make eavesdropping easier.

*Now Criminals and China Know the Equation, Too*
“On one hand, it’s the sort of thing we want the NSA to do,” he said in a Monday post on the Lawfare Blog. “It’s targeted. It’s exploiting existing vulnerabilities. In the overall scheme of things, this is much less disruptive to Internet security than deliberately inserting vulnerabilities that leave everyone insecure.”

That said, the Equation group’s “techniques aren’t magically exclusive to the NSA,” with China and cyber spy companies like Gamma Group using similar ploys in Third World governments, Schneier noted. “We need to figure out how to maintain security in the face of these sorts of attacks, because we’re all going to be subjected to the criminal versions of them in three to five years.”

The bag of tricks still could perform well for NSA for a while, McGeorge said. 

Depending on the technical sophistication of the adversary, ”the tool chain may continue to be viable against targets that have already been compromised,” he said. The questions that have to be asked are: Do they have the ability to detect, remediate and mitigate this sort of risk? How long is it going to take them to develop that capability? 

The moniker Equation group refers to the team’s ”love for encryption algorithms,” the Kaspersky researchers said. 

In a statement, NSA officials said they are aware of the recently released report and would not discuss any details.

“The U.S. government calls on our intelligence agencies to protect the United States, its citizens, and its allies from a wide array of serious threats — including terrorist plots from al-Qaeda, ISIL and others,” as well as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and international crime rings, officials said.

Cyber forensics firms such as Kaspersky, Mandiant and iSight have published a bevy of reports on Chinese and Russian cyber battalions that have waged deep-rooted cyberespionage campaigns.

But “this is way more sophisticated than anything that’s been made public so far and that bodes well,” McGeorge said. “I’m confident that there are other tools that can be brought to bear that will fill the same needs just in different ways.”

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## IrbiS

*USAF Issues T-X Requirements*
By Aaron Mehta12:09 p.m. EDT March 20, 2015




WASHINGTON — The US Air Force has released the long-awaited requirements for its next-generation trainer program, known as T-X.

The requirements, posted on a federal website Wednesday, will drive the decisions of the five competing companies who hope to win the rights to build 350 advanced flight trainers and the associated systems to replace the legacy T-38 trainer. Interested parties must respond to the service by May 10.

The program is the first to issue requirements under the "Bending the Cost Curve" initiative, a major staple in Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James' plans for acquisition reform.

There are over 100 requirements included in the documents, but an Air Force news release said the emphasis is on three key components: sustained G, simulator visual acuity and performance, and aircraft sustainment.

Other capabilities include the need for in-flight refueling, a 10 percent reduction in fuel usage from the T-38, and a minimum of being able to take off at an 8000' runway length, 7400' density altitude and 10 knot tailwind.

Notably, there is no requirement for a "Red Air" aggressor aircraft. While such a program was included in the out years of the fiscal 2016 budget request submitted by the service, Air Force officials have characterized that more as study money for future upgrades.




DEFENSE NEWS

USAF Downplays T-X 'Red Air' Option


Which doesn't mean the service isn't looking at future capabilities for the T-X. Included in a series of questions posited to industry are "to what degree is your current design open/flexible to accommodation of future capability modifications" and another asking whether there are"limiting factors in your current design that would preclude future system modification" of wing pylons, radar systems, datalinks and defensive systems.

In February, Gen. Robin Rand, the head of Air Education and Training Command, said he was concerned about building in growth potential for the next trainer.

"We don't want buyer's remorse. It's a 50-year-plus aircraft," Rand said. "We think our requirements will allow the airplane to absolutely do those things. ... Will it have that capability [to upgrade in the future]? We think it will, but it's got to be done affordably."

There are five competitors aiming for the right to replace the aging T-38 fleet used by the service. The two clean-sheet designs are being put forth by a Boeing/Saab team and a Northrop Grumman-led coalition that includes BAE Systems and L-3.

The new designs will go up against a pair of legacy trainers in the form of Lockheed Martin's offering of Korean Aerospace Industries' T-50, and the T-100, a collaboration between General Dynamics and Italy's Alenia Aermacchi based on the latter's M-346 design.

The wildcard in the competition comes from Textron AirLand's Scorpion, a new aircraft designed for ISR and light-attack missions. Officials for the Scorpion program have said they plan to develop a trainer variant of their aircraft to compete in T-X.




DEFENSE NEWS

Northrop Developing New Design for T-X


The service marked $11.4 million for research-and-development funding for the T-X in fiscal 2016. That number rises to $12.2 million in fiscal 2017, then jumps to $107.2 million in 2018, $262.8 million in 2019 and $275.9 million in 2020.

A contract award is planned for fall of 2017.


USAF Issues T-X Requirements

@[URL='https://defence.pk/members/v%C3%AD%C3%B0arr.167120/']Víðarr[/URL] You really got a nose for military stuff or just mingling?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Víðarr

IrbiS said:


> @[URL='https://defence.pk/members/v%C3%AD%C3%B0arr.167120/']Víðarr[/URL] You really got a nose for military stuff or just mingling?



I loooovvveee the military. I'm active US Navy, but in a non-combat role.  I actually did read all of the articles/posts I liked before liking them, just so were clear. I read first, like latter.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## IrbiS

Víðarr said:


> I loooovvveee the military. I'm active US Navy, but in a non-combat role.  I actually did read all of the articles/posts I liked before liking them, just so were clear. I read first, like latter.


Sorry I forgot the USN Part Ever served abroad?


----------



## Víðarr

IrbiS said:


> Sorry I forgot the USN Part Ever served abroad?



Yes, I've been deployed to European and Asian bases as well as sea-assets, but I can't disclose my actual deployment arrangements. I'm on a rotating deployment scheduled.

Getting ready to deploy again in several months.


----------



## IrbiS

Víðarr said:


> Yes, I've been deployed to European and Asian bases as well as sea-assets, but I can't disclose my actual deployment arrangements. I'm on a rotating deployment scheduled.
> 
> Getting ready to deploy again in several months.


Shouldn't we quit trolling a nice thread and take conversation somewhere else

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

*Upgraded Arleigh Burke-class USS Curtis Wilbur destroyer completes sea trials*
Upgraded Arleigh Burke-class USS Curtis Wilbur destroyer completes sea trials - Naval Technology

The US Navy's Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG 54) has completed sea trials following a DDG midlife overhaul extended dry dock shipboard repair availability (EDSRA).

The 335-day EDSRA is said to be the longest and most extensive DDG overhaul in the history of Forward Deployed Naval Forces (FDNF).

The US Naval Ship Repair Facility in Yokosuka, Japan, conducted and led the first ever availability of DDG EDSRA to upgrade the destroyer's systems and weapons, as well as perform other necessary repairs.

USS Curtis Wilbur combat systems officer fire controlman 1st class Deffey Moore said: "It is incredibly important right now for the junior sailors to work with senior personnel to learn not just about their new equipment but underway life in general."

Built by Bath Iron Works in Bath, Maine, USS Curtis Wilbur is the fourth of seven Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers assigned to Destroyer Squadron 15. Curtis was commissioned in Long Beach, California, on 19 March 1994.

The destroyer is permanently forward-deployed to Yokosuka in Japan where it supports the security and stability of the Indo-Asia-Pacific region.

Curtis Wilbur commanding officer, commander Hans De For said: "Curtis Wilbur worked with all of the ships on the waterfront to get our Sailors underway during the avail.

"With their help we were able to successfully complete this yard period with enough qualified watch standers to excel during sea trials."


















--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*An Air Force In Transition Adjusts for the Cyber Age*
An Air Force In Transition Adjusts for the Cyber Age | Military.com

A partnership between the air and cyber domains is the key to blended operations.

The U.S. Air Force is striving to become a multidomain warfighting unit in the air, in space and in cyber, according to its chief information officer. However, attaining the same degree of supremacy in cyber that it currently enjoys in the air domain may prove a far more daunting task.

As do its sister services, the Air Force operates under a decades-old, traditional model. That model does not serve information technology needs well, and the issue has become more crucial as cyber continues to increase in importance.

Cyberspace is both operational and manmade, points out Lt. Gen. William J. Bender, USAF, Air Force chief information officer/A-6. Accordingly, the importance of the cyberspace domain is on a par with that of air and space. For the Air Force to move forward, it has "an absolute requirement to think differently' he states.

"The Air Force is bridging a change from the industrial age to the information age," Gen. Bender declares. "We are a little out of step in that we're in the information age, but we haven't transitioned the Air Force yet fully from the industrial age. That will take thinking differently. It's about the ability to correlate data; form information; organize that information in a way that gives us a better level of understanding; and eventually ... how you operate in the information age that is the equivalent of information warfare.

"We still need to remain the best Air Force of the industrial age, but at the same time we have to recognize that the environment around us has changed to the information age," he continues. "Now it becomes more in terms of how are you going to take advantage of the cyber domain bestin a way that can take advantage of opportunities and be better, faster and smarter than the enemy."

The key for the Air Force to achieve that goal of dual supremacy is to begin the evolution of learning to think differently, Gen. Bender states. "While the environment is rapidly changing, we must recognize that it is not purely a matter of security that we must be concerned about; it also is a great opportunity for us. If we rely on the OODA model-observe, orient, decide and act-faster than the enemy because we've done a better job of managing our data and turning it into knowledge, then in fact we can own the information age in a way that the Air Force currently owns the industrial age."

The Air Force must come to a better understanding of the cyber domain, the general continues. This domain differs from air and space to a greater degree than those two differ from each other, but the manmade domain of cyber presents different opportunities, especially in that it can be manipulated. "Were trying to recognize that... the cyber domain and its unique challenges on the security side and opportunities on the information warfare side are different than what we've operated in the past," he emphasizes.

Air Force command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) has two top priorities, Gen. Bendersays. The first is to transition the information technology infrastructure to the future Joint Information Environment (JIE). This process will take the infrastructure from an Air Force architecture to a joint singlesecurity architecture. This is important both from a mission perspective-it is the way the Air Force will fight in the future-and from an efficiency perspective, he offers.

The second priority is the transformation of the Air Force work force relative to the JIE. A number of ongoing initiatives involve the standup and development of cyber mission forces, and these are connected to the JIE transition. The general says the JIE, as it is conceived, would allow the Air Force to repurpose individuals assigned to the commodity side of cyber, such as operating email servers.

For example, the legacy mission of a communications squadron largely has been consolidated and centralized through the 24th Air Force. Some of the roles airmen now serve can be replaced through cloud technologies or data center consolidation using commercial capabilities. Gen. Bendersuggests that some of these airmen could transition from information technology support to missions that involve defending the networks and other cyber operations, including advising commanders on cybervulnerabilities.

This work force transformation is the biggest near-term challenge, the general avers. The JIE will provide a dividend in the repurposed work force, and this is an important underpinning to the Air Forces ability to transform its C4ISR. But the service still must pay attention to its legacy communications and networks while developing this new cyber-sawy work force, he warrants.

The blending of cyber and air operations is strong with the Air Forces F-35. In addition to being a multirole fighter aircraft, the F-35 also is a flying multisensor platform. Its sensor data will be part of any Air Force ISR network, but that architecture remains to be configured, particularly with the JIE looming. Gen. Bender offers that the JIE will need to take into account the F-35 instead of the F-35's data architecture being configured for the enterprise network.

"It's the JIE that must meet the needs of the platform, as opposed to the other way around," he declares. "The JIE is the next evolution of our information technology infrastructure, and there are unique challenges with a state-of-the-art system both in terms of bandwidth and sensor integration.

"One of the things we need to be cognizant of is ensuring that our development of infrastructure and eventual nextgeneration information technology needs to be conducive of a high-sensor-specific platform," he continues. "I'm not sure that we're there now, but we certainly have to be."

The Air Force is developing a data management strategy for the F-35's ISR information. The volume of ISR data currently flowing across Air Forcenetworks "is beyond our capability to process," Gen. Bender allows. So, the F-35 probably will provide raw data to the network early in its deployment, but over time data may be fused to some extent.

The constantly changing defense environment, coupled with rapid technology evolution, place the Air Force at a disadvantage when it tries to operate with a methodical "1947 corporate process," Gen. Bender states. Because the process is unresponsive to the existing environment, the result is systems such as the JIE, which is not a program of record with formal funding. "We need to do a better job of treating information technology ... as a cost of doing business-pay yourself first," he declares.

The overarching budget environment, with its budget controls looming in the background, hinders planning and programming, the general says. These numbers are too low for Air Force C4ISR requirements, he says. "There are more requirements than we have budget authority, so all choices are tough at this point."

His short-term budget concerns include the joint regional security stacks and the foundational work needed to advance the JIE and its joint single security architecture. Lacking a program of record, these efforts are unfunded and must compete in a disadvantaged environment in fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016. The general adds that the Air Force has done some work to fold in these efforts as a program of record in fiscal year 2017, which would help in the competition for funding.

He points out the funding strategy is joint, which involves all of the services. All must meet their commitments, he states.

In the future, Air Force information technology must feature a balance between agility and affordability, and private sector solutions will play a big role. Areas such as commercial cloud computing services and commercial data center consolidation will offer significant efficiencies, Gen. Bender points out. Other commercial information technologies the Air Force will exploit include mobile capabilities, smart devices and big data analytics, he says.

On the high end of cyber, a convergence of operations, intelligence and information technology works for operational aspects. A partnership among the A-2, the A-3 and the A-6 at the air staff level focuses on developing and operationalizing cyberweapons of the future, the general reports.

This partnership does not portend a major reorganization of these Air Force elements, as did happen in the Navy. Gen. Bender offers that he sees no such reorganization for the near term, but the long-term future may hold the potential for an Air Force information command combining cyber and intelligence. He does not foresee this taking place for at least a decade, he says. "Everybody has reorganization fatigue for the time being."

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## AMDR

*UNC vs. Michigan State, November 11 2011 aboard USS Carl Vinson
*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Víðarr

AMDR said:


> *UNC vs. Michigan State, November 11 2011 aboard USS Carl Vinson
> *
> View attachment 205290



Basketball fan I take it.

*After Terminator Arm, DARPA Wants Implantable Hard Drive for the Brain*

An experimental Pentagon program has already developed two types of a highly advanced, Terminator-like prosthetic arm.

What's more, a quadriplegic woman with sensors implanted onto her brain controlled one of the robotic limbs to grab a cup, shake hands and eat a chocolate bar. She even flew an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter simulator using just her thoughts.

Now, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) wants to expand on that cutting-edge work to build other potential breakthrough medical technologies, including a pacemaker-sized device that might someday improve the memory of troops who suffered a traumatic brain injury. Think of it as a hard drive of sorts for the brain.

"We know we need a next-generation device that doesn't exist today," said Justin Sanchez, a program manager in DARPA's Biological Technologies Office in Arlington, Virginia. "That's what these new programs are all about -- not only understanding the brain and these conditions, but building the hardware that enables us to address those issues. You need both."

*Memory Chip*

Over more than a decade of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, roadside bombs and other explosive devices took a toll on the U.S. military. An estimated half to two-thirds of the more than 7,100 Americans killed or wounded in combat were victims of such blasts and some 1,800 lost limbs, according to USA Today. Hundreds of thousands more suffered from a traumatic brain injury (TBI).

While researchers have been scanning the brain for years, very little is known about memory, which is stored in the side parts of the brain known as temporal lobes, Sanchez said. Like epileptic patients, troops who damage this part of the brain can suffer from memory loss and other issues.

One of DARPA's newer projects, Restoring Active Memory, seeks to build a prosthetic device that could aid in the formation and recall declarative memory, a form of long-term memory that can be recalled such as a fact. For example, a future experiment might involve a patient who is asked to identify a series of faces and names with the aid of an implant.

"The twist on this is he or she will be interacting with a prosthetic device," Sanchez said. "So at some face and name presentations, maybe we'll stimulate the part of the brain that is involved in the memory formation and see if there are particular patterns of stimulation that can facilitate the formation and recall of that memory."

*Terminator Arm*

The research builds on the work of a precursor program, called Revolutionizing Prosthetics, which dates back almost a decade and reflects the cornerstone of the agency's research into neural signaling.

Jan Scheuermann, one of two patients in the program, in 2012 agreed to let surgeons at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center implant a pair of pea-sized electrodes onto her left motor cortex -- which controls movement -- and connect her to a robotic arm. She hoped she might feed herself for the first time in a decade. She did that and more.

Scheuermann, a 55-year-old mother of two who became paralyzed in middle-age due to a rare neurological disorder known as spinocerebellar degeneration, became so adept at manipulating the arm developed by Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory that her participation in the study was extended until October, when the electrode arrays were removed.

"That is the first program in the agency where you have humans interacting with really advanced prosthetic devices to do something extremely useful," Sanchez said.

*Reading the Mind*

The sensors on Scheuermann's brain measured just four-millimeters long, yet included hundreds of contact points designed to pick up signals from individual brain cells called neurons.

"When you intend to move your arm, for example, there are certain places in your brain that become active, the neurons that are there become active, and that activity can occur when you physically move your arm or even if you imagine moving your arm," Sanchez said.

The signals were relayed to a computer running software that matched the activity to patterns associated with physical movements, such as raising or lowering an arm. Scientists used vector mathematics to build algorithms that determined the intended motion of the not only the arm, but also the wrist and fingers. The code translated into operating instructions for the robotic prosthesis.

"Neurons in this particular part of your brain are tuned to certain movement directions," Sanchez said. "You can imagine how you can use that information to operate a robotic arm. Once you know those associations, you can say, ‘Oh, whenever I see that guy firing, I'm trying to go in this direction."

*Flying the F-35*

While the program's potential real-world applications aren't limited to prosthetics, patients won't be flying drones into combat anytime soon. When Scheuermann piloted the F-35 simulator, she didn't drop bombs or launch missiles. Rather, she simply cruised along -- sometimes erratically -- and tried to bank the aircraft on simple flight patterns.

The process of linking her brain to the aircraft's motion was similar to the robotic arm. Scientists would tell her to imagine trying to steer the plane to the right and left, and then would have to figure out how the neural activity would connect to control of the rudders.

"You have to try to find this functional mapping," Sanchez said. "This is a real core part of this from a science perspective: How do you learn what those signals in the brain mean when you intend to do something and how do they relate to the device you're trying to actuate, whether it's a robotic arm or an airplane?"

Scheuermann also virtually piloted a small Cessna plane around the Eiffel Tower in Paris -- an experience she found "liberating," Sanchez said.

"That's a really powerful statement," he said. "We think of neurotechnology as hardware, but we don't often think about it in terms of how it can improve somebody's life or change somebody's life."

*Bringing Back Sensation*

The next and final phase of the program will seek to reverse the signaling process by understanding the patterns for sensation in the central nervous system.

"It's really easy to say, ‘We want to bring sensation back,' but it's really difficult to actually do it," Sanchez said. "You have to go to a different part of the brain that's involved in the perception of touch -- the primary central cortex -- and again the challenge is the same: You have an electronic device that is measuring something and we need to translate that into signals that the brain understands."

His office is working to identify potential civilian patients for the program. The agency doesn't perform experiments on troops, even though the research is designed to help those who serve.

"Military personnel make the ultimate sacrifice," Sanchez said. "They serve our nation and their lives often are changed through their injury. The very least we can do is develop a technology that will help to improve their quality of life. We have to stay true to that. It's essential."

*Reversible Procedure*

In the early 2000s, connecting a brain to a robotic prosthesis would have required multiple rooms full of computers, cables and other hardware. While its recent work proved it could be done with more advanced systems and less space, the agency still wants much smaller components.

"All of the new programs have fundamentally by their design the goal of developing medical devices that are fully implantable -- the size of a cardiac pacemaker that could be implanted somewhere in the body," Sanchez said.

Under another new effort called Systems-Based Neurotechnology for Emerging Therapies (Subnets), DARPA is funding the development of implantable devices designed to more precisely identify and treat psychiatric diseases.

"All of these procedures, at least the ones we've talked about thus far, are reversible," he added. "Neurotechnology is being designed in such a way that it's reversible, so if it's not providing a benefit for you, you don't use it. You just take it out."

From DARPA Wants Implantable Hard Drive for the Brain | Defense Tech

Kai's job

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Zabaniyah

Víðarr said:


> Basketball fan I take it.
> 
> *After Terminator Arm, DARPA Wants Implantable Hard Drive for the Brain*
> 
> An experimental Pentagon program has already developed two types of a highly advanced, Terminator-like prosthetic arm.
> 
> What's more, a quadriplegic woman with sensors implanted onto her brain controlled one of the robotic limbs to grab a cup, shake hands and eat a chocolate bar. She even flew an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter simulator using just her thoughts.
> 
> Now, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) wants to expand on that cutting-edge work to build other potential breakthrough medical technologies, including a pacemaker-sized device that might someday improve the memory of troops who suffered a traumatic brain injury. Think of it as a hard drive of sorts for the brain.
> 
> "We know we need a next-generation device that doesn't exist today," said Justin Sanchez, a program manager in DARPA's Biological Technologies Office in Arlington, Virginia. "That's what these new programs are all about -- not only understanding the brain and these conditions, but building the hardware that enables us to address those issues. You need both."
> 
> *Memory Chip*
> 
> Over more than a decade of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, roadside bombs and other explosive devices took a toll on the U.S. military. An estimated half to two-thirds of the more than 7,100 Americans killed or wounded in combat were victims of such blasts and some 1,800 lost limbs, according to USA Today. Hundreds of thousands more suffered from a traumatic brain injury (TBI).
> 
> While researchers have been scanning the brain for years, very little is known about memory, which is stored in the side parts of the brain known as temporal lobes, Sanchez said. Like epileptic patients, troops who damage this part of the brain can suffer from memory loss and other issues.
> 
> One of DARPA's newer projects, Restoring Active Memory, seeks to build a prosthetic device that could aid in the formation and recall declarative memory, a form of long-term memory that can be recalled such as a fact. For example, a future experiment might involve a patient who is asked to identify a series of faces and names with the aid of an implant.
> 
> "The twist on this is he or she will be interacting with a prosthetic device," Sanchez said. "So at some face and name presentations, maybe we'll stimulate the part of the brain that is involved in the memory formation and see if there are particular patterns of stimulation that can facilitate the formation and recall of that memory."
> 
> *Terminator Arm*
> 
> The research builds on the work of a precursor program, called Revolutionizing Prosthetics, which dates back almost a decade and reflects the cornerstone of the agency's research into neural signaling.
> 
> Jan Scheuermann, one of two patients in the program, in 2012 agreed to let surgeons at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center implant a pair of pea-sized electrodes onto her left motor cortex -- which controls movement -- and connect her to a robotic arm. She hoped she might feed herself for the first time in a decade. She did that and more.
> 
> Scheuermann, a 55-year-old mother of two who became paralyzed in middle-age due to a rare neurological disorder known as spinocerebellar degeneration, became so adept at manipulating the arm developed by Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory that her participation in the study was extended until October, when the electrode arrays were removed.
> 
> "That is the first program in the agency where you have humans interacting with really advanced prosthetic devices to do something extremely useful," Sanchez said.
> 
> *Reading the Mind*
> 
> The sensors on Scheuermann's brain measured just four-millimeters long, yet included hundreds of contact points designed to pick up signals from individual brain cells called neurons.
> 
> "When you intend to move your arm, for example, there are certain places in your brain that become active, the neurons that are there become active, and that activity can occur when you physically move your arm or even if you imagine moving your arm," Sanchez said.
> 
> The signals were relayed to a computer running software that matched the activity to patterns associated with physical movements, such as raising or lowering an arm. Scientists used vector mathematics to build algorithms that determined the intended motion of the not only the arm, but also the wrist and fingers. The code translated into operating instructions for the robotic prosthesis.
> 
> "Neurons in this particular part of your brain are tuned to certain movement directions," Sanchez said. "You can imagine how you can use that information to operate a robotic arm. Once you know those associations, you can say, ‘Oh, whenever I see that guy firing, I'm trying to go in this direction."
> 
> *Flying the F-35*
> 
> While the program's potential real-world applications aren't limited to prosthetics, patients won't be flying drones into combat anytime soon. When Scheuermann piloted the F-35 simulator, she didn't drop bombs or launch missiles. Rather, she simply cruised along -- sometimes erratically -- and tried to bank the aircraft on simple flight patterns.
> 
> The process of linking her brain to the aircraft's motion was similar to the robotic arm. Scientists would tell her to imagine trying to steer the plane to the right and left, and then would have to figure out how the neural activity would connect to control of the rudders.
> 
> "You have to try to find this functional mapping," Sanchez said. "This is a real core part of this from a science perspective: How do you learn what those signals in the brain mean when you intend to do something and how do they relate to the device you're trying to actuate, whether it's a robotic arm or an airplane?"
> 
> Scheuermann also virtually piloted a small Cessna plane around the Eiffel Tower in Paris -- an experience she found "liberating," Sanchez said.
> 
> "That's a really powerful statement," he said. "We think of neurotechnology as hardware, but we don't often think about it in terms of how it can improve somebody's life or change somebody's life."
> 
> *Bringing Back Sensation*
> 
> The next and final phase of the program will seek to reverse the signaling process by understanding the patterns for sensation in the central nervous system.
> 
> "It's really easy to say, ‘We want to bring sensation back,' but it's really difficult to actually do it," Sanchez said. "You have to go to a different part of the brain that's involved in the perception of touch -- the primary central cortex -- and again the challenge is the same: You have an electronic device that is measuring something and we need to translate that into signals that the brain understands."
> 
> His office is working to identify potential civilian patients for the program. The agency doesn't perform experiments on troops, even though the research is designed to help those who serve.
> 
> "Military personnel make the ultimate sacrifice," Sanchez said. "They serve our nation and their lives often are changed through their injury. The very least we can do is develop a technology that will help to improve their quality of life. We have to stay true to that. It's essential."
> 
> *Reversible Procedure*
> 
> In the early 2000s, connecting a brain to a robotic prosthesis would have required multiple rooms full of computers, cables and other hardware. While its recent work proved it could be done with more advanced systems and less space, the agency still wants much smaller components.
> 
> "All of the new programs have fundamentally by their design the goal of developing medical devices that are fully implantable -- the size of a cardiac pacemaker that could be implanted somewhere in the body," Sanchez said.
> 
> Under another new effort called Systems-Based Neurotechnology for Emerging Therapies (Subnets), DARPA is funding the development of implantable devices designed to more precisely identify and treat psychiatric diseases.
> 
> "All of these procedures, at least the ones we've talked about thus far, are reversible," he added. "Neurotechnology is being designed in such a way that it's reversible, so if it's not providing a benefit for you, you don't use it. You just take it out."
> 
> From DARPA Wants Implantable Hard Drive for the Brain | Defense Tech
> 
> Kai's job



Simply amazing developments. I thought that they hardly progressed in such technologies.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Víðarr

*US Navy conducts 155th test flight of Trident II D5 missile*

US Navy conducts 155th test flight of Trident II D5 missile - Naval Technology

The US Navy has successfully conducted the 155th test flight of two unarmed Lockheed Martin-built Trident II D5 Fleet ballistic missiles, which were launched in the Pacific Ocean from a submerged Ohio-class submarine.

Lockheed Martin Space Systems Strategic and Missile Defense Systems deputy and Fleet Ballistic Missile programmes vice-president Mat Joyce said: "These latest test flights demonstrate the reliability of the D5 missile and the readiness of the entire Trident strategic weapon system, every minute of every day.

"The navy programme office, the submarine crews and the industry team never rest to ensure the safety, security and performance of this crucial deterrence system."

Prior to testing, the missiles were adapted to test configurations using kits comprising a range safety devices and flight telemetry instrumentation.

The US Navy performs a series of operational system evaluation tests for the Trident strategic weapon system under the testing guidelines of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Trident II D5 is a three-stage, solid-propellant, inertial-guided ballistic missile, capable of travelling a range of 4,000nm while carrying multiple, independently targeted re-entry vehicles.

It is currently aboard the US Navy Ohio-class and UK Royal Navy Vanguard-class submarines.

The missile's design was completed in 1989 and was first deployed in 1990.

Lockheed Martin Space Systems is the strategic missile prime contractor for the US Navy's strategic systems programmes.
















Mr. @C130 I noticed your comment on a thread about the US response to Russian missile drills. No need to fly B-52s around, we'll just keep doing what were doing, quietly and without making a fuss.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## AMDR

*3-D printers save time, money in major aircraft repairs*
3-D printers save time, money in major aircraft repairs

What do you do when a crack in your F/A-18 requires a million-dollar fix and six months of labor? Send in the 3-D printer.

Fleet Readiness Center Southwest, an aviation repair shop based at Naval Station North Island, California, is home to three state-of-the-art 3-D printers, a technology that can rapidly fashion custom parts. Those initiatives are transforming fleet maintenance:

1. Multiple platforms. The machines arrived two years ago thanks to Gabe Draguicevich, manufacturing deputy program manager, who saw an unfulfilled line in his budget for additive manufacturing — the technical term for 3-D printing.

Rather than spend the $1.2 million on one machine, he divided it up among three, all printing in plastic:




A stereolithography machine, which uses a laser to carve an item out of liquid resin.
A fused deposition modeling machine, which builds items drop by drop, like a hot glue gun.
A selective laser sintering machine, which bonds powdered material together to make a solid item.
2. Rapid fixes. In 2012, Northrop Grumman and Naval Air Systems Command were testing the X-47B unmanned jet's landing capabilities and observed the aircraft's tailhook was bouncing over the arresting cable instead of latching on. The hook point wasn't a good fit.

"Northrop came back and said, 'Well, at minimum it's going to be eight months. It could be as much as a year before we can create a new part,' " Draguicevich recalled.

It was costing the program about $250 a day to wait around for the next test, so NAVAIR went to FRCSW, whose engineers elongated the hook point's nose and printed it up overnight on their stereolithography machine. They sent the plastic model to Pax River, which tested it and sent it back for some modifications. Once it was perfect, they carved it out of metal and sent it to NAVAIR.

"In five weeks we did the whole project, start to finish," Draguicevich said.

3. Legacy upgrades. The 3-D printers have also come in handy for updating old F/A-18A-D Hornets, which some have likened to fixing classic cars.

As FRCSW works to extend the Hornets' airframe life from 6,000 hours to 10,000, jets have shown up with a bulkhead crack that would cost about $1 million and about six months to replace, FRCSW spokesman Mike Furlano said.

Instead, the 3-D printing team came up with a tub fitting to reinforce the bulkhead, modeled with a 3-D printer and then manufactured in-house from aluminum. That brought the repairs down to $25,000.



4. Metal. Vice Adm. David Dunaway, head of NAVAIR, has called for 3-D printing with metal in the next three years.

That's a tall order, Draguicevich said. It would require being able to get the parts the same every time, which their machines can't guarantee.

"The brilliance behind what he did — he pressured everybody to look at it seriously and come back with a plan to make it happen, whenever it can happen," he said.

There's also the matter of the material: The Navy's aircraft are mostly aluminum, which their printers can't work with, he said. It's possible to print with steel or titanium, but those only make up 5 to 10 percent of an aircraft, he added.

"Our role as leaders is to challenge our employees to find creative solutions to warfighter needs," Dunaway told Navy Times in a March 18 statement. "As part of NAVAIR's initiative to adopt innovation as a standard practice, we occasionally set goals to inspire our talented workforce's efforts to apply rapidly evolving technology in achieving those solutions."

5. In the fleet. 3-D printing's most practical application would be on a ship, Draguicevich said, where sailors could print bits and pieces like caps, screws and medical supplies that often run low underway. Sailors on the amphibious assault ship Essex in 2014 fashioned deck drains and oil caps with their 3-D printer as part of the fleet's first test.

"When we talk about 3-D enterprise, the amount of parts that are going to be 3-D printed in the future are probably less than 10 percent," he said. "Probably more like 2 to 5 percent."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Poland and U.S. Army hold joint air defence exercises near Warsaw*
REFILE-Poland and U.S. Army hold joint air defence exercises near Warsaw| Reuters






WARSAW, March 21 (Reuters) - The U.S. Army Europe has deployed a Patriot missile defence battery near Warsaw as part of joint exercises with Poland aimed at reassuring the NATO member in light of the conflict in neighbouring Ukraine.

Poland, in NATO since 1999, does not have its own system to protect against ballistic missiles and is to take a decision regarding the supplier for its medium-range missile defence system within weeks.

"We have always been friends and we have been allies for the last 16 years," Polish Defence Minister Tomasz Siemoniak told a joint press briefing with the U.S. ambassador on Saturday.

"During this time we have always been by the side of the United States. When we are in need, the United States have firmly stood by our side," Siemoniak said.

U.S. Army Europe said earlier this week that the aim of the week-long exercise was to "reassure allies, demonstrate freedom of movement and deter regional aggression on the eastern flank of NATO."

The Patriot missile battery, which is manufactured by U.S. firm Raytheon, arrived in Poland accompanied by 100 U.S. soldiers and approximately 30 vehicles.

The ground-to-air missile defence system was deployed at a military base in Sochaczew, a city roughly 50 km (30 miles) from Warsaw.

Siemoniak said it was natural for Poland to train with allies on defending the city.

"We are here to show our Polish allies that U.S. security guarantees for Poland as part of NATO mean something more than only words on paper," the U.S. ambassador to Poland, Stephen Mull, said.

The deployment follows unofficial Russian media reports that Russia deployed Iskander ballistic missiles in its Kaliningrad exclave neighbouring Poland as part of exercises earlier this week.

Poland plans to choose the supplier for its medium-range missile defence system within the next few weeks. Warsaw short-listed Raytheon and a consortium of France's Thales and European group MBDA in the tender last year. (Reporting by Marcin Goettig; Editing by Stephen Powell)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*The Saga of the 1972 Guardfish Patrol*
The Saga of the 1972 Guardfish P


During the summer of 1972 Guardfish (SSN612) was deployed in the Sea of Japan when world events thrust her captain, Commander David C. Minton, III, and her crew into the adventure of a lifetime. On May 9th the Vietnam War was heating up as the Paris peace talks had broken down and our forces had commenced mining Haiphong and other major North Vietnamese harbors. The aim was to deny the North Vietnamese Army the advantage of being supplied by sea from their communist allies. Guardfish was alerted by message of the possibility of a Soviet naval response.


The world situation was tense. No one knew how the Soviet would react to the mining. Guardfish was positioned at periscope depth near the Soviet’s largest Pacific naval base. Late on the evening of May 10th a surface contact was detected standing out the channel at high speed cutting across the normal channel boundaries and heading almost directly for the waiting Guardfish. As the contact closed in the growing darkness it was visually identify as a Soviet Echo II Class missile submarine. This class displaced 5,000-tons, was powered by a nuclear reactor, and carried eight Shaddock surface-to-surface missiles, which could be fired at targets up to 200 miles away. Guardfish followed. Soon the Echo submerged and headed southeast at high speed. Was this sortie in response to the mining of Haiphong?


During the next two days the Soviet submarine frequently slowed and spent long periods at periscope depth, probably receiving detailed orders from his naval commander. While listening for the Echo, Guardfish slowed which significantly extended her sonar detection range. To the crews surprise and alarm they were able to detect at least two and possibly three other Soviet submarines in the area. One submarine is hard to trail, three or four is impossible! Therefore they focused all efforts on maintaining contact with the Echo II they had identified visually.


When the Echo II resumed its transit toward the southern exit of the Sea of Japan, the skipper had two important decisions to make. First, did the deployment of three, possibly four, Soviet submarines meet the requirement for breaking radio silence? The number one priority of all submarine surveillance operations was to provide an early warning of an unusual deployment of Soviet naval vessels. This type of report, called a critic report, had never been sent before. The skipper determined that now was the time for Guardfish to break that silence and he notified his operational commander of the situation. Second, should Guardfish abandon her surveillance mission in the Sea of Japan to continue the trail of the Soviet submarine? The operations order was silent on this count, but it made sense to the skipper that their naval commander would want to know where the Soviets were going. Because he didn’t have the luxury of time to wait for orders he invoked the submarine commanders secret creed, "No guts, no hero ribbon". They were on their way!



Trailing is a complex task. For a submarine to remain undetected a contact's position, course, and speed must be determined using passive sonar bearings. Passive ranging required Guardfish to continually maneuver to generate a changing bearing to the contact. Too close and you could be detected, too far away and contact could be lost. These maneuvers were usually conducted in the baffle area of the contact, the blind spot astern.


The Echo turned to clear this baffle area almost hourly. Sometimes it was a very passive turn of 90 degrees so that his sonar could listen for anything behind him and at other times he aggressively turned 180 degrees and raced back along his previous track right at Guardfish. This maneuver was dangerous with a real possibility of collision. At the very least there was a chance he could detect Guardfish’s presence as the range closed. When the Echo made a baffle clearing maneuver Guardfish tried to anticipate which way he would turn so that they were slightly off of his track on the opposite side. Additionally, Guardfish slowed immediately to be as silent as possible and give more time and distance for the Echo to return to his previous course.


Frequent status reports were needed in Washington to assess the threat and intent of the Soviet forces. President Nixon and his National Security Advisor were briefed daily. Because high powered high frequency radio transmissions from Guardfish were subject to detection and location by the Soviet electronic intercept network, an alternate method of communicating was established. Navy Anti-Submarine Warfare P-3 aircraft flew covert missions over Guardfish’s projected location and received status reports via short range ultra high frequency radio either directly from Guardfish at periscope depth or via slot buoys, small expendable battery powered transmitters that could be programmed with a short message and shot out of the signal ejector while Guardfish remained at trail depth.


During this period of the trail every available submarine in the Pacific was urgently being deployed to provide protection for our aircraft carriers operating off the Vietnamese coast and to search for the other Soviet submarines. This deployment created a mutual interference problem for both Guardfish and the submarine operations staffs. Guardfish was committed to going wherever the Soviet Echo went and the staffs had to relocate the deploying submarines frequently to ensure that the much quieter US submarines would not endanger each other or Guardfish.


Once in the Philippine Sea the Echo turned southwest heading in the general direction of the Bashi Channel, the strait between Taiwan and the islands north of Luzon Philippines. The Bashi is the usual northern entrance to the South China Sea and the skipper was sure that it was the Echo’s objective, but their track continued well south of the normal course. Then the Echo slowed and came to periscope depth and went active on his fathometer on a short scale which was not suitable for the depth of water. He was lost! While at periscope depth he must have obtained a good fix because the Echo went deep, turned toward the Bashi Channel, and increased speed to 16 knots. After reporting this rapid course correction by slot buoy Guardfish rushed after him knowing that the repositioning of US submarines would be nearly impossible on this short notice. As a precaution against collision with a US submarine the skipper changed depth to 100 meters, a depth commonly used by Soviet submarines and one he knew US submarines would avoid. His apprehension was justified when Guardfish detected a US submarine clearing to the north at high speed.


On May 18th the Echo entered the South China Sea and transited to a point approximately 300 miles off the coast of Luzon. For eight days he established a slow moving grid track which covered a rectangular patrol area approximately 700 miles from our carriers along the Vietnamese coast and well beyond the 200 mile range of his missiles.


While the tracking team struggled to maintain contact with the Echo, world events were moving in a more peaceful direction. After long negotiations President Nixon went to Moscow for his historic summit meeting with Soviet's General Secretary Brezhnev. On During the summit on May 24th National Security Advisor Kissinger informed Brezhnev that the US knew the Soviets had deployed submarines and their presence so close to the Vietnamese War Zone was provocative and extremely dangerous. Within two days of this confrontation, the Soviets blinked and the Echo submarine started north.


After transiting the Bashi Channel the Echo established a second patrol area in the Philippine Sea south of Okinawa. This area of the ocean had some of the worst possible acoustical properties. It was often crossed by merchant traffic and at night the biological noise and frequent rain showers were deafening to sonar. Maintaining contact became even harder than before, making it necessary for Guardfish to trail at closer and closer ranges.


A lengthy procedure to transfer the trail to another US submarine, just developed by the staff, was placed on the radio broadcast. While Guardfish was at periscope depth copying this urgent message, the Echo came unexpectedly to periscope depth and visually detected Guardfish. The maneuvers that followed by both Guardfish and the Echo were violent and at high speed. Holding on to an alerted contact proved to be impossible and contact with the Echo was lost.


When Guardfish returned to Guam on June 10th the crew had been underway submerged for 123 days with only an eight day refit as a break. They had conducted two demanding special operations including a 28 day trail of the Soviet Echo II under extremely tense conditions, but Guardfish's morale was sky high. The officers and crew were justifiably proud of what they had accomplished.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_._
Missions

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
2


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*A few bits on US missile defense targets/countermeasures.*

The *LV-2* for Missile defense tests - based on Trident C-4:

Lockheed Martin successfully flew an LV-2 intermediate-range ballistic missile target for a test of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system conducted by the U.S. Missile Defense Agency.

Lockheed Martin launched the unarmed missile target from a ground platform at the Reagan Test Site, Kwajalein Atoll, in the Marshall Islands. Preliminary analysis shows that the target met requirements for the test.

To support testing of the missile defense system, Lockheed Martin configured the 45-foot-long target to closely mirror the capabilities of ground-launched enemy missiles that can travel 3,000 to 5,500 kilometers (1,800 to 3,400 miles).





















*eMRBM*






*Hera*






The view from an SM-3 seeker, just prior to impact.










*Aegis Readiness Assessment Vehicle C* (ARAV-C)

As seen during FTM-21 Stellar Ninja (ARAV C++)










*MDA Target and Countermeasures:*

The Targets and Countermeasures (TC) program develops quality, threat representative, and cost effective target solutions that enable the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) to test system performance and demonstrate its effectiveness in threat relevant environments.

*Overview*

TC oversees the design, development, manufacture, integration, and delivery of threat-representative, reliable, and cost-effective ballistic missile targets and countermeasures for the BMDS.
Target quality, reliability, and affordability have continued to be fundamental initiatives as the complexity and pace of threat development and missile defense testing increases.
Since 2000, TC has delivered 162 targets in support of BMDS testing with a 100% success rate since 2010, 36 of 36 successful targets.
*Details*
Target systems include launch vehicles, payloads (including surrogate re-entry vehicles and countermeasures), launch support equipment, extensive instrumentation, and flight control stations.


*Short-Range Ballistic Missile (SRBM) *(up to 1000km): The SRBM Target class is made up of Aegis Readiness Assessment Vehicle (ARAV) -A, -B, and -C, Foreign Material Asset (FMA) -1 and -2, and the Short Range Air-Launched Target (SRALT). Other variances of ARAV targets are also being developed and used such as ARAV-TTO-B.
*Medium-Range Ballistic Missiles (MRBM)* (1000-3000km): The MRBM Type 1 and Type 2 targets are of the same design where the Type 1 provides a simple 1000-2000 km target. Type 2 provides a 2000-3000 km range target and the ability to create a more complex scene for BMDS testing. The Type 3 is a specialty target in this range class and is designed to replicate a specific threat. In addition to MRBM Type 1-3, the Agency has older MRBM targets within their portfolio including the Extended MRBM (eMRBM) and the Extended Long Range Air-Launched Target (eLRALT). TC is utilizing greater capability ARAVs, such as the ARAV-TTO-E to meet some of the Medium Range requirements at a lower cost.
*Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBM) and Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM)* Intermediate (3000-4500km) and Intercontinental (>4500km)*:* There are two types of IRBMs; one is a two-stage, ground or air launched and the other is the Launch Vehicle – 2 (LV-2), a two-stage, ground launched target, which is completing its final planned mission in 3QFY14. The ICBM is a ground-launched three-stage target with the first launch scheduled for FY16.
*Common Components: *Develops common, cost-effective family of Modified Ballistic Re-Entry Vehicles (MBRV), and countermeasures (CM) solutions with systematic rigor leading to delivery of timely, quality products in support of the TC family of Launch Vehicles for BMDS Testing. MBRVs include MBRV-1, MBRV-2, MBRV-5, MBRV-7, and MBRV-8.
@Nihonjin1051 - Proof of Japan's anti-ballistic missile capabilities? We go about our business quietly, so who really knows.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*Continued from above*

*Space Vector* *Alt-Air*





*Coleman* *SRALT*





*SR-73/MRBM-T3*





*OSC Storm 1*





*OSC Storm 2*





*Space Vector Aries*





*Coleman Hera*





*Talos*

Reactions: Like Like:
 3


----------



## Víðarr

*Nuclear Artillery Guns of the US Army*

*M65 Atomic Cannon*

*



*

The "Atomic Cannon", the Army's largest artillery gun, was capable of firing both conventional and atomic warheads. This 47 ton gun (aka "Atomic Annie") was transported by two tractors. The drivers of the vehicles communicated with each other by means of a built-in telephone system. It proved to be a highly mobile weapons system and adaptable to most road conditions. It fired a 550 pound projectile and had an approximate range of 20 miles. Six years after the development of strategic atomic weapons, this road-transportable cannon gave a tactical atomic capability to US land forces.

Based on the design of the 280mm (about 11") German K5 Railroad Gun, the M65 was transported between detachable front and rear transport tractors. The Japanese had made a strong impression when they employed 280mm howitzers against Port-Arthur during their war against Russia in 1904-5. The French and the Russians collaborated afterwards to develop a similar weapon.

Picatinny Arsenal received the mission to develop an artillery shell able to carry nuclear payload in 1949. Basically, this meant scaling a 240mm shell, the Army largest field artillery shell in World War II, up to 280mm. The project's entire design team was Robert Schwartz, who completed his preliminary sketches during a period of 15 days spent alone in a locked room at the Pentagon. He sharpened the details in another locked room at Picatinny. The Chief of Staff of the Army at the time, General J. Lawton Collins, thought enough of Schwartz's effort to cite him in his memoirs over a quarter of a century later.

The next problem was to sell the product to the Pentagon. This would not have happened if Samuel Feltman, chief of the Ballistics Section of the Ordnance Department's Research and Development Division, had not pushed the project to approval. This goes along way to explain why Picatinny has a research building named after Feltman. Then, Schwartz had to rush to procure equipment and assemble a staff to carry out the three-year development effort.

Dwight David Eisenhower took the oath of office on Tuesday, January 20, 1953. It was the most elaborate inaugural pageant ever held. About 22,000 service men and women and 5,000 civilians were in the parade, which included 50 state and organization floats costing $100,000. There were also 65 musical units, 350 horses, 3 elephants, an Alaskan dog team, and the 280-millimeter atomic cannon.

A single test shot was fired seven miles at the Nevada Test site at 8:30am, local time, on May 25, 1953. A 15-kiloton test fired from a 280-mm cannon at the Nevada Proving Grounds. Conducted at Frenchman's Flat, Nevada, the Atomic Cannon test was history's first atomic artillery shell fired from the Army's new 280-mm artillery gun. Operation Upshot-Knothole consisted of 11 atmospheric detonations, took place at the Nevada Test Site in 1953. There were three airdrops, seven tower shots and one warhead fired from an atomic cannon. An experiment in this testing was to determine the effects of a nuclear explosion on a B-50 aircraft. About 21,000 military personnel participated in Upshot-Knothole as part of the Desert Rock V exercise.

Views differ on Ike's nuclear threats in early 1953- for example, Maurice Matloff, in _American Military History_, who saw a general threat being offered to Moscow and Pyongyang, North Korea; Burton I. Kaufman, in _The Korean War: Challenges in Crisis, Credibility, and Command, _who saw no direct threat being made to China; and Timothy J. Botti, in _Ace in the Hole: Why the United States Did Not Use Nuclear Weapons in the Cold War, 1945 to 1965,_ who saw increased Chinese flexibility at Panmunjom, North Korea, as being "probably influenced by rumors that the administration had let circulate around the Far East that the U.S. was stationing more atomic bombers in Okinawa." Others saw the stately and visible progress of an atomic cannon across the Pacific as a crucial influence.

The first atomic cannon went into service in 1952, and was deactivated in 1963. Throughout the 1950s, the Army deployed nuclear cannons to Europe even though they were obsolete as soon as they arrived. Guarded by infantry platoons, these guns were hauled around the forests on trucks to keep the Soviets from guessing their location. Weighing 83 tons, the cannon could not be airlifted and took two tractors to move its road-bound bulk. It was a glamorous weapon to be sure, but it did not fit into the Pentomic structure of the Army, and it siphoned off precious funding that the Army desperately needed for modernization.

Twenty were manufactured; eight appear to have survived the Cold War and are on public display today.

























*M388 - Davy Crockett
*










On 17 July 1962, a caravan of scientists, military men, and dignitaries crossed the remote desert of southern Nevada to witness an historic event. Among the crowd were VIPs such as Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and presidential adviser General Maxwell D. Taylor who had come to observe the "Little Feller I" test shot, the final phase of _Operation Sunbeam_. The main attraction was a secret device which was bolted to the roof of an armored personnel carrier, a contraption called the _The Davy Crockett Weapon System_.

Named after the famous American folk hero, this defense apparatus was based on the tried-and-true recoilless rifle, a launcher similar to the shoulder-fired tubes used in the Second World War. Such weapons were designed to counteract much of their recoil by routing some expanding gas out the rear end, thereby producing forward thrust at the same moment that the projectile pushes the gun backwards. But the Davy Crockett Weapon System did improve on the concept in one important way: it paired this dead-simple launch device with a tiny fission bomb, making it the most convenient nuclear bomb delivery system ever developed.

As the threat of Soviet invasion loomed over Europe, US Army officials decided they needed a tool for halting-- or at least delaying-- the endless columns of troops and tanks which might one day pour out of East Germany and the USSR. The task fell to the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, where nuclear scientists succeeded in shoehorning an atomic bomb into a portable package. This "W54" warhead was then mated with a reliable delivery system, and the resulting weapons were handed over to the _Atomic Battle Group_ for policing the border between East and West Germany.

The Davy Crockett shell weighed about seventy-six pounds, and it vaguely resembled a watermelon with fins. At thirty-one inches long and eleven inches in diameter, the projectile was too large to fit inside the gun, so it perched on the top while an attached rod was inserted into the barrel. The shell could be fired from a four-inch-wide recoilless rifle which could lob the bomb a little over a mile, or a larger six-inch-wide version which could heave it up to two and a half miles. The launchers were mounted to jeeps and personnel carriers, and each was operated by a three-man atomic squad. The Davy Crockett was also designed to detach from its vehicle, allowing the teams to relocate on foot and dispatch their miniature mutually-assured-destruction from a handy tripod mount.






The Atomic Battle Group was charged with the protection of Europe between 1961 and 1971, and during those ten years 2,100 of the Davy Crockett Weapons Systems were deployed. In the event of a Soviet invasion, these elite squads were trained to deploy themselves in the path of the advancing formations. Once in position, a flurry of mathematics would provide the trajectory and flight time to the targets, and these data would be used to configure the launchers for maximum carnage. A test shot with the integrated 37mm _spotting gun_ would verify the operators' angle and timing calculations. The three men would then unpack a shell from its carrying case, set the timer knob to detonate the warhead roughly twenty feet above the target, and dial in their preferred yield of ten or twenty tons.

Upon receiving the order to fire, Davy Crockett would leap from its perch with a bang and a cloud of smoke, racing through sky in a long arc to intercept the advancing enemy. The rudimentary atomic bomb did not include an abort feature, so Davy Crockett was committed to destruction once it was en route. Even with the help of the spotter gun and rifled barrel, both of the Davy Crockett launcher designs were somewhat sloppy in their accuracy, so the detonation was likely to be several hundred feet from the target. Moreover, the shells' relatively small yield didn't produce a great deal of blast damage even at the highest setting. But the weapon's tendency to spew radiation over the battlefield made up for its shortcomings as an explosive.

Less than a minute after launch, the detonation timer would tick off its final second over the target area. Few specifics are available about the weapon's internals, but it is likely that it contained a thirty pound hollowed-out wad of plutonium wrapped in beryllium and shape charges. Upon detonation, the shape charges would use a precision shock wave to crush the cavity in the center of the plutonium and press the nuclear material into a small area. Radioactive nuclei tend to eject neutrons, and once the material is crowded into a tiny space these flying neutrons start to hit and split the nuclei of neighboring plutonium atoms. As each atom splits, an abrupt spray of energy is released as well as more neutrons which can go on to split even more nuclei.

The beryllium wrapper increases efficiency by reflecting neutrons back into the mass, ensuring that they rattle around inside and split as many nuclei as possible. This increasing chain-reaction state is known as "prompt critical," and within a heartbeat the concentrated energy reaches explosive proportions.






Any person within a quarter-mile radius of the Davy Crockett explosion would face almost certain death. Those within the first 500 feet would be exposed to enough radiation to kill within minutes or hours, even with the protection of tank armor. People at about 1,000 feet from the blast would experience temporary fatigue and nausea which would then pass, but this misleading "walking ghost" condition leads to a painful death after a few days of apparent well-being. Those beyond a quarter-mile would have better chances of survival, though many would require extensive medical care, and perhaps never fully recover from their injuries. Those lucky enough to be more than one-third of a mile from ground zero would be spared most of the harmful effects, but the mutations in their DNA would give them an increased risk of cancer later in life.

The Davy Crockett's timer allowed a minimum shot distance of about 1,000 feet, but such inept use of the weapon would certainly result in the deaths of the firing team. In most cases, the approaching Soviets would be at least one mile away, leaving the Atomic Battle Group personnel outside of the hazard zone. Even if the launcher's lack of accuracy resulted in relatively few enemy casualties, the radioactivity from the hail of fission bombs would render a large swath of earth uninhabitable for about 48 hours, allowing time for American and NATO forces to mobilize.

Variations of the W54 warhead found a few other niches during the Cold War, including the Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) which could be simply dropped off at a target and set to explode with a timer. A more powerful 250 ton variant was also used on the AIM-26 Falcon, a guided air-to-air missile. Fortunately these ultra-portable casualty dispensers were never used outside of the Nevada desert.






In addition to being the smallest nuclear device ever developed by the United States, the Davy Crockett also has the distinction of being the last atomic device tested by the US in the open atmosphere. The 1962 test shot at the Nevada Proving Grounds confirmed the effectiveness of the design, and the device's tiny form factor made it a real crowd-pleaser-- or a crowd killer, depending on one's point of view. With the destructive power of twenty tons of TNT squeezed into a watermelon-sized package, it's hard to outperform the Davy Crockett in terms of convenient annihilation per cubic inch (CACI). Though its use could have triggered a chain reaction that would have ultimately led to the destruction of humanity, it's hard not to have a strange kind of fondness for the little feller.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

*Northrop Grumman and Aerovironment are developing a new naval drone for DARPA*
Northrop Grumman and Aerovironment are developing a new naval drone for DARPA | Defense Update:




_Under Phase 2 of the Tactically Exploited Reconnaissance Node (TERN) research and development program DARPA is funding risk reduction studies of a ship-launched unmanned aircraft that will enable the US Navy to deploy persistent ISR and strike capabilities almost anywhere in the world.
_
DARPA is expecting to complete risk reduction studies in September, and select one of two competing designs for medium-altitude, long-endurance unmanned aerial systems (MALE UAS), that will be capable to operate from small and medium naval vessels. As part of Phase 2 of the Tactically Exploited Reconnaissance Node (TERN) research and development program the agency is funding risk reduction studies performed by Northrop Grumman Corp. and Aerovironment Inc., based on preliminary designs proposed by the two companies in the earlier Phase I. The program is jointly managed between DARPA and the U.S. Navy’s Office of Naval Research (ONR).

“To offer the equivalent of land-based UAS capabilities from small-deck ships, our Phase 2 performers are each designing a new unmanned air system intended to enable two previously unavailable capabilities: one, the ability for a UAS to take off and land from very confined spaces in elevated sea states and two, the ability for such a UAS to transition to efficient long-duration cruise missions,” said Dan Patt, DARPA TERN program manager. “Tern’s goal is to develop breakthrough technologies that the Navy could realistically integrate into the future fleet and make it much easier, quicker and less expensive for the Defense Department to deploy persistent ISR and strike capabilities almost anywhere in the world.”

The Tern program envisions using smaller ships of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) or DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers as mobile launch and recovery sites for medium-altitude, long-endurance unmanned aerial systems (UAS), to provide long-range ISR and other capabilities from the decks of forward-deployed small ships. By 2017 DARPA aims to conduct full-scale, at-sea demonstration of the selected TERN prototype UAS from a vessel with the same deck size as an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*DARPA Aiming for More Agility on Future Tech*
DARPA Aiming for More Agility on Future Tech

WASHINGTON — Biotechnology, undersea systems and big data are among the areas that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has identified as key to moving America's technology forward, according to a new report released today.

The agency's bi-annual "Breakthrough Technologies for National Security" report acts as an analysis of recent DARPA work and a guide for what areas the agency expects to invest in over the coming years.

Timed to coincide with today's testimony on the Hill by DARPA director Arati Prabhakar, the report concludes that while the US remains a leader in many technological areas, other nations continue to close that gap. Not helping that situation is the simple truth that the US has been forced to focus on the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq over the last decade.

Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Prabhakar pointed to things like the Defense Innovation Initiative, more commonly known as the "third offset," as a result of the Pentagon working to quickly take stock in a changed world.

"All of those are signs of a Defense Department that is taking a fresh look at the world, realizing we need to take that fresh look again after this intense period of a very particular focus on two ground wars," she said. "I think that's a very healthy and encouraging sign."

For DARPA, that new look is manifesting itself in some internal inspection on how to speed up processes to keep pace with rapid innovation around the globe, inside and outside the defense sector, said Steven Walker, deputy director for the agency.

"The pace at which we can develop and field new military systems is really important for who wins the next war," Walker said. "We're focused here at DARPA on rethinking how we develop new military systems. Some of our systems today are extremely capable, the most capable in the world, but they are very complex, they're costly and they take a long time to develop and field. So at DARPA we're spending a lot of time rethinking how we might develop these systems."

Overall, there are eight general topics that DARPA is attempting to rethink: dominance in the electromagnetic spectrum, improving weapons that can operate in a GPS-denied environment, maintaining air superiority in contested environments, continuing development on hypersonics, cheaper launch solutions for space assets, maritime agility, new ground vehicles and counter-terrorism technologies.

While DARPA is putting pressure on itself to help make the Pentagon more responsive, Prabhakar expressed confidence the US could remain in front of near-peer nations if it continues to invest in new technology development.

"I really like our chances," Prabhakar said. "US technological capability is still phenomenal. It's just that we're not alone anymore. We're not the only ones that have this huge capability."

One longer-term concept is investing in biological technology.

"It's been a vision in the scientific community, for a number of year, that as we learn to genetically engineer microorganisms [we] can boost their metabolisms for things that they already know how to do," Prabhakar said. "We can change the chemistries of the material that they produce."

In military terms, that could lead to the development of new materials with characteristics beyond what current materials can provide. Prabhakar envisions a material able to stave off the natural corrosion the Navy suffers from when it puts boats in the water, or another material with a high energy density for help with propulsion. And, she added, there would be major benefits for healthcare.

While promising, Prabhakar warned that it is still "very slow and costly" to change even a single microorganism slightly.

In the realm of slightly more conventional weaponry is DARPA's Upwards Falling Payloads program, which is essentially an undersea fixed launch position which could potentially be used to send payloads towards the surface at a moment's notice.

"Today the US Navy puts capability on the ocean floor using very capable, but fairly expensive submarine platforms," Walker explained. "We'd like to do with this program is pre-position capability on the ocean floor and have it be available to be triggered real time when needed."

The program, which begins underwater testing this year, has a number of challenges, including the very fundamental one of how to protect the payloads resting on the ocean floor for more than a year at a time. Because of the logistical challenges, Walker said, the payoff for the program could be extreme.

"If we're successful in this program, we're going to show what's possible here, but we'll also be showing what's possible in terms of a distributed architecture across the ocean," he said. Those lessons would then be rolled into other potential dispersed naval architectures.

And in some ways, DARPA is struggling to get its head around the same issues that plague the rest of the Pentagon: cyber security and "big data."

The report notes that by 2020, estimates are there will be nearly ten times the current volume of data. Because of that, Prabhakar said, her agency is trying to tackle the issue of data head on. Some of those efforts have already borne fruit, with search tools that allow the user to probe the "deep web" which is not tracked by commercial search engines like Google.

That capability is currently being used to track the web activity of the Islamic State group, better known as ISIS, she noted.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## AMDR

*USAF starts researching helmet-mounted cueing for F-22*
USAF starts researching helmet-mounted cueing for F-22 - 3/25/2015 - Flight Global

The US Air Force has moved a step closer to equipping the Lockheed Martin F-22 cockpit with a helmet-mounted cueing system.

A market research study launched on 23 March by the Air Force Lifecycle Management Command begins a potentially multi-year acquisition effort to equip an air force fleet consisting of about 180 F-22s, including about 150 combat-coded aircraft.

The “sources sought notice” will decide whether existing or emerging products can address a broad range of capability requirements listed by the air force.

The requirements include using the helmet to cue sensors and weapons. The helmet should integrate symbology and colour imagery with enhanced night vision systems. The new system also “must not hinder pilot performance during all phases and durations of flights”, the air force notice says.

The air force also wants a helmet that overlays display imagery over an external field of view generated by a camera.

The solicitation comes nearly two years after the air force’s operational testers began evaluating the Visionix Scorpion helmet-mounted cueing system on the F-22.

Integrating the helmet-mounted cueing system will allow the F-22 to exploit the high off-boresight capability of the Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder missile. The air force plans to integrate the datalinked AIM-9X Block II missile in 2017 under the increment 3.2 upgrade programme.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*US Army establishes first manned-unmanned unit*
US Army establishes first manned-unmanned unit - 3/24/2015 - Flight Global





The US Army has established its first manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T) squadron, combining Boeing AH-64D/E Apache helicopters with Textron Systems RQ-7B Shadow unmanned air vehicles in one heavy attack-reconnaissance unit.

The Fort Bliss, Texas-based 1/501st Aviation Battalion of the 1st Armoured Division’s Combat Aviation Brigade on 16 March became the first unit to combine manned and unmanned aircraft, reflagging to become the 3rd Squadron, 6th Cavalry Regiment.

Although the Apache and Shadow have previously demonstrated MUM-T interoperability, having the two types fall under the same chain of command is the result of “years’ worth of planning”, the army says.

The Shadow is equipped with the new tactical common datalink, which will allow it to be operated alongside Apaches to fulfil the army’s armed aerial scout role previously provided by Bell Helicopter OH-58D Kiowa Warrior helicopters, which are due to enter retirement.

For this role the Apaches will also be teamed with General Atomics Aeronautical Systems MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAVs, and both UAVs can be operated from the Universal Ground Control Station (UGCS).

"It's an improved capability that supports soldiers on the ground as they execute the various missions that we assign them,” says Lt Col RJ Garcia, commander of the 3-6 unit, says. “Nothing is stove-piped now. We now have the ability to share across multiple levels.

"They've been building this synergy themselves, but for different commanders…. Sometimes that tasking wouldn't support them working together.”

US Army Shadows are typically controlled by soldiers in the UGCS, but Apache pilots can also control the UAVs should it be requested.Ground operators have five levels of control available to them, but an Apache pilot can request a particular level.

Level of interoperability (LOI) one has the Apache indirectly receiving payload data; in LOI two the Apache receives payload data directly from the UAV; LOI three means the Apache pilot can fire a UAV missile; LOI four allows the Apache pilot to take over flight control; and LOI five covers the full spectrum, including launch and recovery.

Final training is currently under way on the new system, and is expected to finish by the end of May 2015.

Lt Col Tory Burgess, product manager for Shadow tactical UAS in the army, adds that the force is “finally getting to the point where we can field two to three [Shadow] systems a month to the entire US Army, including the combat aviation brigades".

The next units to be equipped with the Shadow are the 101st Combat Aviation Brigade “this summer” and the 16th Combat Aviation Brigade by the end of FY2016, Burgess notes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Oldman1

BattleHawk | Textron Systems
*BattleHawk*
Weapons & Sensor Systems’ BattleHawkTM is a direct fire aerial precision guided munition system for use by small tactical units to engage non-line-of-sight targets. Among its key advantages is the system’s ability to take on an enemy from an advantageous position without exposing the operator to detection or small arms fire.

BattleHawk is tube launched from a carrying case that fits easily into a soldier’s rucksack. The total system weighs 10 lbs., including the launcher, munition and fire control unit.

BattleHawk features include:


30-minute endurance to enable loitering
EO/IR streaming video for target acquisition and tracking
40mm fragmenting grenade warhead for target engagement
Flexible carbon fiber wing
Low acoustic and visual signature
5 km reach and 2 m accuracy
Single-user operation with simple, three-step setup
Android-based fire control unit
Abort/wave off capability with self destruct

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

DDG-113 USS John Finn, First of the Flight IIa restarts, was translated to a floating dry dock and is nearing completion

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Víðarr

*Navy’s $2.7B Unfunded List to Congress Topped By Electronic Warfare Upgrades, Destroyer Modernization and Aircraft Buys*

Upgrading the electronic warfare capabilities ships and aircraft, modernizing destroyers and adding almost $2 billion in new aircraft topped the Navy’s list of wants in its unfunded priorities wish list to Congress.

In a concise letter to Congress, the Navy ‘s Fiscal Year 2016 unfunded priorities list (UPL) asked for $200 million in airborne and surface electronic warfare modernization, $60 million in destroyer modernization and $2.2 billion in new aircraft, according to the Pentagon’s submission to Congress obtained by USNI News.

“Navy had to accept reduction in naval warfare systems’ modernization, aircraft procurement and air and missile defense capabilities to meet fiscal constraints,” read the attached letter from Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert to legislators.
“Further, adversary naval warfare modernization and our tactical aircraft readiness has evolved since our budget submission — they are more challenging.”

The contents of the UPL was first reported by _Defense News_ on Tuesday.

Greenert identified three warfare areas in which the service was “taking significant chances” that could use additional money:


Improving sensors for air-to-air and anti-cruise missile fight
Increase striker fighter, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and logistics aircraft capacity.
Improve undersea warfare sensors and fire control systems
Number one in terms of priority for the service are 170 Air-to-air Radio Frequency Kill Chain Kits that “defeats enemy jamming at longer ranges” and if funded would cover all of the Boeing F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers by 2020 for $170 million, according to the submission.

The Navy also included an unfunded request for $60 million to fully upgrade a Flight IIA Arleigh Burke guided missile destroyer (DDG-51) to include a more modern suite of computers and the ability to handle ballistic missile and anti-air warfare threats simultaneously. The funds would buy a combat system ship set in FY 2016 for installation in 2018.







The Navy passed on fully upgrading five of its more modern DDGs in the Future Year Defense Plan (FYDP) for a savings of about $500 over the five-year period, USNI News reported in early March.

The largest line items in terms of cost were $1.15 billion for 12 additional Super Hornets and $1.04 billion for eight Lockheed Martin F-35C Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

The 12 additional Super Hornets would reduce some of the pressure on legacy F/A-18 A-D Hornets — set to already undergo a service life extension program (SLEP) — and be built with the internal wiring to be easily converted into the electronic attack Growlers, Greenert wrote.

The eight JSFs would buy back part of a 16 fighter reduction over the FYDP as part of the FY 2016 budget submission.

“Procuring eight additional aircraft in FY 2016 will mitigate transition risk to the F-35C [initial operating capability] in 2018, while also assuring the transition timeline of the next two JSF squadrons,” according to the submission.

The Navy also asked for eight towed sonar arrays for Virginia-class submarines, two Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block II shipsets, a Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) and two C-40A cargo planes.

This year’s list is much more modest and less granular than the FY 2015 submission —more than $10 billion — and focused on a high-end air-to-air warfare capabilities.



*Come on Congress, let's get this done!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Víðarr

Counter-recoil; Hawkeye 105mm






Someone order some Freedom?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Indos

I dont know that USA PDF team has their own @madokafc version.........

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Víðarr

Mk.48 Adcap





















MK.46











Mk.54 - the Mk.46s replacement








Indos said:


> I dont know that USA PDF team has their own @madokafc version.........



 Women like explosions too. Being active duty does help though.

Not a whole lot of action in my line of work though

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Indos

Víðarr said:


> Women like explosions too. Being active duty does help though.
> 
> Not a whole lot of action in my line of work though
> 
> View attachment 209935



I like psychology though, so I really want to understand why some women are interested in military 

Yup, some of our military personnel are women, there are also present in special force. Quite understandable since we are fighting insurgency and some time we need women for intelligence gathering. 

As a woman member in PDF you will be regarded as special and interesting in here


----------



## Víðarr

Indos said:


> As a woman member in PDF you will be regarded as special and interesting in here





@Armstrong s reminded me of that. I just tell people I'm getting married (pushed back the date because my husband's overseas) and they back off. No one, no one wants to annoy a Viking.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## F-22Raptor

Víðarr said:


> @Armstrong s reminded me of that. I just tell people I'm getting married (pushed back the date because my husband's overseas) and they back off. No one, no one wants to annoy a Viking.



I see your originally from Sweden. How long have you been in the States?


----------



## Víðarr

F-22Raptor said:


> I see your originally from Sweden. How long have you been in the States?





Well, actually my flags aren't right. Kai, also known as @SvenSvensonov - or my husband, created the account with his real flags (after he locked himself out of his), since his current profile lists two US flags due to him living in the US and holding an allegiance to the US military. However, I'm from Russia - so the Swedish flag should be Russian instead, but moved to the US when I was 18. So 8 1/2 years in the US for me.

Got to say, what I heard about the US and US citizens while in Russia was soooooo wrong. Anyone who dislikes the US, and disliking its government is understandable, should visit, it's a wonderful place.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Armstrong

Víðarr said:


> @Armstrong s reminded me of that. I just tell people I'm getting married (pushed back the date because my husband's overseas) and they back off. No one, no one wants to annoy a Viking.



I thought I was cordial and appropriate throughout !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Víðarr

Armstrong said:


> I thought I was cordial and appropriate throughout !



You are, you are just teasing you, I actually appreciate your friendly/playfulness. It's a welcome distraction at work. Long hours, boring days, I need some laughter and smiles every once in a while.



US Nuclear-tipped Cruise Missiles

AGM-129 - now retired











The AGM-129A advanced cruise missile is a stealth, nuclear-capable cruise missile used exclusively by U.S. Air Force B-52H Stratofortress strategic bombers.

The AGM-129A is a subsonic, turbofan-powered, air-launched cruise missile. It is harder to detect, and has greater range and accuracy than the AGM-86 air-launched cruise missile. The ACM achieves maximum range through its highly efficient engine, aerodynamics and fuel loading. B-52H bombers can carry up to six AGM-129A missiles on each of two external pylons for a total of 12 per aircraft. When the threat is deep and heavily defended, the AGM-129 delivers the proven effectiveness of a cruise missile enhanced by stealth technology. Launched in quantities against enemy targets, the ACM's difficulty to detect, flight characteristics and range result in high probability that enemy targets will be eliminated.

The AGM-129A's external shape is optimized for low observables characteristics and includes forward swept wings and control surfaces, a flush air intake and a flat exhaust. These, combined with radar-absorbing material and several other features, result in a missile that is virtually impossible to detect on radar.

The AGM-129A offers improved flexibility in target selection over other cruise missiles. Missiles are guided using a combination of inertial navigation and terrain contour matching enhanced with highly accurate speed updates provided by a laser Doppler velocimeter. These, combined with small size, low-altitude flight capability and a highly efficient fuel control system, give the United States a lethal deterrent capability well into the 21st century.

In 1982 the Air Force began studies for a new cruise missile with stealth characteristics after it became clear that the AGM-86B would soon be too easy to detect by future air defense systems. In 1983 General Dynamics was awarded a contract to develop the new AGM-129A ACM. The first test missile flew in 1985; the first missiles were delivered to the Air Force in mid-1990.

Plans called for an initial production of approximately 1,500 missiles. The end of the Cold War and subsequent budget cuts led the Air Force to cease production after 460 missiles, with the final delivery in 1993. Several corporate changes during production resulted in Raytheon Missile Systems as the final production firm.













AGM-28 - also retired











The Hound Dog, originally designated B-77, was redesignated GAM-77 and then became the AGM-28. North American Aviation designed the missile so that two could be carried on specially modified B-52s, one beneath each wing. The navigation systems of the B-52 and the GAM-77 were integrated so that the B-52 navigator could cross-check data with the automated system in the Hound Dogs.

Named after a hit song by Elvis Presley, the AGM-28 Hound Dogs were air-launched supersonic missiles designed to destroy heavily defended ground targets. The Hound Dog missile program began on March 15, 1956, when the U.S. Air Force issued a requirement for an air-to-surface missile to be carried on the B-52 bomber. North American won the contract on Oct. 16, 1958, and delivered the first production model to Gen. Thomas S. Power, commander in chief of the Strategic Air Command (SAC), on Dec. 21, 1959, in a ceremony at North American's Downey, Calif., plant.

The first launch of the missile from a B-52 took place in April 1959. By the end of 1959, the Air Force had approved 29 B-52 squadrons to be equipped with Hound Dog missiles.

No AGM-28s were ever used in combat, but on a typical mission, an AGM-28 would be launched at an altitude of 45,000 feet (13,700 meters), climb to more than 56,000 feet (17,068 meters), cruise to the target area and then dive to the target. The missile allowed standoff launches hundreds of miles from the target, reducing risk to the launch aircraft.

In 1960, the SAC developed a method for using the missiles’ jet engines to provide extra power for the B-52 carrier in flight or during takeoff. The missiles could then be refueled in flight from the bomber's fuel tanks.

The AGM-28B, incorporating an improved guidance system and with greater range, first flew in May 1961. Before production ended in 1963, almost 700 AGM-28s were built. The last AGM-28s were removed from service in 1975 and scrapped three years later.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## F-22Raptor

Víðarr said:


> Well, actually my flags aren't right. Kai, also known as @SvenSvensonov - or my husband, created the account with his reals flags, since his current profile lists two US flags due to him living in the US and holding an allegiance to the US military, however, I'm from Russia - so the Swedish flag should be Russian instead, but moved to the US when I was 18. So 8 1/2 years in the US for me.
> 
> Got to say, what I heard about the US and US citizens while in Russia was soooooo wrong. Anyone who dislikes the US, and disliking its government is understandable, should visit, it's a wonderful place.



Well, we're happy to have you here! It's a shame the US is presented in such a bad light in Russia. I hope one day we can become true allies.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

I will try to keep posting updates every 2 days 
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navy Fixes Carrier Catapult to Launch Jets with External Fuel Tanks*
Navy Fixes Carrier Catapult to Launch Jets with External Fuel Tanks | Defense Tech

The Navy plans to fix the software on its new carrier-based electromagnetic catapult system so that it can launching F/A-18s and Growlers carrying additional external fuel tanks under the wings, service officials said.

The changes will be finished on the Navy’s Electro Magnetic Aircraft Launch System, or EMALS, in time for operational testing aboard the Navy’s first Ford-class carrier — the USS Gerald R. Ford — in 2017, said Navy Cmdr. Thurraya Kent.

In April 2014, the Navy discovered an issue during testing at its facility in Lakehurst, N.J., that prevents the system from launching F/A-18 Super Hornets and EA-18 Growlers that are configured with external wing tanks, service officials said.

“The Navy understands the issue and will address it with a software modification well before any planned operational launch and recovery of aircraft. The fix will only involve a software change and will be completed well before any planned operational launch and recovery of aircraft,” she said.

The external fuel tanks, positioned beneath the wings on the E/A-18G Growler electronic jamming aircraft and F/A-18s, add additional stress to the aircraft when launched by EMALS, an issue which could wind up shortening the operational life of the aircraft.

The software updates are anticipated to begin by March of next year.

“No additional hardware or hardware changes to equipment already installed onboard CVN 78 are required, and there are no modifications required for any of the aircraft affected,” Kent explained.

EMALS is a next-generation carrier-deck launch systems engineered to replace existing steam catapults and go on the services’ new Ford-class carriers.

The first EMALS system has been under construction for several years aboard the USS Gerald R. Ford, or CVN 78, the first in class of the new carriers expected to deliver to the Navy next year.

The USS Ford has been heavily criticized by lawmakers and government watchdog groups for cost overruns and delays with the new technologies. The ship is on track to come in under its congressionally-mandated cost cap of $12.9 billion.

“Two of the four catapults are completely built. The other two are almost built,” said Rear Adm. Thomas Moore, Program Executive Officer, Carriers.

The system is part of a new series of carrier-based technologies designed to significantly increase the sortie rate and engineer a tailorable catapult that can achieve the desired amount of power for a an aircraft’s dimensions and weight – all while reducing wear and tear on airframes.

“EMALS gives the Navy the flexibility to make adjustments based on aircraft weight and configuration to accommodate a wider range of aircraft, including lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles that cannot be launched with a steam catapult,” Kent said. “EMALS can be adjusted more optimally and rapidly than a steam catapult could accommodate, providing the Navy with the ability to increase sortie generation rate for our entire inventory of combat aircraft.”

Additional laboratory testing of the software glitches will be performed this year before control algorithms and fine-tuning can take place, Kent added.

“This will be followed by dead load launches, comparative steam catapult launches and aircraft launches at Lakehurst next fiscal year,” she said.

The fixes are designed to build upon how EMALS is engineered to adjust power and thrust depending upon the weight of the aircraft. As a result, Navy officials say the system can be adjusted to accommodate the aircraft loaded with extra fuel tanks under the wings.

“EMALS will allow us to do the fine-tuning as necessary,” Kent said. “The resolution of this issue is straight-forward because the Navy will leverage this inherent capability of the system to tune the catapult forces for these wing tank configurations. There is no impact to ongoing shipboard installation or shipboard testing and this will not delay any CVN 78 milestones,” Kent said.

On the USS Ford, the below-deck EMALS equipment has been installed. This consists of a series of transformers and rectifiers designed to convert and store electrical power through a series of motor generators before brining power to the launch motors on the catapults, Moore explained.

“By having this electrical pulse come down, you are pulling the aircraft down to the catapult to launch it. You can dial in the precise weight of the aircraft. As you accelerate the aircraft down the catapult, you can accelerate it to the precise speed it needs to launch,” Moore said.

Unlike steam catapults which use pressurized steam, a launch valve and a piston to catapult aircraft, EMALS uses a precisely determined amount of electrical energy. As a result, EMALS is designed to more smoothly launch aircraft while reducing stress and wear and tear on the airframes themselves, he added.

“By the time the aircraft gets to the catapult it is at the right speed. Minimizing stress on the airframe, over time, reduces maintenance,” Moore added.

On the ship, EMALS will be engineered such that any of the ship’s four catapults will be able to draw power from any one of three energy storage groups on the ship, he said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*U.S. Navy funds construction of new destroyer (DDG-121)*
HII gets Navy funding for new destroyer build - UPI.com

PASCAGOULA, Miss., March 31 (UPI) -- The U.S. Navy has funded construction by Huntington Ingalls Industries of an Arleigh Burke-class (DDG 51) Aegis guided missile destroyer.
The DDG 121 is the third of five DDG 51 destroyers the company was awarded in June 2013. The funding -- $604.3 million -- comes under a contract modification.

"The DDG 51 program has been the backbone of Ingalls Shipbuilding for the past three decades," said DDG 51 Program Manager George Nungesser. "We now have a hot production line in the shipyard where we can maintain our highly skilled shipbuilding crews in the same working areas for each ship. This will allow increased learning and provide the most efficient way to reduce cost and schedule while building quality ships for the United States Navy."

Ingalls said the five-ship contract it had received allows for more efficiency in construction through bulk buying of materials and by moving its workforce from ship to ship.

A total of 28 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers have been delivered to the Navy by Ingalls. Four destroyers are under construction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*HII launches US Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, John Finn (DDG 113)*
HII launches US Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, John Finn (DDG 113) - Naval Technology

The US Navy's newest Arleigh Burke-class (DDG 51) Aegis guided missile destroyer, John Finn (DDG 113), has been launched at Huntington Ingalls Industries' (HII) shipyard.

John Finn, which was keel laid in November 2013, is the 63rd DDG 51 destroyer, and the first of the DDG 51 Flight IIA restart ships.

US Navy DDG 51-class programme manager captain Mark Vandroff said: "This is the first DDG 51-class ship to launch in almost four years, and we're both proud and excited with the progress the programme is making.

"I look forward to John Finn joining the fleet and the other ships of her class to continue in the legacy of success that is the Arleigh Burke destroyer."

HII will continue outfitting the destroyer in preparation for the ship's scheduled delivery to the navy in the third quarter of 2016.

The DDG 113, which will be equipped with the Aegis combat system and the SPY-1D multi-function phased array radar, is set to undergo it's Aegis system light off later this year.

The destroyer's christening ceremony, where it will be named after a Medal of Honor recipient, is scheduled to take place on 2 May.

The Arleigh Burke-class destroyers provide anti-submarine, anti-air and anti-surface capabilities for the navy, while also supporting carrier battle, surface action, amphibious and replenishment groups.

Ralph Johnson (DDG 114), Paul Ignatius (DDG 117) and Delbert D. Black (DDG 119) destroyers are currently under construction at Ingalls Shipbuilding, which has delivered 28 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers to the navy so far.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AMDR

Power projection

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
5


----------



## AMDR

*The Dream Team*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Oldman1

AMDR said:


> I will try to keep posting updates every 2 days
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *HII launches US Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, John Finn (DDG 113)*
> HII launches US Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, John Finn (DDG 113) - Naval Technology
> 
> The US Navy's newest Arleigh Burke-class (DDG 51) Aegis guided missile destroyer, John Finn (DDG 113), has been launched at Huntington Ingalls Industries' (HII) shipyard.
> 
> John Finn, which was keel laid in November 2013, is the 63rd DDG 51 destroyer, and the first of the DDG 51 Flight IIA restart ships.
> 
> US Navy DDG 51-class programme manager captain Mark Vandroff said: "This is the first DDG 51-class ship to launch in almost four years, and we're both proud and excited with the progress the programme is making.
> 
> "I look forward to John Finn joining the fleet and the other ships of her class to continue in the legacy of success that is the Arleigh Burke destroyer."
> 
> HII will continue outfitting the destroyer in preparation for the ship's scheduled delivery to the navy in the third quarter of 2016.
> 
> The DDG 113, which will be equipped with the Aegis combat system and the SPY-1D multi-function phased array radar, is set to undergo it's Aegis system light off later this year.
> 
> The destroyer's christening ceremony, where it will be named after a Medal of Honor recipient, is scheduled to take place on 2 May.
> 
> The Arleigh Burke-class destroyers provide anti-submarine, anti-air and anti-surface capabilities for the navy, while also supporting carrier battle, surface action, amphibious and replenishment groups.
> 
> Ralph Johnson (DDG 114), Paul Ignatius (DDG 117) and Delbert D. Black (DDG 119) destroyers are currently under construction at Ingalls Shipbuilding, which has delivered 28 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers to the navy so far.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AMDR

*US nuclear forces, 2015*

Hans M. Kristensen
Robert S. Norris
*Abstract*
As of early 2015, the authors estimate that the US Defense Department maintains about 4,760 nuclear warheads. Of this number, they estimate that approximately 2,080 warheads are deployed while 2,680 warheads are in storage. In addition to the warheads in the Defense Department stockpile, approximately 2,340 retired but still intact warheads are in storage under the custody of the Energy Department and awaiting dismantlement, for a total US inventory of roughly 7,100 warheads. Since New START entered into force in February 2011, the United States has reported cutting a total of 158 strategic warheads and 88 launchers. It has plans to make some further reductions by 2018. Over the next decade, it also plans to spend as much as $350 billion on modernizing and maintaining its nuclear forces.

At the beginning of 2015, the US Defense Department maintained a stockpile of an estimated 4,760 nuclear warheads for delivery by more than 800 ballistic missiles and aircraft. The stockpile did not shrink significantly over the last year, but has shrunk by roughly 350 warheads compared with September 2009 when the United States announced that the nuclear arsenal contained 5,113 warheads.1

Most of the warheads in the stockpile are not deployed but stored for potential upload onto missiles and aircraft. We estimate that approximately 2,080 warheads are deployed, of which roughly 1,900 strategic warheads are deployed on ballistic missiles and at bomber bases in the United States. Another 180 warheads are deployed in Europe. The remaining 2,680 warheads—more than 56 percent of the total—are in storage as a so-called hedge against technical or geopolitical surprises.

In addition to the warheads in the Defense Department stockpile, approximately 2,340 retired but still intact warheads are in storage under the custody of the Energy Department and awaiting dismantlement, for a total US inventory of roughly 7,100 warheads. (see Table 1).







*Implementing New START*
Under the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the United States and Russia report the size of their nuclear arsenals every six months. As of September 1, 2014, the United States reported that its nuclear arsenal contained 1,642 strategic warheads attributed to 794 deployed missiles and bombers—an increase of 57 warheads and 16 launchers compared with the previous count in March 2014. The increase is an anomaly, however, reflecting fluctuations in the number of launchers being overhauled at any given time rather than an actual increase of strategic forces. Since the treaty entered into force in February 2011, the United States has reported cutting a total of 158 strategic warheads and 88 launchers.

Except for a couple of bombers, the United States has yet to begin reducing deployed nuclear forces under New START. So far, implementation efforts have involved eliminating so-called phantom launchers, that is, missile silos and bombers that are not actually deployed or assigned a nuclear mission but nonetheless count as non-deployed launchers. To meet the treaty limit on non-deployed launchers by 2018, the US Air Force plans to eliminate 104 empty intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos. This includes 50 silos at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana, which until 2008 housed the 50 Minuteman III missiles of the 564th Missile Squadron; 50 silos at Francis E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming, which until 2005 were used for Peacekeeper (MX) ICBMs of the 400th Missile Squadron; and one Peacekeeper and three Minuteman III test-launch silos at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Destruction of the Malmstrom silos began in February 2014 and was expected to be complete in early 2015. Destruction of the 50 missiles at Warren will follow in 2015 and 2016, and destruction of the four test-launch silos at Vandenberg is planned for 2017.

To meet the treaty limit on operational launchers by 2018, the Air Force will eventually remove 50 Minuteman missiles from their silos, although the plan is, at least for now, to retain the missiles in storage and keep the 50 silos “warm” for potential reloading if necessary.

After eliminating nuclear equipment from all B-1B and B-52G bombers (neither of which were actually assigned nuclear weapons), the Air Force has started removing nuclear capability from a small number of B-52H bombers. The plan is to denuclearize approximately half of its current inventory of 89 accountable B-52H bombers to reduce the total bomber force to no more than 60 nuclear-capable aircraft by 2018.

In 2015 and 2016, the Navy will reduce the number of missile tubes from 24 to 20 on every nuclear missile submarine. The objective is to reduce the number of deployed submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) to no more than 240 by 2018.

*Nuclear weapons planning*
Since the White House issued Presidential Policy Directive 24 in June 2014, containing the updated Nuclear Weapons Employment Strategy, the Pentagon and armed services have begun updating the Nuclear Weapons Employment Policy (NUWEP) and the Nuclear Supplement to the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP-N). These documents identify the objectives and the resources available to US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) and regional combatant commanders for updating America’s strategic war plan and various regional war plans.

To practice execution of these plans, the armed forces conducted several nuclear strike exercises during 2014. STRATCOM’s annual Global Lightning exercise, held in May, involved heavy bombers, ICBMs, ballistic missile submarines, and space and cyber capabilities. The various commands and military services practiced executing nuclear and conventional strike scenarios and command-and-control procedures. STRATCOM commander Adm. Cecil Haney said that the exercise, which included participation from some allies, demonstrated the military’s “preparedness and ability to use strategic capabilities to deter, dissuade and defeat current and future threats to the U.S. and our allies” (US Strategic Command Public Affairs, 2014a).

Global Lightning coincided with Air Force Global Strike Command’s annual Constant Vigilance nuclear deterrence and long-range strike exercise, which deployed B-2 and B-52H bombers. In the words of one US Air Force pilot, “these exercises are crucial to our nation’s nuclear posture and to show the world that we have the capability to strike anywhere in the world at a moment’s notice.” The exercise was conducted shortly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but the military said the timing had been long-planned and was unrelated to real-world events (Pfiester, 2014).

Large-scale nuclear exercises followed in the fall, including Valiant Shield 14, which took place in September and stretched from Goose Bay in Canada to Guam. As part of the exercise, B-2s and B-52s deployed to Andersen Air Force Base on Guam; B-52s deployed to Goose Bay in Canada; a Minuteman III ICBM was test-launched from the US West Coast into the Pacific; and a B-52 test-launched an air-launched cruise missile in Utah.

Valiant Shield 14 was followed by Global Thunder 15 in October, a nuclear readiness exercise that included the rapid launch of B-2s from Whiteman Air Force Base and B-52s from Minot and Barksdale Air Force Bases. The STRATCOM-led exercise also involved coordination with the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and Canada’s Joint Operations Command. According to STRATCOM:the scenario integrated, in just eight days, nearly every conceivable strategic threat to our nation and called upon all the USSTRATCOM capabilities that would be provided to geographic combatant commanders in a real-world crisis: space, cyber, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, global strike, and ballistic missile defense capabilities, among them. (US Strategic Command Public Affairs, 2014b)In addition to these large-scale national-level exercises, smaller exercises included rapid-launch maneuvers and long-range deployments of heavy bombers in April and June. In response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and increased air operations in Europe and elsewhere, two B-2s and three B-52Hs deployed to Britain’s Royal Air Force Fairford base and practiced long-range strike scenarios in Central Europe and North Africa (Wilson, 2014).

*Nuclear modernization*
Over the next decade, the US government plans to spend as much as $350 billion on modernizing and maintaining its nuclear forces (US Congressional Budget Office, 2013). This will include designing a new class of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), a new long-range bomber with nuclear capability, and a new air-launched cruise missile (ALCM). Plans also include studying options for the next-generation land-based ICBM; deploying a new nuclear-capable tactical fighter aircraft; completing full-scale production of one nuclear warhead and beginning modernization work on two others, including the first-ever guided nuclear bomb; modernizing nuclear command-and-control facilities; and building new nuclear weapon production and simulation facilities.

The nuclear warheads intended for the modernized arsenal are scheduled to undergo extensive life-extension and modernization programs over the next several decades. Full-scale production of approximately 1,600 W76-1 warheads for the Trident II (D5) SLBM is well under way, scheduled for completion in 2019 at a total cost of approximately $3.7 billion (US Energy Department, 2014). The production of the B61-12, a guided standoff nuclear gravity bomb, is scheduled to be completed by 2025 at a cost of about $10 billion.2 The production of the W80-4, a modified version of the W80-1 warhead intended for a new ALCM known as the Long-Range Standoff (LRSO), will cost another $7 billion to $8 billion through 2033. The cost of developing the new cruise missile to carry the W80-1 warhead will increase the cost of the LRSO even further, in one estimate by perhaps as much as $20 billion (Wolfsthal et al., 2014).

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has also presented a plan for a new family of so-called “interoperable” (previously called “common or adaptable”) warheads that can be used on both ICBMs and SLBMs.3 But Congress and sectors of the military have challenged the plan because of uncertainty about the technical requirements and risks that could affect reliability. The first of these new warheads would be the Interoperable Warhead 1—built with components from the W78, W88, and possibly W87 warheads—which could cost $10 billion to $15 billion. In contrast, simpler life-extension of existing designs could provide reliable warheads at a fraction of the cost.

The significant redesign of the interoperable warheads would challenge the pledge made in the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, which said that the United States “will not develop new nuclear warheads” but will consider the “full range” of life-extension program options, including “refurbishment of existing warheads, reuse of nuclear components from different warheads, and replacement of nuclear components” (US Defense Department, 2010b: xiv). This pledge was intended to prevent resumption of nuclear explosive testing and adhere to the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The Nuclear Posture Review also stated that any life-extension programs “will use only nuclear components based on previously tested designs, and will not support … new military capabilities” (US Defense Department, 2010b: xiv). Of course, compliance depends on how “new” military capabilities are defined, since the addition of new or improved features outside the nuclear explosive package may increase a weapon’s military capabilities. It is anticipated that the United States will generally seek to increase the accuracy of its nuclear weapons in order to lower the yield of modified warheads with improved performance margins.

The United States is also planning upgrades and replacements for its land-based ballistic missiles, nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, and strategic bombers, as discussed below.

*Land-based ballistic missiles*
The US Air Force operates a force of 450 silo-based Minuteman III ICBMs, split evenly across three wings: the 90th Missile Wing at Warren Air Force Base; the 91st Missile Wing at Minot Air Force Base; and the 341st Missile Wing at Malmstrom Air Force Base. Each wing has three squadrons, each with 50 missiles controlled by five launch-control centers. Under New START, the US Air Force plans to reduce the ICBM force to 400 missiles, probably by retiring one of three missile squadrons at one of the three bases, leaving two bases with 150 missiles each and one with 100 missiles.

Each Minuteman missile carries either the 335-kiloton (kt) W78 warhead or the 300-kt W87 warhead. Downloading of the ICBM force was completed on June 16, 2014, when the last remaining Minuteman III at Malmstrom Air Force Base with multiple warheads was downloaded to single warhead configuration (US Air Force Global Strike Command Public Affairs, 2014a). The downloading program started during the George W. Bush administration and although the US military refers to it as “de-MIRVing,” a reference that suggests the missiles have lost their ability to carry multiple warheads, Minuteman IIIs configured for the Mk12A reentry vehicle will retain hundreds of W78 warheads in storage for “re-MIRVing” if called for.4

The United States plans to reduce the ICBM force to 400 deployed missiles under New START to meet the treaty’s limit of no more than 700 deployed nuclear missiles and heavy bombers by 2018. Rather than eliminating one squadron of 50 missiles from one of the three ICBM bases, however, the Air Force plans to spread the reduction across all three bases. Moreover, the 50 empty silos will not be destroyed but retained for potential reloading of missiles. The “cut” ICBMs will not be destroyed but kept in storage: The New START Implementation Report lists the same inventory of Minuteman IIIs in 2014 as will exist in 2018, of 454 deployed and non-deployed missiles (US Defense Department, 2014).

A multibillion-dollar, decade-long modernization program to extend the service life of the Minuteman III to 2030 is scheduled for completion in 2015. Although the United States is officially not deploying a new ICBM, the upgraded Minuteman IIIs “are basically new missiles except for the shell” (Pampe, 2012), according to Air Force personnel.

Part of the upgrade involves refurbishing the arming, fuzing, and firing component on the Mk12A and Mk21 (SERV) reentry vehicles. The publicly stated purpose of this refurbishment is to extend the vehicles’ service life, but the effort may also involve modifying the fuzes to improve the targeting capability of the warheads. This reportedly involves improving the “burst height compensation” to take advantage of improvements to the Minuteman III guidance system (Postol, 2014). This will enhance the accuracy and target-kill capability of the warheads against hardened nuclear forces, and potentially also allow for lowering the warheads’ explosive yield. The fuzes were upgraded from 2010 to 2012 (Kleiman, 2011). The US Navy’s W76-1 life-extension program includes a similar upgrade.

The Air Force is studying options for the next-generation ICBM, known as the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, which is scheduled to replace the Minuteman III beginning in 2030. An analysis-of-alternatives study completed in July 2014 decided on a “hybrid” design concept, partly based on today’s Minuteman III, its silos, and its command-and-control system, but incorporating modified features such as new rocket motors, a new guidance system, and upgraded arming, fuzing, and firing units. Apparently, the new system would be more accurate than that of the current Minuteman III. A wild-card option is whether to allow the missiles to be pulled out of their silos and dispersed on trucks or rail (Grossman, 2014), a potential feature that could significantly increase the cost. According to the head of Air Force Global Strike Command, Brig. Gen. Fred Stoss, the new missile is not a completely new follow-on missile but a systematic approach to recapitalizing the existing Minuteman III missile over the long term (Schanz, 2014).

Only one Minuteman III flight-test was conducted in 2014, down from three in 2013. The missile was plucked from a random silo at Minot Air Force Base and launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base on September 23. In addition to the live Minuteman III test-launch from Vandenberg, several Simulated Electronic Launch-Minuteman (SELM) exercises were conducted at the ICBM bases themselves. Each SELM may include several launch facilities. Warren Air Force Base conducted a SELM over several days in April 2014 that included six silos and two launch control centers, which simulated receiving launch orders and launching missiles in “a variety of new scenarios” against “certain modern threats.” According to the Air Force (Valle, 2014), SELM tests are conducted every six months on a rotating basis for the three ICBM bases, which means each missile wing is tested every 18 months.

*Nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines*
All of the US Navy’s 14 Ohio-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), eight based in the Pacific and six in the Atlantic, carry Trident II (D5) SLBMs. Normally, 12 of these submarines are considered operational, with the 13th and 14th boat in overhaul at any given time. According to unclassified New START aggregate data, however, not all the remaining 12 submarines are routinely equipped with full missile loadings. As of March 1, 2014, for example, only 240 missiles were counted as deployed, 48 fewer than the capacity of 12 boats, so at most 10 of these submarines carried all their missiles at the time of the count (US State Department, 2014b). Starting in 2015, the number of missile tubes on each Ohio-class SSBN will be reduced by four, from 24 to 20. The reduction is intended to reduce the number of SLBMs that can be deployed at any given time to no more than 240, in order to meet the limit on deployed strategic delivery vehicles set by New START for 2018.

The warhead loading of the deployed SLBMs is not specified in the New START aggregate data. In practice, the missiles probably carry three to six warheads, depending on the requirements of their particular strike package assigned under war plans. Loading with fewer warheads increases the missiles’ range and flexibility. As of March 2014, for example, the 240 deployed SLBMs carried an estimated 1,047 warheads, or an average of four to five warheads per missile.

Three versions of two basic warhead types are deployed on the SLBMs: the 100 kt W76-0, the 100 kt W76-1, and the 455 kt W88. The W76-1 is a refurbished version of the W76-0, with the same yield but with dual strong link detonation control added. The Mk4A reentry body that carries the W76-1 is equipped with a new arming, fuzing, and firing unit with improved targeting capabilities compared with the old Mk4/W76 system. Full-scale production of an estimated 1,600 W76-1s is under way at the Pantex Plant in Texas. The halfway point was reached in October 2014 and production is scheduled to be completed in 2019. The Mk4A/W76-1 combination is also being supplied to the United Kingdom for use on its SSBNs (Kristensen, 2011a).

In 2014, the US SSBN fleet celebrated its 4,000th deterrent patrol since it first deployed to sea with nuclear missiles in 1960. The annual number of deterrent patrols that the US SSBN fleet conducts each year has declined by more than 56 percent in 15 years, from 64 patrols in 1999 to fewer than 30 in 2014. More than 60 percent of the patrols take place in the Pacific Ocean, reflecting nuclear war planning against China, North Korea, and Russia.5

Design of the next-generation SSBN is well under way to replace the Ohio class. The new submarine, known as SSBNX, will be 2,000 tonnes larger than the Ohio class submarine but equipped with 16 missile tubes rather than 24.6 Twelve SSBNXs are planned, a reduction of two boats compared with the current fleet of 14, at an estimated cost of $92 billion, or $7.7 billion per submarine (US Congressional Budget Office, 2014). Procurement of the first boat is scheduled for 2021 with deployment on deterrent patrol starting in 2031. During the first decade of its service life, the new SSBNX will be armed with a life-extended version of the current Trident II (D5) SLBM (the D5LE), which has a new guidance system designed to “provide flexibility to support new missions” and make the missile “more accurate,” according to the US Navy and Draper Laboratory (Draper Laboratory, 2006: 8; Naval Surface Warfare Center, 2008: 14). Starting in 2017, the D5LE will also be back-fitted onto existing Ohio-class submarines for the remainder of their service life (up to 2042), and will also be deployed on British submarines. Two Trident II (D5) SLBMs were test-launched in the Atlantic in June 2014 from the submarine _West Virginia_ (SSBN-736) following completion of its reactor refueling overhaul.

*Strategic bombers*
The US Air Force currently operates a fleet of 20 B-2 and 93 B-52H bombers. Of those, 18 B-2s and 76 B-52Hs are nuclear-capable. (New START counts 20 B-2s and 89 B-52Hs.) Approximately 60 bombers (16 B-2s and 44 B-52Hs) are thought to be assigned nuclear missions under US nuclear war plans.7 They are organized into eight bomb squadrons in five bomb wings at three bases: Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota, Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, and Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri.

Until 2012, only active US Air Force personnel were involved in nuclear bomber missions. But in 2013, two additional wings and squadrons were added using US Air Reserve and US Air National Guard personnel. This includes the 307th Bomb Wing and its 343rd Squadron of B-52Hs (integrated with the 2nd Bomb Wing at Barksdale Air Force Base). The 307th Bomb Wing passed its initial nuclear surety inspection in March 2013, becoming the first Air Reserve unit certified to deliver nuclear weapons. The other new wing, the 313th Bomb Wing and its 110th Squadron with B-2 bombers (integrated with the 509th Bomb Wing at Whiteman Air Force Base), passed its nuclear surety inspection in August 2013, becoming the first Air National Guard unit certified to deliver nuclear weapons.8

Each B-2 can carry up to 16 nuclear bombs (B61-7, B61-11, and B83-1 gravity bombs), and each B-52H can carry up to 20 air-launched cruise missiles. An estimated 1,000 nuclear weapons, including 528 air-launched cruise missiles, are assigned to the bombers. Although only 200 to 300 weapons are deployed at the bomber bases under normal circumstances, the remaining 700 to 800 weapons are in central storage at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico.

The US Air Force is planning a new bomber, known as the long-range strike bomber (the LRS-B, or simply the next-generation bomber), to begin replacing existing bombers beginning in the mid-2020s. Procurement of 80 to 100 aircraft is envisioned, some of which are planned to be nuclear-capable, at a cost of at least $80 billion. The US Air Force reportedly issued a request for proposals in July 2014 and plans to award the first public contract in the spring of 2015. But significant budget increases from $258.7 million in 2013 to $3.5 billion in 2019, as well as a relatively short development and production schedule calling for completion in 2025, indicate that significant long-range strike bomber development may already have been completed using funds from classified budgets (Gertler, 2014).

The long-range strike bomber will be equipped to deliver the new B61-12 guided standoff bomb (which will eventually replace all other gravity bombs) and the long-range standoff cruise missile, or LRSO (which will replace the air-launched cruise missile around 2025). In 2014, the US government’s Nuclear Weapons Council selected the W80-1 warhead to arm the long-range standoff. Under the plan, the W80-1 would undergo a life-extension program to extend its service life through the middle of this century. The life-extended warhead would be known as the W80-4 and partly include components and technologies developed for the B61-12 program.9 The number of long-range standoff cruise missiles planned has not been announced, but it is thought to involve around 500 missiles.

During 2014, nuclear-capable heavy B-2 and B-52H bombers continued rotational deployments to Andersen Air Force Base in Guam, an extended deterrence mission that began in 2004. Since 2011, nuclear-capable B-52H bombers have also started to deploy to Darwin Air Base in Australia as part of their Pacific rotational deployments. The first visit occurred in August 2012, following the signing in 2011 of an agreement to increase the US military presence in Northern Australia, but in 2014 the number of B-52H visits increased to at least three: one in January, one in May (that included two bombers), and one in December. The bombers normally are accompanied by KC-135 tankers. “Most importantly, these bomber rotations provide Pacific air forces and US Pacific Command commanders a global strike and extended deterrence capability against any potential adversary,” said Maj. Gen. Scott Vander Hamm, 8th Air Force and Task Force 204 commander (US Air Force Global Strike Command, 2014b).

*Nonstrategic nuclear weapons*
The United States has one type of nonstrategic weapon in its stockpile—the B61 gravity bomb. The weapon exists in three modifications, the B61-3, B61-4, and B61-10. Approximately 500 tactical B61 bombs of all versions remain in the stockpile. A little over 180 of these (versions -3 and -4) are deployed at six bases in five European countries: Aviano (Italy), Büchel (Germany), Ghedi (Italy), Incirlik (Turkey), Kleine Brogel (Belgium), and Volkel (Netherlands). The Belgian, Dutch, and possibly Turkish air forces (with F-16 combat aircraft), and German and Italian air forces (with PA-200 Tornado aircraft), are assigned nuclear strike missions with US nuclear weapons, but the weapons are kept under the control of US Air Force personnel until their use is authorized by the American president and approved by NATO in a war. (A small number of the remaining nonstrategic weapons stored in the United States are for potential use by US fighter-bombers in support of allies outside Europe, including in the Middle East and Northeast Asia.)

NATO is replacing its fleet of 12 weapons maintenance trucks with 10 new Secure Transportable Maintenance System (STMS) trailers (Kristensen, 2014a), which are used to service the B61 nuclear bombs at the six air bases in Europe. During service, the weapons are brought up from their underground storage vaults inside the protective aircraft shelters and hoisted into the trailers and disassembled for replacement of limited-life components or other maintenance.

NATO has approved a modernization of the nuclear posture in Europe through deployment at the beginning of the next decade of the B61-12 guided, standoff nuclear gravity bomb.10 The B61-12 will use the nuclear explosive package of the B61-4, which has a maximum yield of approximately 50 kt, but will be equipped with a guided tail kit to increase its accuracy and standoff capability. The B61-12 will be a more flexible weapon that is able to hold at risk hardened targets that could not be destroyed with the B61-3 or -4, and it will enable strike planners to select lower yields for existing targets to reduce collateral damage. Moreover, several of the NATO allies that currently have a nuclear strike mission plan to upgrade their fighter-bombers to the stealthy US-built F-35A (Joint Strike Fighter). Until the new aircraft is ready, the B61-12 will be back-fitted onto existing F-15E, F-16, and Tornado aircraft (Kristensen, 2014c). Combined, the guided B61-12 and stealthy F-35A represent a significant enhancement of the US nonstrategic nuclear posture in Europe.11

NATO’s annual nuclear strike exercise Steadfast Noon was held at Ghedi Air Base in Italy in October 2014 and included aircraft from Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, and the United States. Unlike aircraft from the other participants, the Polish F-16s are not nuclear-capable but provide non-nuclear support for the nuclear strike package under the so-called SNOWCAT (Support of Nuclear Operations With Conventional Air Tactics) program, a NATO plan designed to enable non-nuclear countries to provide non-nuclear support to the nuclear mission. In addition to these operations in western and southern NATO, nuclear-capable F-16s from US fighter wings are conducting periodic deployments to the Baltic States, Poland, and Romania.12

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
4


----------



## Víðarr

AMDR said:


> *US nuclear forces, 2015*
> 
> Hans M. Kristensen
> Robert S. Norris
> *Abstract*
> As of early 2015, the authors estimate that the US Defense Department maintains about 4,760 nuclear warheads. Of this number, they estimate that approximately 2,080 warheads are deployed while 2,680 warheads are in storage. In addition to the warheads in the Defense Department stockpile, approximately 2,340 retired but still intact warheads are in storage under the custody of the Energy Department and awaiting dismantlement, for a total US inventory of roughly 7,100 warheads. Since New START entered into force in February 2011, the United States has reported cutting a total of 158 strategic warheads and 88 launchers. It has plans to make some further reductions by 2018. Over the next decade, it also plans to spend as much as $350 billion on modernizing and maintaining its nuclear forces.
> 
> At the beginning of 2015, the US Defense Department maintained a stockpile of an estimated 4,760 nuclear warheads for delivery by more than 800 ballistic missiles and aircraft. The stockpile did not shrink significantly over the last year, but has shrunk by roughly 350 warheads compared with September 2009 when the United States announced that the nuclear arsenal contained 5,113 warheads.1
> 
> Most of the warheads in the stockpile are not deployed but stored for potential upload onto missiles and aircraft. We estimate that approximately 2,080 warheads are deployed, of which roughly 1,900 strategic warheads are deployed on ballistic missiles and at bomber bases in the United States. Another 180 warheads are deployed in Europe. The remaining 2,680 warheads—more than 56 percent of the total—are in storage as a so-called hedge against technical or geopolitical surprises.
> 
> In addition to the warheads in the Defense Department stockpile, approximately 2,340 retired but still intact warheads are in storage under the custody of the Energy Department and awaiting dismantlement, for a total US inventory of roughly 7,100 warheads. (see Table 1).
> 
> View attachment 210534
> 
> 
> *Implementing New START*
> Under the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the United States and Russia report the size of their nuclear arsenals every six months. As of September 1, 2014, the United States reported that its nuclear arsenal contained 1,642 strategic warheads attributed to 794 deployed missiles and bombers—an increase of 57 warheads and 16 launchers compared with the previous count in March 2014. The increase is an anomaly, however, reflecting fluctuations in the number of launchers being overhauled at any given time rather than an actual increase of strategic forces. Since the treaty entered into force in February 2011, the United States has reported cutting a total of 158 strategic warheads and 88 launchers.
> 
> Except for a couple of bombers, the United States has yet to begin reducing deployed nuclear forces under New START. So far, implementation efforts have involved eliminating so-called phantom launchers, that is, missile silos and bombers that are not actually deployed or assigned a nuclear mission but nonetheless count as non-deployed launchers. To meet the treaty limit on non-deployed launchers by 2018, the US Air Force plans to eliminate 104 empty intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos. This includes 50 silos at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana, which until 2008 housed the 50 Minuteman III missiles of the 564th Missile Squadron; 50 silos at Francis E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming, which until 2005 were used for Peacekeeper (MX) ICBMs of the 400th Missile Squadron; and one Peacekeeper and three Minuteman III test-launch silos at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Destruction of the Malmstrom silos began in February 2014 and was expected to be complete in early 2015. Destruction of the 50 missiles at Warren will follow in 2015 and 2016, and destruction of the four test-launch silos at Vandenberg is planned for 2017.
> 
> To meet the treaty limit on operational launchers by 2018, the Air Force will eventually remove 50 Minuteman missiles from their silos, although the plan is, at least for now, to retain the missiles in storage and keep the 50 silos “warm” for potential reloading if necessary.
> 
> After eliminating nuclear equipment from all B-1B and B-52G bombers (neither of which were actually assigned nuclear weapons), the Air Force has started removing nuclear capability from a small number of B-52H bombers. The plan is to denuclearize approximately half of its current inventory of 89 accountable B-52H bombers to reduce the total bomber force to no more than 60 nuclear-capable aircraft by 2018.
> 
> In 2015 and 2016, the Navy will reduce the number of missile tubes from 24 to 20 on every nuclear missile submarine. The objective is to reduce the number of deployed submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) to no more than 240 by 2018.
> 
> *Nuclear weapons planning*
> Since the White House issued Presidential Policy Directive 24 in June 2014, containing the updated Nuclear Weapons Employment Strategy, the Pentagon and armed services have begun updating the Nuclear Weapons Employment Policy (NUWEP) and the Nuclear Supplement to the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP-N). These documents identify the objectives and the resources available to US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) and regional combatant commanders for updating America’s strategic war plan and various regional war plans.
> 
> To practice execution of these plans, the armed forces conducted several nuclear strike exercises during 2014. STRATCOM’s annual Global Lightning exercise, held in May, involved heavy bombers, ICBMs, ballistic missile submarines, and space and cyber capabilities. The various commands and military services practiced executing nuclear and conventional strike scenarios and command-and-control procedures. STRATCOM commander Adm. Cecil Haney said that the exercise, which included participation from some allies, demonstrated the military’s “preparedness and ability to use strategic capabilities to deter, dissuade and defeat current and future threats to the U.S. and our allies” (US Strategic Command Public Affairs, 2014a).
> 
> Global Lightning coincided with Air Force Global Strike Command’s annual Constant Vigilance nuclear deterrence and long-range strike exercise, which deployed B-2 and B-52H bombers. In the words of one US Air Force pilot, “these exercises are crucial to our nation’s nuclear posture and to show the world that we have the capability to strike anywhere in the world at a moment’s notice.” The exercise was conducted shortly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but the military said the timing had been long-planned and was unrelated to real-world events (Pfiester, 2014).
> 
> Large-scale nuclear exercises followed in the fall, including Valiant Shield 14, which took place in September and stretched from Goose Bay in Canada to Guam. As part of the exercise, B-2s and B-52s deployed to Andersen Air Force Base on Guam; B-52s deployed to Goose Bay in Canada; a Minuteman III ICBM was test-launched from the US West Coast into the Pacific; and a B-52 test-launched an air-launched cruise missile in Utah.
> 
> Valiant Shield 14 was followed by Global Thunder 15 in October, a nuclear readiness exercise that included the rapid launch of B-2s from Whiteman Air Force Base and B-52s from Minot and Barksdale Air Force Bases. The STRATCOM-led exercise also involved coordination with the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and Canada’s Joint Operations Command. According to STRATCOM:the scenario integrated, in just eight days, nearly every conceivable strategic threat to our nation and called upon all the USSTRATCOM capabilities that would be provided to geographic combatant commanders in a real-world crisis: space, cyber, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, global strike, and ballistic missile defense capabilities, among them. (US Strategic Command Public Affairs, 2014b)In addition to these large-scale national-level exercises, smaller exercises included rapid-launch maneuvers and long-range deployments of heavy bombers in April and June. In response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and increased air operations in Europe and elsewhere, two B-2s and three B-52Hs deployed to Britain’s Royal Air Force Fairford base and practiced long-range strike scenarios in Central Europe and North Africa (Wilson, 2014).
> 
> *Nuclear modernization*
> Over the next decade, the US government plans to spend as much as $350 billion on modernizing and maintaining its nuclear forces (US Congressional Budget Office, 2013). This will include designing a new class of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), a new long-range bomber with nuclear capability, and a new air-launched cruise missile (ALCM). Plans also include studying options for the next-generation land-based ICBM; deploying a new nuclear-capable tactical fighter aircraft; completing full-scale production of one nuclear warhead and beginning modernization work on two others, including the first-ever guided nuclear bomb; modernizing nuclear command-and-control facilities; and building new nuclear weapon production and simulation facilities.
> 
> The nuclear warheads intended for the modernized arsenal are scheduled to undergo extensive life-extension and modernization programs over the next several decades. Full-scale production of approximately 1,600 W76-1 warheads for the Trident II (D5) SLBM is well under way, scheduled for completion in 2019 at a total cost of approximately $3.7 billion (US Energy Department, 2014). The production of the B61-12, a guided standoff nuclear gravity bomb, is scheduled to be completed by 2025 at a cost of about $10 billion.2 The production of the W80-4, a modified version of the W80-1 warhead intended for a new ALCM known as the Long-Range Standoff (LRSO), will cost another $7 billion to $8 billion through 2033. The cost of developing the new cruise missile to carry the W80-1 warhead will increase the cost of the LRSO even further, in one estimate by perhaps as much as $20 billion (Wolfsthal et al., 2014).
> 
> The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has also presented a plan for a new family of so-called “interoperable” (previously called “common or adaptable”) warheads that can be used on both ICBMs and SLBMs.3 But Congress and sectors of the military have challenged the plan because of uncertainty about the technical requirements and risks that could affect reliability. The first of these new warheads would be the Interoperable Warhead 1—built with components from the W78, W88, and possibly W87 warheads—which could cost $10 billion to $15 billion. In contrast, simpler life-extension of existing designs could provide reliable warheads at a fraction of the cost.
> 
> The significant redesign of the interoperable warheads would challenge the pledge made in the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, which said that the United States “will not develop new nuclear warheads” but will consider the “full range” of life-extension program options, including “refurbishment of existing warheads, reuse of nuclear components from different warheads, and replacement of nuclear components” (US Defense Department, 2010b: xiv). This pledge was intended to prevent resumption of nuclear explosive testing and adhere to the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The Nuclear Posture Review also stated that any life-extension programs “will use only nuclear components based on previously tested designs, and will not support … new military capabilities” (US Defense Department, 2010b: xiv). Of course, compliance depends on how “new” military capabilities are defined, since the addition of new or improved features outside the nuclear explosive package may increase a weapon’s military capabilities. It is anticipated that the United States will generally seek to increase the accuracy of its nuclear weapons in order to lower the yield of modified warheads with improved performance margins.
> 
> The United States is also planning upgrades and replacements for its land-based ballistic missiles, nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, and strategic bombers, as discussed below.
> 
> *Land-based ballistic missiles*
> The US Air Force operates a force of 450 silo-based Minuteman III ICBMs, split evenly across three wings: the 90th Missile Wing at Warren Air Force Base; the 91st Missile Wing at Minot Air Force Base; and the 341st Missile Wing at Malmstrom Air Force Base. Each wing has three squadrons, each with 50 missiles controlled by five launch-control centers. Under New START, the US Air Force plans to reduce the ICBM force to 400 missiles, probably by retiring one of three missile squadrons at one of the three bases, leaving two bases with 150 missiles each and one with 100 missiles.
> 
> Each Minuteman missile carries either the 335-kiloton (kt) W78 warhead or the 300-kt W87 warhead. Downloading of the ICBM force was completed on June 16, 2014, when the last remaining Minuteman III at Malmstrom Air Force Base with multiple warheads was downloaded to single warhead configuration (US Air Force Global Strike Command Public Affairs, 2014a). The downloading program started during the George W. Bush administration and although the US military refers to it as “de-MIRVing,” a reference that suggests the missiles have lost their ability to carry multiple warheads, Minuteman IIIs configured for the Mk12A reentry vehicle will retain hundreds of W78 warheads in storage for “re-MIRVing” if called for.4
> 
> The United States plans to reduce the ICBM force to 400 deployed missiles under New START to meet the treaty’s limit of no more than 700 deployed nuclear missiles and heavy bombers by 2018. Rather than eliminating one squadron of 50 missiles from one of the three ICBM bases, however, the Air Force plans to spread the reduction across all three bases. Moreover, the 50 empty silos will not be destroyed but retained for potential reloading of missiles. The “cut” ICBMs will not be destroyed but kept in storage: The New START Implementation Report lists the same inventory of Minuteman IIIs in 2014 as will exist in 2018, of 454 deployed and non-deployed missiles (US Defense Department, 2014).
> 
> A multibillion-dollar, decade-long modernization program to extend the service life of the Minuteman III to 2030 is scheduled for completion in 2015. Although the United States is officially not deploying a new ICBM, the upgraded Minuteman IIIs “are basically new missiles except for the shell” (Pampe, 2012), according to Air Force personnel.
> 
> Part of the upgrade involves refurbishing the arming, fuzing, and firing component on the Mk12A and Mk21 (SERV) reentry vehicles. The publicly stated purpose of this refurbishment is to extend the vehicles’ service life, but the effort may also involve modifying the fuzes to improve the targeting capability of the warheads. This reportedly involves improving the “burst height compensation” to take advantage of improvements to the Minuteman III guidance system (Postol, 2014). This will enhance the accuracy and target-kill capability of the warheads against hardened nuclear forces, and potentially also allow for lowering the warheads’ explosive yield. The fuzes were upgraded from 2010 to 2012 (Kleiman, 2011). The US Navy’s W76-1 life-extension program includes a similar upgrade.
> 
> The Air Force is studying options for the next-generation ICBM, known as the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, which is scheduled to replace the Minuteman III beginning in 2030. An analysis-of-alternatives study completed in July 2014 decided on a “hybrid” design concept, partly based on today’s Minuteman III, its silos, and its command-and-control system, but incorporating modified features such as new rocket motors, a new guidance system, and upgraded arming, fuzing, and firing units. Apparently, the new system would be more accurate than that of the current Minuteman III. A wild-card option is whether to allow the missiles to be pulled out of their silos and dispersed on trucks or rail (Grossman, 2014), a potential feature that could significantly increase the cost. According to the head of Air Force Global Strike Command, Brig. Gen. Fred Stoss, the new missile is not a completely new follow-on missile but a systematic approach to recapitalizing the existing Minuteman III missile over the long term (Schanz, 2014).
> 
> Only one Minuteman III flight-test was conducted in 2014, down from three in 2013. The missile was plucked from a random silo at Minot Air Force Base and launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base on September 23. In addition to the live Minuteman III test-launch from Vandenberg, several Simulated Electronic Launch-Minuteman (SELM) exercises were conducted at the ICBM bases themselves. Each SELM may include several launch facilities. Warren Air Force Base conducted a SELM over several days in April 2014 that included six silos and two launch control centers, which simulated receiving launch orders and launching missiles in “a variety of new scenarios” against “certain modern threats.” According to the Air Force (Valle, 2014), SELM tests are conducted every six months on a rotating basis for the three ICBM bases, which means each missile wing is tested every 18 months.
> 
> *Nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines*
> All of the US Navy’s 14 Ohio-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), eight based in the Pacific and six in the Atlantic, carry Trident II (D5) SLBMs. Normally, 12 of these submarines are considered operational, with the 13th and 14th boat in overhaul at any given time. According to unclassified New START aggregate data, however, not all the remaining 12 submarines are routinely equipped with full missile loadings. As of March 1, 2014, for example, only 240 missiles were counted as deployed, 48 fewer than the capacity of 12 boats, so at most 10 of these submarines carried all their missiles at the time of the count (US State Department, 2014b). Starting in 2015, the number of missile tubes on each Ohio-class SSBN will be reduced by four, from 24 to 20. The reduction is intended to reduce the number of SLBMs that can be deployed at any given time to no more than 240, in order to meet the limit on deployed strategic delivery vehicles set by New START for 2018.
> 
> The warhead loading of the deployed SLBMs is not specified in the New START aggregate data. In practice, the missiles probably carry three to six warheads, depending on the requirements of their particular strike package assigned under war plans. Loading with fewer warheads increases the missiles’ range and flexibility. As of March 2014, for example, the 240 deployed SLBMs carried an estimated 1,047 warheads, or an average of four to five warheads per missile.
> 
> Three versions of two basic warhead types are deployed on the SLBMs: the 100 kt W76-0, the 100 kt W76-1, and the 455 kt W88. The W76-1 is a refurbished version of the W76-0, with the same yield but with dual strong link detonation control added. The Mk4A reentry body that carries the W76-1 is equipped with a new arming, fuzing, and firing unit with improved targeting capabilities compared with the old Mk4/W76 system. Full-scale production of an estimated 1,600 W76-1s is under way at the Pantex Plant in Texas. The halfway point was reached in October 2014 and production is scheduled to be completed in 2019. The Mk4A/W76-1 combination is also being supplied to the United Kingdom for use on its SSBNs (Kristensen, 2011a).
> 
> In 2014, the US SSBN fleet celebrated its 4,000th deterrent patrol since it first deployed to sea with nuclear missiles in 1960. The annual number of deterrent patrols that the US SSBN fleet conducts each year has declined by more than 56 percent in 15 years, from 64 patrols in 1999 to fewer than 30 in 2014. More than 60 percent of the patrols take place in the Pacific Ocean, reflecting nuclear war planning against China, North Korea, and Russia.5
> 
> Design of the next-generation SSBN is well under way to replace the Ohio class. The new submarine, known as SSBNX, will be 2,000 tonnes larger than the Ohio class submarine but equipped with 16 missile tubes rather than 24.6 Twelve SSBNXs are planned, a reduction of two boats compared with the current fleet of 14, at an estimated cost of $92 billion, or $7.7 billion per submarine (US Congressional Budget Office, 2014). Procurement of the first boat is scheduled for 2021 with deployment on deterrent patrol starting in 2031. During the first decade of its service life, the new SSBNX will be armed with a life-extended version of the current Trident II (D5) SLBM (the D5LE), which has a new guidance system designed to “provide flexibility to support new missions” and make the missile “more accurate,” according to the US Navy and Draper Laboratory (Draper Laboratory, 2006: 8; Naval Surface Warfare Center, 2008: 14). Starting in 2017, the D5LE will also be back-fitted onto existing Ohio-class submarines for the remainder of their service life (up to 2042), and will also be deployed on British submarines. Two Trident II (D5) SLBMs were test-launched in the Atlantic in June 2014 from the submarine _West Virginia_ (SSBN-736) following completion of its reactor refueling overhaul.
> 
> *Strategic bombers*
> The US Air Force currently operates a fleet of 20 B-2 and 93 B-52H bombers. Of those, 18 B-2s and 76 B-52Hs are nuclear-capable. (New START counts 20 B-2s and 89 B-52Hs.) Approximately 60 bombers (16 B-2s and 44 B-52Hs) are thought to be assigned nuclear missions under US nuclear war plans.7 They are organized into eight bomb squadrons in five bomb wings at three bases: Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota, Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, and Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri.
> 
> Until 2012, only active US Air Force personnel were involved in nuclear bomber missions. But in 2013, two additional wings and squadrons were added using US Air Reserve and US Air National Guard personnel. This includes the 307th Bomb Wing and its 343rd Squadron of B-52Hs (integrated with the 2nd Bomb Wing at Barksdale Air Force Base). The 307th Bomb Wing passed its initial nuclear surety inspection in March 2013, becoming the first Air Reserve unit certified to deliver nuclear weapons. The other new wing, the 313th Bomb Wing and its 110th Squadron with B-2 bombers (integrated with the 509th Bomb Wing at Whiteman Air Force Base), passed its nuclear surety inspection in August 2013, becoming the first Air National Guard unit certified to deliver nuclear weapons.8
> 
> Each B-2 can carry up to 16 nuclear bombs (B61-7, B61-11, and B83-1 gravity bombs), and each B-52H can carry up to 20 air-launched cruise missiles. An estimated 1,000 nuclear weapons, including 528 air-launched cruise missiles, are assigned to the bombers. Although only 200 to 300 weapons are deployed at the bomber bases under normal circumstances, the remaining 700 to 800 weapons are in central storage at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico.
> 
> The US Air Force is planning a new bomber, known as the long-range strike bomber (the LRS-B, or simply the next-generation bomber), to begin replacing existing bombers beginning in the mid-2020s. Procurement of 80 to 100 aircraft is envisioned, some of which are planned to be nuclear-capable, at a cost of at least $80 billion. The US Air Force reportedly issued a request for proposals in July 2014 and plans to award the first public contract in the spring of 2015. But significant budget increases from $258.7 million in 2013 to $3.5 billion in 2019, as well as a relatively short development and production schedule calling for completion in 2025, indicate that significant long-range strike bomber development may already have been completed using funds from classified budgets (Gertler, 2014).
> 
> The long-range strike bomber will be equipped to deliver the new B61-12 guided standoff bomb (which will eventually replace all other gravity bombs) and the long-range standoff cruise missile, or LRSO (which will replace the air-launched cruise missile around 2025). In 2014, the US government’s Nuclear Weapons Council selected the W80-1 warhead to arm the long-range standoff. Under the plan, the W80-1 would undergo a life-extension program to extend its service life through the middle of this century. The life-extended warhead would be known as the W80-4 and partly include components and technologies developed for the B61-12 program.9 The number of long-range standoff cruise missiles planned has not been announced, but it is thought to involve around 500 missiles.
> 
> During 2014, nuclear-capable heavy B-2 and B-52H bombers continued rotational deployments to Andersen Air Force Base in Guam, an extended deterrence mission that began in 2004. Since 2011, nuclear-capable B-52H bombers have also started to deploy to Darwin Air Base in Australia as part of their Pacific rotational deployments. The first visit occurred in August 2012, following the signing in 2011 of an agreement to increase the US military presence in Northern Australia, but in 2014 the number of B-52H visits increased to at least three: one in January, one in May (that included two bombers), and one in December. The bombers normally are accompanied by KC-135 tankers. “Most importantly, these bomber rotations provide Pacific air forces and US Pacific Command commanders a global strike and extended deterrence capability against any potential adversary,” said Maj. Gen. Scott Vander Hamm, 8th Air Force and Task Force 204 commander (US Air Force Global Strike Command, 2014b).
> 
> *Nonstrategic nuclear weapons*
> The United States has one type of nonstrategic weapon in its stockpile—the B61 gravity bomb. The weapon exists in three modifications, the B61-3, B61-4, and B61-10. Approximately 500 tactical B61 bombs of all versions remain in the stockpile. A little over 180 of these (versions -3 and -4) are deployed at six bases in five European countries: Aviano (Italy), Büchel (Germany), Ghedi (Italy), Incirlik (Turkey), Kleine Brogel (Belgium), and Volkel (Netherlands). The Belgian, Dutch, and possibly Turkish air forces (with F-16 combat aircraft), and German and Italian air forces (with PA-200 Tornado aircraft), are assigned nuclear strike missions with US nuclear weapons, but the weapons are kept under the control of US Air Force personnel until their use is authorized by the American president and approved by NATO in a war. (A small number of the remaining nonstrategic weapons stored in the United States are for potential use by US fighter-bombers in support of allies outside Europe, including in the Middle East and Northeast Asia.)
> 
> NATO is replacing its fleet of 12 weapons maintenance trucks with 10 new Secure Transportable Maintenance System (STMS) trailers (Kristensen, 2014a), which are used to service the B61 nuclear bombs at the six air bases in Europe. During service, the weapons are brought up from their underground storage vaults inside the protective aircraft shelters and hoisted into the trailers and disassembled for replacement of limited-life components or other maintenance.
> 
> NATO has approved a modernization of the nuclear posture in Europe through deployment at the beginning of the next decade of the B61-12 guided, standoff nuclear gravity bomb.10 The B61-12 will use the nuclear explosive package of the B61-4, which has a maximum yield of approximately 50 kt, but will be equipped with a guided tail kit to increase its accuracy and standoff capability. The B61-12 will be a more flexible weapon that is able to hold at risk hardened targets that could not be destroyed with the B61-3 or -4, and it will enable strike planners to select lower yields for existing targets to reduce collateral damage. Moreover, several of the NATO allies that currently have a nuclear strike mission plan to upgrade their fighter-bombers to the stealthy US-built F-35A (Joint Strike Fighter). Until the new aircraft is ready, the B61-12 will be back-fitted onto existing F-15E, F-16, and Tornado aircraft (Kristensen, 2014c). Combined, the guided B61-12 and stealthy F-35A represent a significant enhancement of the US nonstrategic nuclear posture in Europe.11
> 
> NATO’s annual nuclear strike exercise Steadfast Noon was held at Ghedi Air Base in Italy in October 2014 and included aircraft from Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, and the United States. Unlike aircraft from the other participants, the Polish F-16s are not nuclear-capable but provide non-nuclear support for the nuclear strike package under the so-called SNOWCAT (Support of Nuclear Operations With Conventional Air Tactics) program, a NATO plan designed to enable non-nuclear countries to provide non-nuclear support to the nuclear mission. In addition to these operations in western and southern NATO, nuclear-capable F-16s from US fighter wings are conducting periodic deployments to the Baltic States, Poland, and Romania.12



They seem old, but in actuality, these are very well maintained and tested munitions. Missiles are randomly tested on a regular basis, the Trident D5 and Minuteman III are as reliable as an AK-47. ALCM is a disappointment though, at least in my opinion, but the cost of the ACM was just too high. Still, newer nuclear cruise missiles will be coming online in the 2020s

ALCM retained






ACM put into reserve






*W80-1 Warhead Selected For New Nuclear Cruise Missile*






The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Council has selected the W80-1 thermonuclear warhead for the Air Force’s new nuclear cruise missile (Long-Range Standoff, LRSO) scheduled for deployment in 2027.

The W80-1 warhead is currently used on the Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM), but will be modified during a life-extension program and de-deployed with a new name: W80-4.

Under current plans, the ALCM will be retired in the mid-2020s and replaced with the more advanced LRSO, possibly starting in 2027.

The enormous cost of the program – $10-20 billion by some estimates – is robbing defense planners of resources needed for more important non-nuclear capabilities.

Even though the United States has thousands of nuclear warheads on ballistic missiles and is building a new penetrating bomber to deliver nuclear bombs, STRATCOM and Air Force leaders are arguing that a new nuclear cruise missile is needed as well.

But their description of the LRSO mission sounds a lot like old-fashioned nuclear warfighting that will add new military capabilities to the arsenal in conflict with the administration’s promise not to do so and reduce the role of nuclear weapons.

What Kind of Warhead?

The selection of the W80-1 warhead for the LRSO completes a multi-year process that also considered using the B61 and W84 warheads.

The W80-4 selected for the LRSO will be the fifth modification name for the W80 warhead (see table below): The first was the W80-0 for the Navy’s Tomahawk Land-Attack Cruise Missile (TLAM/N), which was retired in 2011; the second is the W80-1, which is still used the ALCM; the third was the W80-2, which was a planned LEP of the W80-0 but canceled in 2006; the fourth was the W80-3, a planned LEP of the W80-1 but canceled in 2006.






The B61 warhead has been used as the basis for a wide variety of warhead designs. It currently exists in five gravity bomb versions (B61-4, B61-4, B61-7, B61-10, B61-11) and was also used as the basis for the W85 warhead on the Pershing II ground-launched ballistic missile. After the Pershing II was eliminated by the INF Treaty, the W85 was converted into the B61-10. But the B61 was not selected for the LRSO partly because of concern about the risk of common-component failure from basing too many warheads on the same basic design.

The W84 was developed for the ground-launched cruise missile (BGM-109G), another weapon eliminated by the INF Treaty. As a more modern warhead, it includes a Fire Resistant Pit (which the W80-1 does not have) and a more advanced Permissive Action Link (PAL) use-control system. The W84 was retired from the stockpile in 2008 but was brought back as a LRSO candidate but was not selected, partly because not enough W84s were built to meet the requirement for the planned LRSO inventory.

Cost Estimates

In the past two year, NNSA has provided two very different cost estimates for the W80-4. The FY2014 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan (SSMP) published in June 2013 projected a total cost of approximately $11.6 billion through 2030. The FY2015 SSMP, in contrast, contained a significantly lower estimate: approximately $6.8 billion through 2033 (see graph below).






The huge difference in the cost estimates (nearly 50%) is not explained in detail in the FY2015 SSMP, which only states that the FY2014 numbers were updated with a smaller “escalation factor” and “improvements in the cost models.” Curiously, the update only reduces the cost for the years that were particularly high (2019-2027), the years with warhead development and production engineering. The two-third reduction in the cost estimate may make it easier for NNSA to secure Congressional funding, but it also raises significant uncertainty about what the cost will actually be.

Assuming a planned production of approximately 500 LRSOs (there are currently 528 ALCMs in the stockpile and the New START Treaty does not count or limit cruise missiles), the cost estimates indicate a complex W80-4 LEP on par with the B61-12 LEP. NNSA told me the plan is to use many of the non-nuclear components and technologies on the W80-4 that were developed for the B61-12.

In addition to the cost of the W80-4 warhead itself, the cost estimate for completing the LRSO has not been announced but $227 million are programmed through 2019. Unofficial estimates put the total cost for the LRSO and W80-4 at $10-20 billion. In addition to these weapons costs, integration on the B-2A and next-generation long-range bomber (LRS-B) will add hundreds of millions more.






What’s The Mission?

Why does the Air Force need a new nuclear cruise missile?

During a recent meeting with Pentagon officials, I asked why the LRSO was needed, given that the military also has gravity bombs on its bombers. “Because of what you see on that map,” a senior defense official said pointing to a large world map on the wall. The implication was that many targets would be risky to get to with a bomber. When reminded that the military also has land- and sea-based ballistic missiles that can reach all of those targets, another official explained: “Yes but they’re all brute weapons with high-yield warheads. We need the targeting flexibility and lower-yield options that the LRSO provides.”

The assumption for the argument is that if the Air Force didn’t have a nuclear cruise missile, an adversary could gamble that the United States would not risk an expensive stealth bomber to deliver a nuclear bomb and would not want to use ballistic missiles because that would be escalating too much. That’s quite an assumption but for the nuclear warfighter the cruise missile is seen as this great in-between weapon that increases targeting flexibility in a variety of regional strike scenarios.

That conversation could have taken place back in the 1980s because the answers sounded more like warfighting talk than deterrence. The two roles can be hard to differentiate and the Air Force’s budget request seems to include a bit of both: the LRSO “will be capable of penetrating and surviving advanced Integrated Air Defense Systems (IADS) from significant stand off range to prosecute strategic targets in support of the Air Force’s global attack capability and strategic deterrence core function.”

The deterrence function is provided by the existence of the weapon, but the global attack capability is what’s needed when deterrence fails. At that point, the mission is about target destruction: holding at risk what the adversary values most. Getting to the target is harder with a cruise missile than a ballistic missile, but it is easier with a cruise missile than a gravity bomb because the latter requires the bomber to fly very close to the target. That exposes the platform to all sorts of air defense capabilities. That’s why the Pentagon plans to spend a lot of money on equipping its next-generation long-range bomber (LRS-B) with low-observable technology.

The LRSO is therefore needed, STRATCOM commander Admiral Cecil Haney explained in June, to “effectively conduct global strike operations in the anti-access, access-denial environments.” When asked why they needed a standoff missile when they were building a stealth bomber, Haney acknowledge that “if you had all the stealth you could possibly have in a platform, then gravity bombs would solve it all.” But the stealth of the bomber will diminish over time because of countermeasures invented by adversaries, he warned. So “having standoff and stealth is very important” given how long the long-range bomber will operate into the future.

Still, one could say that for any weapon and it doesn’t really explain what the _nuclear_ mission is. But around the same time Admiral Haney made his statement, Air Force Global Strike Command commander General Wilson added a bit more texture: “There may be air defenses that are just too hard, it’s so redundant, that penetrating bombers become a challenge. But with standoff, I can make holes and gaps to allow a penetrating bomber to get in, and then it becomes a matter of balance.”

In this mission, the LRSO would not be used to keep the stealth bomber out of harms way per ce but as a nuclear sledgehammer to “kick down the door” so the bomber – potentially with B61-12 nuclear bombs in its bomb bay – could slip through the air defenses and get to its targets inside the country. Rather than deterrence, this is a real warfighting scenario that is a central element of STRATCOM’s Global Strike mission for the first few days of a conflict and includes a mix of weapons such as the B-2, F-22, and standoff weapons.

But why the sledgehammer mission would require a _nuclear_ cruise missile is still not clear, as conventional cruise missiles have become significantly more capable against air defense and hard targets. In fact, most of the Global Strike scenarios would involve conventional weapons, not nuclear LRSOs. The Air Force has a $4 billion program underway to develop the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) and an extended-range version (JASSM-ER) for deliver by B-1B, B-2A, B-52H bombers and F-15E, F-16, and F-35 fighters. A total of 4,900 missiles are planned, including 2,846 JASSM-ERs.






Since the next-generation long-range bomber would also be the launch platform for those conventional weapons, it will be exposed to the same risks with or without a nuclear LRSO.

Most recently, according to the Nuclear Security & Deterrence Monitor, Gen. Wilson added another twist to the justification:

_“If I take a bomber, and I put standoff cruise missiles on it, in essence, it becomes very much like a sub. It’s got close to the same magazine capacity of a sub. So once I generate a bomber with standoff cruise missiles, it becomes a significant deterrent for any adversary. We often forget that. It possesses the same firepower, in essence, as a sub that we can position whenever and wherever we want, and it becomes a very strong deterrent. So I’m a strong proponent of being able to modernize our standoff missile capability.”_

Although the claim that a bomber has “close to the same capacity of a sub” is vastly exaggerated (it is up to 20 warheads on 20 cruise missiles on a B-52H bomber versus 192 warheads on 24 sea-launched ballistic missiles on an Ohio-class submarine), the example helps illustrates the enormous overcapacity and redundancy in the current arsenal.

What Kind of Missile?

Although we have yet to see what kind of capabilities the LRSO will have, the Air Force description is that LRSO “will be capable of penetrating and surviving advanced Integrated Air Defense Systems (IADS) from significant stand off range to prosecute strategic targets in support of the Air Force’s global attack capability and strategic deterrence core function.”

There is every reason to expect that STRATCOM and the Air Force will want the weapon to have better military capabilities than the current Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM), perhaps with features similar to the Advanced Cruise Missile (ACM). After all, so the thinking goes, air defenses have improved significantly since the ALCM was deployed in 1982 and the LRSO will have to operate well into the middle of the century when air defense systems can be expected to be even better than today.

With a 3,000-km range similar to the ACM, the LRSO would theoretically be able to reach targets in much of Russia and most of China from launch-positions 1,000 kilometers from their coasts. Most of Russia and China’s nuclear forces are located in these areas.

In thinking about which capabilities would be needed for the LRSO, it is useful to recall the last time the warfighters argued that an improved cruise missile was needed. The ALCM was also “designed to evade air and ground-based defenses in order to strike targets at any location within any enemy’s territory,” but that was not good enough. So the Advanced Cruise Missile (ACM) was developed and deployed in 1992 to provide “significant improvements” over the ALCM in “range, accuracy, and survivability.” The rest of the mission was similar – “evade air and ground-based defenses in order to strike heavily defended, hardened targets at any location within any enemy’s territory” – but the requirement to hold at risk “heavily defended, hardened targets” was unique.

Yet when comparing the ALCM and ACM mission requirements and capabilities with the operational experience, GAO in 1993 found that “air defense threats had been overestimated” and that “tests did not demonstrate low ALCM survivability.” The ACM’s range was found to be “only slightly better than the older ALCM’s demonstrated capability,” and GAO concluded that “the improvement in accuracy offered by the ACM appears to have little real operational significance.”






Nonetheless, the ACM was produced in 1992-1993 at a cost of more than $10 billion. Strategic Air Command initially wanted 1461 missiles, but the high cost and the end of the Cold War caused Pentagon to cut the program to only 430 missiles. A sub-sonic cruise missile with a range of 3,000 kilometers (1,865 miles) and hard-target kill capability with the W80-1 warhead, the ACM was designed for external carriage on the B-52H bomber, with up to 12 missiles under the wings. The B-2 was also capable of carrying the ACM but as a penetrating stealth bomber there was never a need to assign it the stealthy standoff missile as well.

The ACM was supposed to undergo a life extension program to extend it to 2030, but after only 15 years of service the missile was retired early in 2007. An Enhanced Cruise Missile (ECM) was planned by the Bush administration, but it never materialized. It is likely, but still not clear, that LRSO will make use of some of the technologies from the ACM and ECM programs.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The W80-1 warhead has been selected to arm the new Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) missile, a $10-20 billion weapon system the Air Force plans to deploy in the late-2020s but can poorly afford.

Even though the United States has thousands of nuclear warheads on land- and sea-based ballistic missiles that can reach the same targets intended for the LRSO, the military argues that a new nuclear standoff weapon is needed to spare a new penetrating bomber from enemy air-defense threats.

Yet the same bomber will be also equipped with conventional weapons – some standoff, some not – that will expose it to the same kinds of threats anyway. So the claim that the LRSO is needed to spare the next-generation bomber from air-defense threats sounds a bit like a straw man argument.

The mission for the LRSO is vague at best and to the extent the Air Force has described one it sounds like a warfighting mission from the Cold War with nuclear cruise missiles shooting holes in enemy air defense systems. Given the conventional weapon systems that have been developed over the past two decades, it is highly questionable whether such a mission requires a nuclear cruise missile.

The warfighters and the strategists might want a nuclear cruise missile as a flexible weapon for regional scenarios. But good to have is not the same as essential. And the regional scenarios they use to justify it are vague and largely unknown – certainly untested – in the public debate.

In the nuclear force structure planned for the future, the United States will have roughly 1,500 warheads deployed on land- and sea-based ballistic missiles. Nearly three-quarters of those warheads will be onboard submarines that can move to positions off adversaries anywhere in the world and launch missiles that can put warheads on target in as little as 15 minutes.

It really stretches the imagination why such a capability, backed up by nuclear bombs on bombers and the enormous conventional capability the U.S. military possesses, would be insufficient to deter or dissuade any potential adversary that can be deterred or dissuaded.

As the number of warheads deployed on land- and sea-based ballistic missiles continues to drop in the future, long-range, highly accurate, stealthy, standoff cruise missiles will increasingly complicate the situation. These weapons are not counted under the New START treaty and if a follow-on treaty does not succeed in limiting them, which seems unlikely in the current political climate, a new round of nuclear cruise missile deployments could become real spoilers. There are currently more ALCMs than ICBMs in the U.S. arsenal and with each bomber capable of loading up to 20 missiles the rapid upload capacity is considerable.

Under the 1,500 deployed strategic warhead posture of the New START treaty, the unaccounted cruise missiles could very quickly increase the force by one-third to 2,000 warheads. Under a posture of 1,000 deployed strategic warheads, which the Obama administration has proposed for the future, the effect would be even more dramatic: the air-launched cruise missiles could quickly increase the number of deployed warheads by 50 percent. Not good for crisis stability!

As things stand at the moment, the only real argument for the new cruise missile seems to be that the Air Force currently has one, but it’s getting old, so it needs a new one. Add to that the fact that Russia is also developing a new cruise missile, and all clear thinking about whether the LRSO is needed seems to fly out the window. Rather than automatically developing and deploying a new nuclear cruise missile, the administration and Congress need to ask tough questions about the need for the LRSO and whether the money could be better spent elsewhere on non-nuclear capabilities that – unlike a nuclear cruise missile – are actually useful in supporting U.S. national and international security commitments.

http://fas.org/blogs/security/2014/10/w80-1_lrso/

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

Víðarr said:


> They seem old, but in actuality, these are very well maintained and tested munitions. Missiles are randomly tested an a regular basis, the Trident and Minuteman are as reliable as an AK-47. ALCM is a disappointment though, at least in my opinion, but the cost of the ACM was just too high. Still, newer nuclear cruise missiles will be coming online in the 2020s
> 
> ALCM retained
> 
> View attachment 210555
> 
> 
> ACM put into reserve
> 
> View attachment 210554
> 
> 
> *W80-1 Warhead Selected For New Nuclear Cruise Missile*
> 
> View attachment 210547
> 
> 
> The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Council has selected the W80-1 thermonuclear warhead for the Air Force’s new nuclear cruise missile (Long-Range Standoff, LRSO) scheduled for deployment in 2027.
> 
> The W80-1 warhead is currently used on the Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM), but will be modified during a life-extension program and de-deployed with a new name: W80-4.
> 
> Under current plans, the ALCM will be retired in the mid-2020s and replaced with the more advanced LRSO, possibly starting in 2027.
> 
> The enormous cost of the program – $10-20 billion by some estimates – is robbing defense planners of resources needed for more important non-nuclear capabilities.
> 
> Even though the United States has thousands of nuclear warheads on ballistic missiles and is building a new penetrating bomber to deliver nuclear bombs, STRATCOM and Air Force leaders are arguing that a new nuclear cruise missile is needed as well.
> 
> But their description of the LRSO mission sounds a lot like old-fashioned nuclear warfighting that will add new military capabilities to the arsenal in conflict with the administration’s promise not to do so and reduce the role of nuclear weapons.
> 
> What Kind of Warhead?
> 
> The selection of the W80-1 warhead for the LRSO completes a multi-year process that also considered using the B61 and W84 warheads.
> 
> The W80-4 selected for the LRSO will be the fifth modification name for the W80 warhead (see table below): The first was the W80-0 for the Navy’s Tomahawk Land-Attack Cruise Missile (TLAM/N), which was retired in 2011; the second is the W80-1, which is still used the ALCM; the third was the W80-2, which was a planned LEP of the W80-0 but canceled in 2006; the fourth was the W80-3, a planned LEP of the W80-1 but canceled in 2006.
> 
> View attachment 210548
> 
> 
> The B61 warhead has been used as the basis for a wide variety of warhead designs. It currently exists in five gravity bomb versions (B61-4, B61-4, B61-7, B61-10, B61-11) and was also used as the basis for the W85 warhead on the Pershing II ground-launched ballistic missile. After the Pershing II was eliminated by the INF Treaty, the W85 was converted into the B61-10. But the B61 was not selected for the LRSO partly because of concern about the risk of common-component failure from basing too many warheads on the same basic design.
> 
> The W84 was developed for the ground-launched cruise missile (BGM-109G), another weapon eliminated by the INF Treaty. As a more modern warhead, it includes a Fire Resistant Pit (which the W80-1 does not have) and a more advanced Permissive Action Link (PAL) use-control system. The W84 was retired from the stockpile in 2008 but was brought back as a LRSO candidate but was not selected, partly because not enough W84s were built to meet the requirement for the planned LRSO inventory.
> 
> Cost Estimates
> 
> In the past two year, NNSA has provided two very different cost estimates for the W80-4. The FY2014 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan (SSMP) published in June 2013 projected a total cost of approximately $11.6 billion through 2030. The FY2015 SSMP, in contrast, contained a significantly lower estimate: approximately $6.8 billion through 2033 (see graph below).
> 
> View attachment 210549
> 
> 
> The huge difference in the cost estimates (nearly 50%) is not explained in detail in the FY2015 SSMP, which only states that the FY2014 numbers were updated with a smaller “escalation factor” and “improvements in the cost models.” Curiously, the update only reduces the cost for the years that were particularly high (2019-2027), the years with warhead development and production engineering. The two-third reduction in the cost estimate may make it easier for NNSA to secure Congressional funding, but it also raises significant uncertainty about what the cost will actually be.
> 
> Assuming a planned production of approximately 500 LRSOs (there are currently 528 ALCMs in the stockpile and the New START Treaty does not count or limit cruise missiles), the cost estimates indicate a complex W80-4 LEP on par with the B61-12 LEP. NNSA told me the plan is to use many of the non-nuclear components and technologies on the W80-4 that were developed for the B61-12.
> 
> In addition to the cost of the W80-4 warhead itself, the cost estimate for completing the LRSO has not been announced but $227 million are programmed through 2019. Unofficial estimates put the total cost for the LRSO and W80-4 at $10-20 billion. In addition to these weapons costs, integration on the B-2A and next-generation long-range bomber (LRS-B) will add hundreds of millions more.
> 
> View attachment 210550
> 
> 
> What’s The Mission?
> 
> Why does the Air Force need a new nuclear cruise missile?
> 
> During a recent meeting with Pentagon officials, I asked why the LRSO was needed, given that the military also has gravity bombs on its bombers. “Because of what you see on that map,” a senior defense official said pointing to a large world map on the wall. The implication was that many targets would be risky to get to with a bomber. When reminded that the military also has land- and sea-based ballistic missiles that can reach all of those targets, another official explained: “Yes but they’re all brute weapons with high-yield warheads. We need the targeting flexibility and lower-yield options that the LRSO provides.”
> 
> The assumption for the argument is that if the Air Force didn’t have a nuclear cruise missile, an adversary could gamble that the United States would not risk an expensive stealth bomber to deliver a nuclear bomb and would not want to use ballistic missiles because that would be escalating too much. That’s quite an assumption but for the nuclear warfighter the cruise missile is seen as this great in-between weapon that increases targeting flexibility in a variety of regional strike scenarios.
> 
> That conversation could have taken place back in the 1980s because the answers sounded more like warfighting talk than deterrence. The two roles can be hard to differentiate and the Air Force’s budget request seems to include a bit of both: the LRSO “will be capable of penetrating and surviving advanced Integrated Air Defense Systems (IADS) from significant stand off range to prosecute strategic targets in support of the Air Force’s global attack capability and strategic deterrence core function.”
> 
> The deterrence function is provided by the existence of the weapon, but the global attack capability is what’s needed when deterrence fails. At that point, the mission is about target destruction: holding at risk what the adversary values most. Getting to the target is harder with a cruise missile than a ballistic missile, but it is easier with a cruise missile than a gravity bomb because the latter requires the bomber to fly very close to the target. That exposes the platform to all sorts of air defense capabilities. That’s why the Pentagon plans to spend a lot of money on equipping its next-generation long-range bomber (LRS-B) with low-observable technology.
> 
> The LRSO is therefore needed, STRATCOM commander Admiral Cecil Haney explained in June, to “effectively conduct global strike operations in the anti-access, access-denial environments.” When asked why they needed a standoff missile when they were building a stealth bomber, Haney acknowledge that “if you had all the stealth you could possibly have in a platform, then gravity bombs would solve it all.” But the stealth of the bomber will diminish over time because of countermeasures invented by adversaries, he warned. So “having standoff and stealth is very important” given how long the long-range bomber will operate into the future.
> 
> Still, one could say that for any weapon and it doesn’t really explain what the _nuclear_ mission is. But around the same time Admiral Haney made his statement, Air Force Global Strike Command commander General Wilson added a bit more texture: “There may be air defenses that are just too hard, it’s so redundant, that penetrating bombers become a challenge. But with standoff, I can make holes and gaps to allow a penetrating bomber to get in, and then it becomes a matter of balance.”
> 
> In this mission, the LRSO would not be used to keep the stealth bomber out of harms way per ce but as a nuclear sledgehammer to “kick down the door” so the bomber – potentially with B61-12 nuclear bombs in its bomb bay – could slip through the air defenses and get to its targets inside the country. Rather than deterrence, this is a real warfighting scenario that is a central element of STRATCOM’s Global Strike mission for the first few days of a conflict and includes a mix of weapons such as the B-2, F-22, and standoff weapons.
> 
> But why the sledgehammer mission would require a _nuclear_ cruise missile is still not clear, as conventional cruise missiles have become significantly more capable against air defense and hard targets. In fact, most of the Global Strike scenarios would involve conventional weapons, not nuclear LRSOs. The Air Force has a $4 billion program underway to develop the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) and an extended-range version (JASSM-ER) for deliver by B-1B, B-2A, B-52H bombers and F-15E, F-16, and F-35 fighters. A total of 4,900 missiles are planned, including 2,846 JASSM-ERs.
> 
> View attachment 210551
> 
> 
> Since the next-generation long-range bomber would also be the launch platform for those conventional weapons, it will be exposed to the same risks with or without a nuclear LRSO.
> 
> Most recently, according to the Nuclear Security & Deterrence Monitor, Gen. Wilson added another twist to the justification:
> 
> _“If I take a bomber, and I put standoff cruise missiles on it, in essence, it becomes very much like a sub. It’s got close to the same magazine capacity of a sub. So once I generate a bomber with standoff cruise missiles, it becomes a significant deterrent for any adversary. We often forget that. It possesses the same firepower, in essence, as a sub that we can position whenever and wherever we want, and it becomes a very strong deterrent. So I’m a strong proponent of being able to modernize our standoff missile capability.”_
> 
> Although the claim that a bomber has “close to the same capacity of a sub” is vastly exaggerated (it is up to 20 warheads on 20 cruise missiles on a B-52H bomber versus 192 warheads on 24 sea-launched ballistic missiles on an Ohio-class submarine), the example helps illustrates the enormous overcapacity and redundancy in the current arsenal.
> 
> What Kind of Missile?
> 
> Although we have yet to see what kind of capabilities the LRSO will have, the Air Force description is that LRSO “will be capable of penetrating and surviving advanced Integrated Air Defense Systems (IADS) from significant stand off range to prosecute strategic targets in support of the Air Force’s global attack capability and strategic deterrence core function.”
> 
> There is every reason to expect that STRATCOM and the Air Force will want the weapon to have better military capabilities than the current Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM), perhaps with features similar to the Advanced Cruise Missile (ACM). After all, so the thinking goes, air defenses have improved significantly since the ALCM was deployed in 1982 and the LRSO will have to operate well into the middle of the century when air defense systems can be expected to be even better than today.
> 
> With a 3,000-km range similar to the ACM, the LRSO would theoretically be able to reach targets in much of Russia and most of China from launch-positions 1,000 kilometers from their coasts. Most of Russia and China’s nuclear forces are located in these areas.
> 
> In thinking about which capabilities would be needed for the LRSO, it is useful to recall the last time the warfighters argued that an improved cruise missile was needed. The ALCM was also “designed to evade air and ground-based defenses in order to strike targets at any location within any enemy’s territory,” but that was not good enough. So the Advanced Cruise Missile (ACM) was developed and deployed in 1992 to provide “significant improvements” over the ALCM in “range, accuracy, and survivability.” The rest of the mission was similar – “evade air and ground-based defenses in order to strike heavily defended, hardened targets at any location within any enemy’s territory” – but the requirement to hold at risk “heavily defended, hardened targets” was unique.
> 
> Yet when comparing the ALCM and ACM mission requirements and capabilities with the operational experience, GAO in 1993 found that “air defense threats had been overestimated” and that “tests did not demonstrate low ALCM survivability.” The ACM’s range was found to be “only slightly better than the older ALCM’s demonstrated capability,” and GAO concluded that “the improvement in accuracy offered by the ACM appears to have little real operational significance.”
> 
> View attachment 210552
> 
> 
> Nonetheless, the ACM was produced in 1992-1993 at a cost of more than $10 billion. Strategic Air Command initially wanted 1461 missiles, but the high cost and the end of the Cold War caused Pentagon to cut the program to only 430 missiles. A sub-sonic cruise missile with a range of 3,000 kilometers (1,865 miles) and hard-target kill capability with the W80-1 warhead, the ACM was designed for external carriage on the B-52H bomber, with up to 12 missiles under the wings. The B-2 was also capable of carrying the ACM but as a penetrating stealth bomber there was never a need to assign it the stealthy standoff missile as well.
> 
> The ACM was supposed to undergo a life extension program to extend it to 2030, but after only 15 years of service the missile was retired early in 2007. An Enhanced Cruise Missile (ECM) was planned by the Bush administration, but it never materialized. It is likely, but still not clear, that LRSO will make use of some of the technologies from the ACM and ECM programs.
> 
> Conclusions and Recommendations
> 
> The W80-1 warhead has been selected to arm the new Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) missile, a $10-20 billion weapon system the Air Force plans to deploy in the late-2020s but can poorly afford.
> 
> Even though the United States has thousands of nuclear warheads on land- and sea-based ballistic missiles that can reach the same targets intended for the LRSO, the military argues that a new nuclear standoff weapon is needed to spare a new penetrating bomber from enemy air-defense threats.
> 
> Yet the same bomber will be also equipped with conventional weapons – some standoff, some not – that will expose it to the same kinds of threats anyway. So the claim that the LRSO is needed to spare the next-generation bomber from air-defense threats sounds a bit like a straw man argument.
> 
> The mission for the LRSO is vague at best and to the extent the Air Force has described one it sounds like a warfighting mission from the Cold War with nuclear cruise missiles shooting holes in enemy air defense systems. Given the conventional weapon systems that have been developed over the past two decades, it is highly questionable whether such a mission requires a nuclear cruise missile.
> 
> The warfighters and the strategists might want a nuclear cruise missile as a flexible weapon for regional scenarios. But good to have is not the same as essential. And the regional scenarios they use to justify it are vague and largely unknown – certainly untested – in the public debate.
> 
> In the nuclear force structure planned for the future, the United States will have roughly 1,500 warheads deployed on land- and sea-based ballistic missiles. Nearly three-quarters of those warheads will be onboard submarines that can move to positions off adversaries anywhere in the world and launch missiles that can put warheads on target in as little as 15 minutes.
> 
> It really stretches the imagination why such a capability, backed up by nuclear bombs on bombers and the enormous conventional capability the U.S. military possesses, would be insufficient to deter or dissuade any potential adversary that can be deterred or dissuaded.
> 
> As the number of warheads deployed on land- and sea-based ballistic missiles continues to drop in the future, long-range, highly accurate, stealthy, standoff cruise missiles will increasingly complicate the situation. These weapons are not counted under the New START treaty and if a follow-on treaty does not succeed in limiting them, which seems unlikely in the current political climate, a new round of nuclear cruise missile deployments could become real spoilers. There are currently more ALCMs than ICBMs in the U.S. arsenal and with each bomber capable of loading up to 20 missiles the rapid upload capacity is considerable.
> 
> Under the 1,500 deployed strategic warhead posture of the New START treaty, the unaccounted cruise missiles could very quickly increase the force by one-third to 2,000 warheads. Under a posture of 1,000 deployed strategic warheads, which the Obama administration has proposed for the future, the effect would be even more dramatic: the air-launched cruise missiles could quickly increase the number of deployed warheads by 50 percent. Not good for crisis stability!
> 
> As things stand at the moment, the only real argument for the new cruise missile seems to be that the Air Force currently has one, but it’s getting old, so it needs a new one. Add to that the fact that Russia is also developing a new cruise missile, and all clear thinking about whether the LRSO is needed seems to fly out the window. Rather than automatically developing and deploying a new nuclear cruise missile, the administration and Congress need to ask tough questions about the need for the LRSO and whether the money could be better spent elsewhere on non-nuclear capabilities that – unlike a nuclear cruise missile – are actually useful in supporting U.S. national and international security commitments.
> 
> http://fas.org/blogs/security/2014/10/w80-1_lrso/



Good article.

I'm not an engineer with Lockheed, Boeing, or any other company like that, but reading @SvenSvensonov 's post today about the EMP device on the CHAMP missile got me thinking. Put those things on LRSOs and have a bomber go to town on any future adversary in a conventional scenario. I mean goddamn the thing is projected to have a range over 3000 kilometers. Have a squadron of LRSB/B2A loaded to the brim with those things go on a world tour knocking out the communications/C&C/radars of entire regions, no civilian casualties. 

I don't know. Maybe I'm just a misinformed and delusional teenage-armchair general, but that sound pretty solid.

On a different note, the W80-4 for LRSO needs to stay on the table in my opinion. The AGM-86 is getting kind of old, and we need to have a survivable nuclear cruise missile in addition to the B61 gravity bombs to keep the Air-deployed part of the Triad. I mean sure the B61 is nice, but like it said in the article there are certain limitations to them. You don't want to fly an F-35 into the middle of China or Russia to use a nuke.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Víðarr

Haven't really had any photos recently, I'll fix that;

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Víðarr



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Víðarr

US Navy Seal




















Shock testing CVN-71





@SvenSvensonov - thought you could use some nightmares Kai

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

*Mk21 Reentries*








God forbid we ever have to personally witness RV reentries

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Víðarr

AMDR said:


> *Mk21 Reentries*
> View attachment 211377
> View attachment 211376
> 
> 
> God forbid we ever have to personally witness RV reentries



Here's Trident's Mk 4 reentry vehicle;











Neutron pulse tubes










Most of these test pictures are taken at the Kwajalein Missile Test Range

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

*Helos















*

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
1


----------



## Víðarr

14-foot, 30,000-pound Small Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (SICBM). Each missile packed a 475 kt nuclear warhead and could travel up to 6,800 miles using internal GPS guidance.





















Why the LGM-135A Midgetman Was America's Shortest-Lived Mobile Nuke

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*Flurry of Contracts Spark US Navy Shipbuilding*
Flurry of Contracts Spark US Navy Shipbuilding

WASHINGTON — The past few days have been good for a number of the US Navy's shipbuilders. The service issued building contracts for two new destroyers, three littoral combat ships (LCS) and two new landing craft. Long-lead funding was issued for another LCS, and even the Coast Guard got in on the action, ordering another large National Security Cutter. A destroyer was launched, a new amphibious ship christened, and a high-speed catamaran vessel successfully completed sea trials.

Down at Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Mississippi, the DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer John Finn (DDG 113) was launched on March 28. The ship is the first of the DDG 51 restarts, the result of a 2008 Navy decision to cap production of DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers at three ships and return to building Burkes. Two yards build DDG 51s – Ingalls, and the General Dynamics Bath Iron Works yard in Bath, Maine. Before 2008, the Navy's plan was to stop buying Burkes after the Michael Murphy (DDG 112), delivered in 2012. The John Finn will be christened May 2, and is expected to be delivered in 2016.

Ingalls also is building the Ralph Johnson (DDG 114), Paul Ignatius (DDG 117) and Delbert D. Black (DDG 119), and the current block buy includes DDGs 121, 123 and 125. Bath is at work on the Ralph Peralta (DDG 115), Thomas Hudner (DDG 116), Daniel Inouye (DDG 118) and the yet-to-be-named DDG 120. The DDG block buy for Bath also includes DDGs 122, 124 and 126.

On March 27, both destroyer-building shipyards received construction contracts for their next destroyers. Ingalls was awarded a $604.3 million contract modification to build the yet-to-be-named DDG 121, while Bath received a $610.4 million contract modification to build DDG 122. Both ships were funded in the 2015 defense appropriations act.

Construction of the remainder of the block buy ships are to be funded in 2016 and 2017 under the Navy's existing two-destroyers-per-year acquisition construct.

On March 31, the Navy awarded contract modifications to its two LCS builders. Lockheed Martin received $362 million to fund construction of one Freedom-class ship, LCS 21, while Austal USA was awarded $691 million for two Independence-class ships, LCSs 22 and 24. Lockheed also received $79 million for advanced procurement of LCS 23. The full-funding ships were provided for in the 2015 budget, while full funding for LCS 23 is part of the 2016 request.

Lockheed builds the Freedom class at Fincantieri Marinette Marine in Marinette, Wisconsin, while Austal USA's shipyard for the Independence class is in Mobile, Alabama. To date, all odd-numbered ships are Freedom LCS 1-class vessels, all even-numbered ships belong to the Independence LCS 2 class.

The Navy has announced no plans to deviate from evenly distributing construction of the ships between the two yards. As detailed in the latest 30-year shipbuilding plan, sent to Congress April 2, the service plans to request three LCSs per year through 2025. The latest LCS contracts were initially covered by 10-ship block buys awarded to each shipyard in 2010, covering LCSs 5 through 24. A new acquisition strategy for LCSs 25 through 32 is expected to be announced May 1, and the Navy plans to shift to LCS frigate construction no later than LCS 33. A total of 52 LCSs and LCS frigates are planned.

The Navy noted that LCS costs remain significantly under the congressional cost cap of $480 million per ship, expressed in 2009 dollars, or $538 million in then-year, or current, values. The latest construction awards reflect an average price of $432 million in then-year dollars.

Both LCS shipyards are in full-rate production on their LCS variants. At Marinette, the Milwaukee (LCS 5) is about 97 percent complete, according to the Navy, and the Detroit (LCS 7) is about 80 percent complete. Both are scheduled to be delivered this year. Of next year's ships, the Little Rock (LCS 9) is about 68 percent complete while the Sioux City is at 53 percent.

At Austal USA, the Jackson (LCS 6) also is at 97 percent completion, while the Montgomery (LCS 8) is at 89 percent. Both are to be delivered in 2015. For delivery in 2016, the Gabrielle Giffords (LCS 10) is at 82 percent completion, while the Omaha (LCS 12) is at 60 percent.

Austal USA also is about half-way through production of ten Joint High Speed Vessels (JHSVs). The Trenton (JHSV 5) completed acceptance trials March 13 and will shortly be delivered to the Navy's Military Sealift Command. The next ship, the Brunswick (JHSV 6), is to be floated off in mid-May. Construction contracts for all ten ships, through the Burlington (JHSV 10), have already been awarded.

At Ingalls, the new San Antonio LPD 17-class amphibious ship John P. Murtha (LPD 26) was ceremonially christened on March 21, having been launched on Oct. 30. The ship is scheduled to be delivered in 2016.

At the other end of the amphibious ship scale, Textron of New Orleans, Louisiana, received an $84 million contract modification on March 31 to build two new Landing Craft Air Cushion vehicles, LCACs 102 and 103. The craft are part of the Ship to Shore Connector (SSC) program, developed to replace the existing fleet of LCACs. LCAC 101, first craft of the SSC program, was ordered last August from Textron.

Ingalls Shipbuilding got another boost March 31 with a $500 million fixed-price incentive contract to build the eighth and last National Security Cutter (NSC) for the US Coast Guard. The Midgett (WMSL 757) is scheduled to be delivered in 2019. The fifth NSC, James (WMSL 754), is scheduled to be delivered this year, with the Munro (WMSL 755) and Kimball (WMSL 756) following in successive years. The cutters are the most advanced ships ever built for the Coast Guard.

Details of some of the Navy contracts have been clouded by a shift in policy on how those contracts are announced. Destroyers, LCSs and JHSVs are often awarded under block buy, multi-ship contracts that can cover several years, while funding for each ship is provided under specific annual appropriations acts. Previously, the Navy included announcements of those individual contract modifications in the Pentagon's daily contract announcements.

Now, however, a decision has been made to refrain from announcing contract modifications for shipbuilding, even as contract mods remain a routine part of the daily announcements for a variety of other programs, including ship overhauls.

"The contracts were already awarded," explained Chris Johnson, a spokesman for the Naval Sea Systems Command. The latest awards, he said, "were just obligating funding against those original contracts."

The service is under no obligation to break out individual awards as announcements, he said.

"Legally that's the way to do it. Legally you are not required to announce contracts twice," Johnson said. "We had been doing it particularly because of the interest in the LCS contracts. But this year we saw that interest waning so we decided not to do it. And in those cases, the companies put out their own press releases."

While the Navy continues to respond to individual media requests for information, there are no announcements that might cover all program awards to multiple contractors. The shipbuilders themselves happily provide information on contracts awarded to them, but not to anyone else. The situation means that in some cases, local media outlets might give the impression their regional company is getting all the business, while it may be more extensive than that.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Tough Choices For DoD On Long Range Strike Bomber*
Tough Choices For DoD On Long Range Strike Bomber « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary






WASHINGTON: When the Pentagon picks the winner of the Long Range Strike Bomber(LRSB) contest in the next few months, it faces an interesting choice. It could give Lockheed Martin — which is doing the design work for the Boeing-Lockheed team — almost all of the country’s advanced stealth design work. Or it could maintain the status quo, in which the entire stealth bomber fleet is made by Northrop Grumman.

It’s a really important competition, arguably more important for the industrial base and the American people than the incredibly painful and problem-plagued tanker program.

*UPDATE BEGINS:* Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh offered very little of substance about the industrial base issue when I asked him about it this morning at an Air Force Association breakfast, beyond agreeing that industrial base issues have “to be at the top of the peak” and that “there’s a lot of focus on that area.” Welsh was honest enough to ask: “Was that fuzzy enough for you?” It was hard to tell whether he was being very careful because of the ongoing competition or because much of an honest answer would quickly drift into the classified realm. *ENDS*

“There hasn’t been a new combat aircraft development contract in over a decade, and another decade will almost certainly pass before we see the next one,” noted Richard Aboulafia, a top aerospace analyst at the Teal Group, in an article for Forbes earlier this week. “In other words, there are three primes involved in the LRS-B competition, and only two will likely survive to compete for future combat aircraft programs. Thanks to F-35, Lockheed Martin doesn’t need to worry about staying in the combat aircraft business. But for the other two companies, a loss means they will likely exit the industry. The loser won’t be around to compete for the next generation of fighter designs, which should enter service around 2030.”


The argument for the Boeing-led team rests principally on the fact that Boeing often can produce large numbers of large aircraft on time and at a reasonable cost. But Boeing’s record on commercial aircraft is mixed — 777 vs. 787 — and it’s encountering difficulties with the KC-46, a commercial aircraft that’s being modified for military tanker use.

“When they get it right, when they do large volume aircraft, they do it better than anyone,” Aboulafia told me yesterday evening. “But you also have a company that stumbles pretty badly,” offering as an example the Wedgetail, and, to a lesser degree, the KC-46. Both are weapons based on commercial airframes, supposedly eliminating many of the usual problems that surface when a new military aircraft is designed and built.

Of course, if the Boeing-led team loses, the US would “lose important production capabilities” and the jobs that go with them. “On the other hand,” Aboulafia wrote earlier this week, “if Lockheed Martin and Boeing win, there would be just one combat aircraft design team left, Lockheed Martin. Northrop Grumman’s exit as a source of new combat aircraft designs would be just as painful.”

Frank Kendall, the Pentagon top’s buyer, said earlier this month that industrial base considerations would not play a major role in selecting the winner. The winner, he said, would be selected “on the merits. By the rules of the source selection.” Since Kendall has made a point of singling out design teams as jewels worth protecting, it seems a bit rich for him to make this claim, but he’s clearly sending a signal.

The Air Force’s commitment to a set price of $550 million (in then-year dollars) each for the 100 or so bombers — and another $20 billion or more for the research and development phase — would seem to increase the likelihood that would tilt the hand to Boeing since building the planes would be more about production than innovation.

And there’s the fact that Boeing and Lockheed will have enormous clout protecting the program on the Hill because of their size. But the companies will also be deeply conflicted when the budget showdowns start. Does Lockheed give up some F-35s to pay for the LRSBwhen the crunch comes in 2020? Does Boeing yield on the KC-46? Both scenarios are unlikely and would seem to argue for a single committed advocate for the plane: that would be Northrop Grumman.

On the issue of maintaining Northrop’s stealthy aircraft design team to ensure the country isn’t left only with Lockheed’s, Aboulafia didn’t dismiss it, but he did say “there are ways in the black world of keeping someone in the design world.” While Northrop wouldn’t build the bomber if it didn’t get the contract, the Pentagon could keep its highly skilled and intelligence workers going on programs that are so highly classified they don’t appear in the budget.

A pilot familiar with stealth bombers agreed, noting that: “there are fundamental design differences between fighter and bomber stealth aircraft. They each utilize stealth in very different ways. Maintaining expertise in both is something we need to consider for the long term. I think in today’s world that can happen independent of the number of companies.”

The pilot argues that times have changed in defense acquisition. In those good old days, “companies could easily design/build/test/discard prototypes in very short timeframes due to cost, ease of production, and materials requirements. Furthermore, the level of engineering involved was nothing like what we face today. I would argue the days of aircraft design competitions are all but over. To harken back to those days is unrealistic given the realities of the technology and materials in the modern world.”

On the other hand, the B-2 pilot is a bit worried for the longer term, saying “it would serve us well to have design and production capability survive in multiple companies. It’s hard to imagine a world like that given our current strength, but history has a way of humbling the greatest of powers!”

Aboulafia also thinks Northrop’s expertise gained from building and maintaining the B-2 matters. “I think one of Northrop’s strongest points is, hey, this defines what we do. And we’re it.”

In the end, Aboulafia doesn’t really have a gut feeling — or one based on facts — about who will win the bomber contract.

If Boeing wins, Lockheed will do the critical design work and will almost certainly not share that intellectual property with Boeing. The Boeing-Lockheed team has the aircraft production credentials and the power to send dozens of lobbyists and carloads of cash to Capitol Hill to ensure the program’s safety in the face of the coming budget crunch.

If Northrop wins, the nation has two design teams able to work on stealthy aircraft and it gets the incumbent. While space is a different realm in terms of engineering and industrial base, it shares elements of requiring the most advanced engineering talent. The last time Boeing won a huge contract in an area in which it didn’t have much experience, advanced intelligence satellites, the country suffered years of cost overruns, busted schedules and got, by all accounts, a largely failed program, known as the Future Imagery Architecture. Let’s all just hope the selection committee gets this one right.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Navy to Conduct First Aerial Refueling of X-47B Carrier Drone*
Navy to Conduct First Aerial Refueling of X-47B Carrier Drone | Defense Tech

*



*

The Navy plans to perform an aerial refueling for the first time on its carrier-launched demonstrator drone aircraft, the X-47B, within the next few weeks, service officials said.

The refueling, to take place at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Md., will have the X-47B link up with an Omega air refueling tanker, Navy officials told Military.com. Omega is a contractor that works with the Defense Department.

The X-47B made history when it flew from a carrier in May and November of 2013 and is now working on streamlining carrier deck operations and maneuvers with manned aircraft.

The Navy has launched and landed a carrier-based drone in rapid succession with an F/A-18 fighter jet as part of a series of joint manned and unmanned flight tests aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt in August of last year off the coast of Norfolk, Va., service officials said.

After an eight minute flight, the X-47B executed an arrested landing, folded its wings and taxied out of the landing area before moving out of the way for an F/A-18 to land, Navy officials said.

Navy engineers worked on some slight modifications to the X-47B aircraft in order to allow it to both land and integrate in rapid succession with fixed-wing fighter jets.

The refueling will happen as the UCLASS program faces stiff criticism from prominent members of Congress who continue to push for a stealthy, long-endurance, penetrating strike platform.

An ongoing Pentagon intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, or ISR, review is currently exploring the range of desired capabilities for the Navy’s Unmanned Carrier Launched Aircraft Surveillance and Strike system, or UCLASS.

The thrust of the examination focuses on how stealthy the new first-of-its kind carrier-launched drone needs to be, how much of a weapons payload it will be configured to carry and deliver and how far it will be engineered to fly with and without aerial refueling.

The Navy had planned to launch a competition among vendors to build the UCLASS through the release of what’s called a Request For Proposal, or RFP this past summer. However, concerns from lawmakers, analysts and some Pentagon leaders wound up resulting in a substantial delay for the competition in order to allow time for a formal review of needed requirements for the platform.

Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work said the ongoing review is making progress but the Pentagon and Navy are still not ready to move forward yet with a formal proposal.

“We decided this year we were almost ready to launch the RFP, but we decided we need to take a pause because we want to consider the UCLASS as part of the joint family of unmanned surveillance strike systems and make sure that we’re going after the right capabilities,” Work said at a recent speech at the U.S. Naval Institute.

Work was likely referring to the manner in which every major platform or weapons system needs to be integrated with other services in order to operate properly in a joint combat environment, said Loren Thompson, vice president of the Lexington Institute, a Virginia-based think tank.

Aerial refueling technology is central to the debates about UCLASS because larger fuel tanks affect the size, shape and contours of the body of the aircraft and affect its stealth properties by changing the radar cross-section of the aircraft.

Some design proposals for UCLASS would make the drone less stealthy and less able to carry a larger weapons payload – yet be able to travel very long distances as an ISR platform. Other proposals focus more on stealth and weapons payload.

If UCLASS were designed for maximum stealth and weapons-carrying potential from its inception, engineers would most likely envision an aircraft with a comparatively smaller tank in order to lower the radar cross-section of the aircraft. A differently-configured fuel tank might result in the need for more aerial refueling as a way to extend the aircraft’s range and ensure long-endurance ISR, analysts have explained.

In 2013, the Navy awarded four contracts valued at $15 million for preliminary design review for the UCLASS to Boeing, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman.

The ongoing uncertainty and disagreements about UCLASS requirements could mean that the platform might wind up getting cancelled if sequestration returns in 2016, Thompson added.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Lockheed Martin shows off proposed Humvee replacement*
Lockheed Martin shows off proposed Humvee replacement, donates $10,000 | AL.com






Lockheed Martin gave away a big check and promoted its proposed replacement for the military Humvee at the same time this week in Huntsville.

The defense contractor company ran a Selfless Selfie campaign at the AUSA Symposium & Exposition at Von Braun Center. Lockheed Martin encouraged people to take a photo of its Joint Light Tactical Vehicle -- which is competing to replace the Humvee - and use the hashtag #JTLVandme.

For each photo with that hashtag, Lockheed Martin donated $10 to TAPS - Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors, which provides help in a variety of ways to families who lost loved ones on the battlefield.

On Thursday, Lockheed Martin presented TAPS a check for $10,000.

"Lockheed Martin has been a supporter of TAPS for 20 years," said Bonnie Carroll, president and founder of TAPS. "The support here in this incredible campaign is really exciting."

Lockheed Martin is expecting word this summer on if its vehicle will be chosen to replace the Humvee. Lockheed Martin is also competing with AM General (which makes the Humvee) and Oshkosh.

"We are in the final throes of an intense competition for the Humvee replacement and this vehicle represents our design for that competition," said Kathryn Hasse, program director for the JTLV. "What you are looking at is what we fondly refer to as our SUV variant. It's actually called the general purpose variant for the forces."

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Víðarr

*For 50 Years Now, the U.S. Has Had a Nuclear Reactor Orbiting in Space*






Exactly half a century ago this week, a rocket shot off from the California coast. It carried the U.S.’s first and only (known) space nuclear reactor, SNAP-10A, which has been circling the Earth ever since and will continue to circle for another 3,000 years.

Back in the 1960s, NASA ran a Systems for Nuclear Auxiliary Power (SNAP) program to study nuclear power’s potential in space exploration. This program sent up the first radioisotope thermoelectric generators, a technology still used in space probes like Voyager and Curiosity today. Radioisotope thermoelectric generators aren’t nuclear reactors, though. They simply harness the heat from a decaying element, such as plutonium-238.






SNAP 10-A was different. SNAP 1o-A was actually a functioning reactor with a controlled fission reaction inside. It contained enough uranium fuel to produce up to 600 watts of power for a year. Twelve hours after take off on April 3, 1965, it settled into orbit 500 kilometers above Earth and humans back on the ground remotely switched on the reactor.

At first, things went well. But 43 days into the mission, electrical systems on the satellite carrying it failed, and the reactor shut down. It’s still up there orbiting. Given its current trajectory, NASA expects it to stay in orbit for another 3,000 years.






But it’s getting crowded up there. In November 1979, SNAP-10A suffered an “anomalous event,” and the parent satellite begins shedding pieces. “Six more anomalous events occur in the next 6 years, releasing nearly 50 trackable pieces. Release of radioactives is possible but not confirmed,” reads a NASA report. These events were not documented in more detail, but they may have included a collision.

Since SNAP-10A, NASA has toyed with nuclear reactors in space, most notably theSP-100 starting the 70s. But funding issues and safety concerns terminated the program. The U.S. has only SNAP-1oA, but Russia has sent dozens of satellites with nuclear reactors into space, the most notorious of which crashed and scattered radioactive debris all over Canada in 1978.

So that’s one reason why sending nuclear reactors into space is not such a great idea.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Víðarr

An F-16 Fighting Falcon, from the 354th Fighter Wing, sits on the flightline on March 25, 2015, at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. The 354th FW mission is “To prepare aviation forces for combat, deploy Airmen in support of global operations and enable the staging of forces.”






An EA-18G Growler from the Wizards of Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 133 launches from aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) during carrier qualifications. The John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group is undergoing a tailored ship’s training availability and final evolution problem, assessing their ability to conduct combat missions, support functions and survive complex casualty control situations.






Landing Craft Utility (LCU) 1631, assigned to Naval Beach Unit (NBU) 7, lowers its ramp inside the well deck of the amphibious transport dock ship USS Green Bay (LPD 20). Sailors and Marines from the Bonhomme Richard Amphibious Ready Group and the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit (31st MEU) are participating in the Korean Marine Exchange Program with the Republic of Korea marine corps and navy.
















A Soldier assigned to 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division, re-arms an OH-58 Kiowa Warrior helicopter during aerial gunnery at Camp Lejeune, N.C. Training Area, March 21, 2015.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

*USAF Pararescue



*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Umair Nawaz

All right a question;

I dont get to see RPG types in US military so whats the weapon is/was for its role?


----------



## IrbiS

Umair Nawaz said:


> All right a question;
> 
> I dont get to see RPG types in US military so whats the weapon was for its role?



AT-4, M-72 LAW, Javelin, M-141 and the one with 4 tubes which Arnold used in Commando is still around I think. RPGis also used for familiarization and Special Forces.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Víðarr

Umair Nawaz said:


> All right a question;
> 
> I dont get to see RPG types in US military so whats the weapon was for its role?



By and large the US military doesn't use RPG-type weapons. Apart from the AT-4 and Carl Gustav, which are recoil-less rifles and not an RPGs, the only comparable weapon is the USMC's SMAW


















*Caliber*: 83 mm rocket + 9mm spotting rifle
*Type:* rocket
*Overall length*: 825 mm (launcher), about 1370 mm (ready to fire w. HEDPround)
*Weight*: 7.52 kg unloaded launcher plus 4.3 to 6.9kg rocket in canister.
*Effective range*: up to 250 m (500m max)
*Armor penetration*: *HEAA* ~ 580-600mm (23-24") RHA; *HEDP*25mm (1") RHA or 30cm (12") brick wall or 20cm (8") concrete wall



The SMAW (Shoulder-launched Multi-purpose Assault Weapon) has been developed by early 1980s by McDonnel Douglas corporation especially for US Marine Corps(USMC), which required lightweight, one-man portable multipurpose weapon,capable to defeat light armor, enemy bunkers and other reinforced positions.Currently manufactured in USA by Talley Defence Systems, the SMAW is in service with USMC since 1984. Known in service as Mark 153 Model 0 (Mk.153 Mod. 0) SMAW rocket launcher, it can fire a variety of ammunition, intended against light armor such as armored personnel carriers, enemy bunkers etc.

SMAW is a shoulder-fired,reusable rocket launcher that consists of a launch tube made of epoxy and fiberglass, with attached firing unit, 9mm spotting rifle, and sight bracket.Firing unit has dual grips, manual safety, and fire selector that allows to fire either a spotting rifle or a loaded rocket. Spotting rifle is ballistically matched to all rockets. It is loaded with special ammunition and fires from special 6-round magazines. Spare magazines are clipped to each rocket container.Once operator roughly aimed the unit, using either telescope or night sight, or backup open sight, he starts to fire spotting rifle until rounds are hitting the intended target. 9mm bullets provide a visible trace up to 500m range, so operator can check his aim, and once on target, he then switches to rocket and launches it. SMAW launcher can be fired from the shoulder, using dual grips and shoulder rest, or from the ground, using foldingbipods located near the center of mass, next to the shoulder rest.

All types of rockets are supplied in disposable, sealed plastic containers,which are clipped to the rear part of the launcher. Once rocket is fired, empty container is detached from the launcher and discarded. Rockets have caliber of 83mm, and are stabilized in flight using spring-open switchblade-type stabilizations. Standard types of rockets are: Mk.3 HEDP (High Explosive Dual Purpose) weighting 4.35kg (5.9kg in container), Mk.6 HEAA (High Explosive Anti Armor) weighting 4.4kg (6.2kg in container), CPR (Common Practice - training),FTG (Follow-Through Grenade with dual warhead - first that penetrates barrier,and second that follows through the hole and explodes inside) weighting 5.2kg (7.1kg in container), and CS (Confined Space with HEDP warhead - createsno backblast and an be fired from confined spaces such as rooms in building)weighting 6.9kg (9.1kg in container). The most recent (2003) addition to therange of SMAW rounds is Mk.80 rocket, known as NE (Novel Explosive, basically a thermobaric HEDP warhead).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The US Military prefers guided missiles over unguided rockets or rocket-propelled grenades.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Oldman1

Umair Nawaz said:


> All right a question;
> 
> I dont get to see RPG types in US military so whats the weapon was for its role?



There is an American version of the Soviet design rpg.









Honestly, I don't think it needs an M-4 buttstock on it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## IrbiS

Oldman1 said:


> There is an American version of the Soviet design rpg.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I don't think it needs an M-4 buttstock on it.


Is the 4-tubed still used named M202 I think?


----------



## Víðarr

IrbiS said:


> Is the 4-tubed still used named M202 I think?



The current model is the M202A1 thermobaric launcher






*Caliber*: 66 mm
*Type:*rocket
*Overalllength*: 686 mm empty launcher, 883 mm loaded with clip
*Weight*: 5.22 kg unloaded, 12 kg loaded with clip of4 rockets
*Effective range*: up to 200 m (750 m maximum)



The M202 multishot rocket launcher evolved from XM191 multishot rocket launcher, that was extensively combat tested by US Army in Vietnam during late 1970s. The M202 is very similar to XM191 although it appears that its rockets were loaded with different incendiary agent -TPA rather than Napalm. It is also believed that XM191 was developed as a multipurpose weapon, capable of firing not only incendiary, but also 66mm HEAT rockets, compatible wit that of M72 LAW lightweight antitank weapon. The M202, however, was issued only with one type of ammunition - the M74 incendiary rockets.

In theory, the M202 was an impressive weapon with significant combat capabilities - it had long range (compared to earlier flamethrowers),it allowed for relatively rapid fire and high maneuverability, its physical and psychological effect on unprotected infantry and military vehicles was significant to say the least. However, it appears that M202 ammunition had some flaws (most probably due to poor quality control or design flaws), which resulted in self-ignition of warheads during loading of the weapon. Not surprisingly, such disastrous events made the M202 less than popular among the troops, and most M202 launchers were put into storage during late 1980s, although some launchers were observed during training of US and allied troops through early 1990s.

It must be noted that M202 made its biggest impact noton the battlefields but rather on cinema screens, when it was featured in the "Commando" movie (1985), starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. In this movie the M202 was used to blow up the police truck and free the Schwarzenegger's character, although in real life this would be thel ast scene of the action, with main character quickly burned to death inside scorched truck (the M74 rocket generated fire as hot as 1800-2200oC for several minutes).

The M202 multishot rocket launcher is a four-barreled re-usable smootbore weapon which is loaded with a clip with factory-loaded M74 rockets, pre-loaded into separate aluminum tubes that are assembled together to form a single 4-shot clip. The clip is attached to the rear of the launcher and each loaded tube forms an extension to the barrel. Once clip is loaded and fixed to the weapon, launcher can be fired up to 4 times,with practical rate of fire as high as 1 round per second. Once all rockets are fired, the empty clip is detached and discarded. During storage and transportation the M202 launcher is closed at front and back with two hinged covers, which shall be unlocked and opened before loading and firing. The front cover has a dual-purpose handle, which is used for carrying the launcher in vertical position, and is used as a forward grip in firing position. Firing controls include folding pistolgrip under the barrel cluster, and folding collimating sight on the left side of the weapon. 66mm rockets use solid fuel engines,switch-blade type folding stabilizator fins, and a warhead loaded with some 0.6kg of self-igniting triethylaluminum (TEA), a gel-like substance. Since the M202 is a rocket launcher, upon firing it produces a dangerous backblast zone about 15 meters long.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is being produced, and has seen action in Afghanistan, but is not a commonly used weapon.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Oldman1

IrbiS said:


> Is the 4-tubed still used named M202 I think?



Pretty much. Don't know if they still use it. Never saw any evidence of it.


----------



## IrbiS

Víðarr said:


> The current model is the M202A1 thermobaric launcher
> 
> View attachment 212076





Oldman1 said:


> Pretty much. Don't know if they still use it. Never saw any evidence of it.



That's mentioned but never seen recent photos


----------



## Víðarr

IrbiS said:


> That's mentioned but never seen recent photos



Reports of its uses have been denied. The US doesn't use "incendiary" munitions against enemy personell. But the M202 isn't "incendiary", it's thermobaric. This description allowed the US military a legal loophole.

U.S. Denies Incendiary Weapon Use in Afghanistan

_But the weapon has been used in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan._

M202 FLASH Is A Rocket Launcher That Can Burn An Enemy Bunker Or Base

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Víðarr

US Military dogs - typical Belgian Malinois

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AMDR

I need some opinions on this





As many of you may know, the LCS is going throught some identity and armament issues. Then I found this alternative proposal diagram. Now it actually looks like a proper FFG.

I know it would cost more, but I would take 4 of these vs 10 LCSs.


Additions over LCS
- 48 VLS w/ VLA,SM series, BGM-109, ESSM, Harpoon Blk3 VL.
- SPY-1F, SPG-62 for illumination
-Mk32 torp tubes

Plus we would get the improved multifunction towed sonar designed for the SSC, and we still got the room for the UAVs and SH-60s. All of this is proven tech that we already employ. It's not like we have to take time to innovate for this.

Thoughts?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*Long-Range Ship Plan: Navy to Pursue Block Buys for DDGs in 2018, SSNs in 2019*
Long-Range Ship Plan: Navy to Pursue Block Buys for DDGs in 2018, SSNs in 2019 - USNI News
*



*_Virginia-class attack submarine Minnesota (SSN-783) under construction in 2012. US Navy Photo
_
The Navy told Congress it would pursue a 10-ship multiyear procurement contract for its Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in Fiscal Year 2018 as part of its newest long-range shipbuilding plan, which also announced a nine-ship attack submarine block buy and delays in several auxiliary ship programs.

The plan, which the Navy admits represents a “best case scenario” – one in which Congress pays for the Ohio replacement ballistic missile submarine program outside the shipbuilding account and in which the Navy is not held to Budget Control Act-level funding – notes a 308-ship requirement and shows how the Navy plans to meet that requirement from 2022 to 2031

The destroyer contract is one piece of reaching the goal, as the Navy plans to keep the production line open through FY 2029.

In 2013‪, NAVSEA made a similar $6.1 billion multiyear deal with Huntington Ingalls Industries and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works for nine – which grew to 10 – Arleigh Burke DDGs. The price-per-hull came to $660 for HII and $700 for BIW, not including government-furnished equipment like radars and vertical launch systems (VLS).

In late March, both yards received contract modifications as part of the deal. HII was awarded $604.3 million for DDG-121 while BIW won $610.4 million for DDG-122.

The first Flight III DDGs will be part of the FY 2016 ships. Its unclear which yard will be the first to build the modified destroyer with the upgraded Raytheon Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), Naval Sea Systems Command told USNI News last week.

The shipbuilding plan indicated the Navy will pursue a nine-ship multiyear procurement contract for the Block V Virginia-class SSNs bought between FY 2019 and 2023. That contract supports continuing two-a-year SSN procurement except during years when an Ohio replacement SSBN is built, when only one SSN will be built. Officials have said that, in terms of shipyard workload, one SSBN is about equal to two SSNs.

To go along with the SSN block buy, the Navy notes in the plan that the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) would be built into at least one submarine per year beginning in the FY 2019 block buy, though Navy acquisition chief Sean Stackley told the House Armed Services Committee in February that he was looking into whether that timeline could be moved up a year. The VPM is a mid-body section that would be added to the submarine and include four additional launch tubes, or 28 additional Tomahawk missiles or other payloads, to help compensate for the loss of the SSGN guided missile submarines, which will have all retired by 2028.

The Navy has updated its LX(R) amphibious dock landing ship replacement program to “a more efficient procurement profile,” which procures the lead ship in FY 2020 and begins serial production in 2022, according to the document. Previously, the Navy planned to buy the ships every other year and not enter serial production of amphibious ships until 2028. The Navy chose a modified San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock to serve as the LX(R), and the new profile would allow a smoother transition from the LPDs to the LX(R)s.

The document states that, as a result of budget constraints, one of the two T-ATS auxiliary tugs, which will replace the T-ATFs and T-ARSs, will be delayed from FY 2017 to 2019. The lead T-AGOS surveillance ship replacement will be delayed from FY 2020 to 2021, and it the Navy is in the midst of an engineering review to determine if the current T-AGOS ships’ lives could be extended further beyond the planned 30 years.

The plan announced a cancelation of the LCC amphibious command ships in FY 2032 and 2034, and instead the Navy “will look at alternative means to meet the requirements fulfilled by these ships, such as modular systems that can be temporarily installed on an existing ship.”

Of course, the Navy notes, all these plans are subject to adequate funding. The document states that the Ohio Replacement Program (ORP) will move ahead as scheduled regardless of the fiscal situation, and the Ford-class aircraft carrier program will have to continue to maintain a legally mandated 11-carrier fleet. That said, the document notes that the ORP will “consume about half of the shipbuilding funding available in a given year – and would do so for a period of over a decade. “

Without additional funding for shipbuilding, or paying for the ORP with non-shipbuilding money, “Navy would be limited to, on average, as few as two other capital ships (SSN, DDG, CG, LPD, LHA, etc.) per year throughout this decade,” the document states.
“Such low shipbuilding rates for an extended period of time would result in a battle force inadequately sized to meet our naval requirements in support of the DSG. Further, there is significant risk to the industrial base in this case since low production rates outside of the SSBN and CVN production lines may not provide adequate work to keep shipyards operating at minimum sustaining levels and could result in shipyard closures.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From Sailors To Robots: A Revolution In Clearing Mines*
From Sailors To Robots: A Revolution In Clearing Mines « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary





_An Avenger-class minesweeper _

This is the third in our exclusive series on the crucial but neglected question of sea mines and how well — or not — the United States manages this global and very real threat. Here we’re looking at the most promising technologies, ships and aircraft that can give the United States the edge in this crucial and complex battle. What works? Read on. The Editor.

Clearing sea mines is so murderously hard that the best defense is to sink the ships or shoot down the planes carrying them before they can be put in the water. But politics, surprise, orfear of escalation might keep the US military from stopping the minelayers “left of splash.” That means somebody had better be ready to go after the deadly explosives in their natural habitat. The great leap forward today is that “somebody” is increasingly likely to be a robot.

For over a century, clearing mines was a brutal, crude and close-up business. Specialized ships, divers, and even trained dolphins had to go right into the minefield. The US Navy has led the world in counter-mine equipment that could be towed from helicopters, but that still means flying low, slow and in a predictable pattern in airspace where enemy aircraft or missile launchers might be watching. There are even reports that China has developed anti-helicopter mines designed to launch themselves out of the water. For more than a decade, the Navy has increasingly invested in technologies to “keep the sailor out of the minefield” by sending unmanned systems in, both under water and on the surface.

Since 2002, when the Navy officially launched its controversial Littoral Combat Ship program, this new remote-controlled approach has been intimately linked with LCS. When fitted with its Mine Counter-Measures module, whose first iteration goes into full-up operational testing this year, LCS will replace the Navy’sremaining 13 wooden-hulled _Avenger_-class minesweepers.

So it might seem like bad news for mine warfare that the LCS has faced relentless criticism since its inception, culminating in Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s decision in January to truncate the program and develop a better-armed successor. The upgunned LCS unveiled last Decemeber will focus on hunting submarines and fast attack boats, while dropping the minesweeping mission — which has always been a Navy stepchild.

The Navy ethos has been thoroughly aggressive since its birth: “I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm’s way,” wrote John Paul Jones in 1778. The fleet has always favored fast ships that can take the battle to the enemy: aircraft carriers, nuclear-powered submarines, guided-missile destroyers. By contrast, minesweeping is slow, inherently defensive and, well, just not sexy.

But there are two substantial silver linings for mine warfare. First, the LCS is not all dead. The Navy still plans to build 32 (down from 52) of the original design, the one that can perform mine-hunting missions. Second, new mine-clearing technologies are no longer tied to the LCS program.

Iran’s threats in 2011-2012 to close the Strait of Hormuz jolted the Navy into taking mines more seriously and speeding new equipment to the fleet. Instead of waiting for LCS, sailors have launched mine-seeking underwater drones and mine-killing mini-torpedoes from current vessels, even including inflatable boats. Helicopters have tested a new technology to find mines with a laser beam, the Airborne Laser Mine Detection System (ALMNDS).

The Navy even repurposed a decommissioned amphibious ship, the USS_Ponce_, as what’s called an Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB), primarily to support counter-mine operations. Two more purpose-built AFSBs will follow, and “the primary mission of the Afloat Forward Staging Base [is] aviation mine countermeasures,” said Capt. Henry Stevens of Naval Sea Systems Command at January’s Surface Navy Association conference. While the AFSB can potentially accommodate a multitude of missions, from special operations to V-22 Ospreys, its design is driven first and foremost by the needs of the massive MH-53E helicopter used for aerial mine-clearing.

Precisely because the Littoral Combat Ship’s design is modular, it’s relatively easy to break off specific systems and use them independently. “The various MCM mission systems are programs of record in their own right, which the LCS Mission Modules program then integrates,” Naval Sea Systems (NAVSEA) spokesman Matthew Leonard explained. A former top aide to the Navy’s top admiral, Bryan Clark, has proposed taking the entire MCM module and installing it on ships other than LCS, including both future Afloat Forward Staging Baseslike _Ponce_ and the smaller Joint High-Speed Vessels (JHSVs).

So, in spite of the decision to curtail the LCS buy, new mine-clearing technologies may end up spreading widely through the fleet. With increasingly aggressive Russia and China amassing hundreds of thousands of increasingly sophisticated naval mines, a revolution in minesweeping might be just what we need.

How primitive can “modern” mine warfare get? At least as recently as the 1990s, US sailors hunting mines spent a lot of time shooting dead sheep.

Both Iraq and Iran used the classic black-spiky-ball mines that are the world’s most common type. Clones of the century-old Russian M-08, these are contact mines that detonate when a ship bumps against their “horns.” Until then, they float somewhere below the surface of the water, anchored in place. Sometimes, though, the anchor chain breaks. Then the M-08 bobs to the surface and drifts about at random until it bumps into something, like a lethal bath toy. It’s also possible, albeit against international law, to set mines adrift on purpose.

But stray mines are hardly the only thing drifting around. Humanity has a multi-millennium bad habit of dumping garbage in the sea. Some of it floats. From a distance — which is definitely how you what to deal with a suspected explosive device — it can be hard to tell that junk from a mine.

“It’s why we used to shoot all the sheep,” said Bob O’Donnell, a retired Navy captain with a long career in mine warfare. “Over in the Persian Gulf, they have all these sheep ships coming from Australia and New Zealand, and when the sheep would die, they’d thrown them into the water. They’d bloat; their little legs would stand up” — and suddenly you’d have a round, dark object with four spiky projections bobbing in the water, looking uncomfortably like an M-08. So, O’Donnell recounted, US sailors would do what mine-hunters have done since at least World War I: go up on deck, shoot the drifting object, and see if it explodes.

That’s how tricky it is to handle mines that you can _see._ Mines under the water are far harder. In theory, a tethered mine is a pretty obvious target: very few natural or manmade objects float at a specific depth and location with an anchor chain keeping them in place. In the real world, sonar has real difficulties finding them.

The problem is the ocean’s not a bathtub. It’s not the atmosphere, either, where radar can look hundreds of miles. Underwater currents; differences in pressure, temperature, and salt content (salinity); currents; even how sound waves reflect off the bottom — all these factors change how sonar performs, sometimes from hour to hour. “You can optimize your capabilities against a certain kind of threat in the morning and it won’t be that good in the afternoon,” mine warfare expert Scott Truver said.

Even more difficult than mines floating underwater are those on the bottom. “Something that has a ball, a chain, and an anchor, that’s pretty apparent that’s a mine,” said Navy Capt. Frank Linkous, a mine warfare official. “When you start looking at things on the bottom, it could be a mine, it could be a barrel, it could be a tire, it could be a lot of stuff, [like] rocks.” Each suspicious sonar return must be marked as a “mine-like contact” and investigated.

Worst of all are mines buried _under_ the bottom of the sea. There is no sonar in current service that can find them, said Navy Captain Aaron Peters, an explosives ordnance disposal (EOD) specialist. “The only things that can detect buried mines right now are yourmarine mammals,” he said, primarily trained dolphins. But the Navy is working on a new system called Knifefish, with a special low-frequency sonar that can penetrate ordinary soil and detect small, dense objects such as explosives. It won’t be ready until 2017.

Until the new drones and sensors spread through the fleet, the mainstays of mine warfare will remain the MH-53E Sea Dragonhelicopter and the _Avenger_-class minesweeper, both of which entered service in the 1980s. The helicopter is literally the cutting edge of the current force. It tows a cable through the water that slices the mooring cables of mines like the M-08, forcing them to bob to the surface where someone can blow them up. Usually those are human beings, highly trained Explosive Ordnance Disposal divers who must swim up to each individual mine, attach an explosive, swim clear, and detonate.

More sophisticated mines, ironically, can be easier to detonate. Because advanced mines detect ships by the noise they make or their magnetic fields, they can be set off prematurely by an “influence sweep system,” a kind of decoy that emulates the acoustic and magnetic telltales of a ship. It’s the MH-53E helicopter, again, that tows the sweep “sled” through the water.

After the helicopters have done all they can from the air, the _Avengers_ sail into the mine field to take a closer look. Hopefully only the stealthier, deeper mines remain by this point, with no contact mines left to bump into near the surface, while magnetically triggered mines cannot detect the minesweeper’s wooden hull. Any surviving mines with _acoustic_ triggers might still pick up the _Avenger_‘s engines, however, and pressure-triggered mines might sense its hull displacing water.

“For a mine countermeasures guy, the worst problem is a country that’s got a goodly number of mines [of] different types,” said O’Donnell. “You start from the top of the ocean down and you try to take out the different mine types going from shallow to deep, because you’re trying to make it safe for our current mine countermeasures vessels to get in there and work.”

But savvy adversaries will set some mines to lurk on or near the bottom with their sensors turned off so they can’t be decoyed into detonating prematurely. Instead, they go live at some preset time, let out more slack in their anchor chains, and rise. So, said O’Donnell, “you _think_ you got all the mines out, but you didn’t, because two days later one of these close-tethered mines decides to move up.”

That is the kind of danger US sailors face using current techniques and tactics. That is why the Navy is moving towards drones.

“If you look at the ships we’ve lost due to mines, a large number of them are mine warfare ships. It’s still a dangerous mission,” said Rear Adm. John Ailes, who for many years ran the mission modules program for the Littoral Combat Ship. “Right now what we do is we take this wooden ship and drive it into the minefield – with 80 to 90 people at risk. [With the equipment being developed for LCS,] we have a remote controlled system and we stand off.”





_An unmanned mine-hunting drone, the Remote Multi-Mission Vehicle (RMMV)_

The workhorse of the new approach is the Remote Multi-Mission Vehicle. “It’s basically a diesel engine with some expensive electronics attached,” Ailes said. The RMMV is what’s called a “semi-submersible”: not quite a surface craft, not quite a sub, it swims along with its upper surface just above the water. Being mostly submerged helps stabilize the small craft in choppy seas, which gives its sonar a much better picture. Being partly exposed to air allows it to burn diesel fuel, which gives it much longer endurance than batteries. Manufacturer Lockheed Martin boasts it can do 24-hour-plus missions. That said, the program has had to work hard to make the RMMV reliable enough to do multiple day-long missions without a breakdown.

The semi-submersible RMMV will be supplemented from below and from above. The Knifefish, a deep-driving drone sub, will find buried mines, while a helicopter-carriedAirborne Laser Mine Detection System (ALMDS) will scan for mines floating on or near the surface. (The laser can’t penetrate very far through water). Knifefish won’t enter service until 2017, though, while ALMDS mine-identification software is still struggling to improve its accuracy.

Once it’s working, the ALMDS will allow a fast, wide scan. That is, it will if the airspace over the minefield isn’t in range of enemy anti-aircraft missiles: ALMNDS is currently carried by a manned helicopter, the MH-60S Sea Hawk. (The Littoral Combat Ship will also operate the unmanned Fire Scout, but that’s slated to carry other sensors). The manned MH-60 will also destroy mines, lowering a four-pack of mini-torpedoes into the water — the Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS) — and using their cameras to check out suspected mines before blowing them up. Of course, if you can’t fly the helicopter over the minefield before you send in the RMMV, and the robot hits a mine you missed, at least you haven’t lost a manned minesweeper and its crew.

The helicopter-carried AMNS blows up mines on a retail basis: It has to return to a mothership to reload after it fires four shots. The wholesale minesweeper will be something called Unmanned Influence Sweep System (UISS), a smaller version of the mine-detonating decoy sled currently towed by the MH-53E helicopter. One of the many controversies about the Littoral Combat Ship program has been the lack of a helicopter-towed sweep system. The LCS deck can’t accommodate the MH-53, and the smaller MH-60 didn’t have enough power to tow a sled safely. So the UISS will be towed by a robot boat, aka an unmanned surface vessel (USV).

The USV-towed sled is slower than the helicopter-towed version, but it can stay out much longer, Navy officials told me. “With a helicopter you’re only going to get about three hours of mission time,” said Peters. “The [USV] is going to go out and tow 12-plus hours.”

Ultimately, the plan is for a single Littoral Combat Ship to simultaneously control two RMMVs looking for mines and one USV sweeping them. Meanwhile the LCS stands back at a safe distance from not only the minefield but from any nearby enemy forces, protected by its onboard anti-missile systems and potentially by a full-up Aegis destroyer.

“What we do today is we take the wooden _Avenger_ class, which has no self-defense capability and we send it into the minefield, [and] no Aegis ship’s going to go into the minefield with it,” Ailes told me. While critics have savaged the Littoral Combat Ship for its lack of firepower and survivability, there’s no question it’s better armed than the _Avengers_ —whose heaviest weapons are machineguns — and that its hull is made of metal, not wood — which was last considered cutting-edge protection circa 1812. New technology is long overdue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## AMDR



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*Virginia-class nuclear attack submarine


























*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Víðarr

AMDR said:


> I need some opinions on this
> View attachment 212216
> 
> 
> As many of you may know, the LCS is going throught some identity and armament issues. Then I found this alternative proposal diagram. Now it actually looks like a proper FFG.
> 
> I know it would cost more, but I would take 4 of these vs 10 LCSs.
> 
> 
> Additions over LCS
> - 48 VLS w/ VLA,SM series, BGM-109, ESSM, Harpoon Blk3 VL.
> - SPY-1F, SPG-62 for illumination
> -Mk32 torp tubes
> 
> Plus we would get the improved multifunction towed sonar designed for the SSC, and we still got the room for the UAVs and SH-60s. All of this is proven tech that we already employ. It's not like we have to take time to innovate for this.
> 
> Thoughts?



Better armed, but less adaptable than the current LCS. The LCS program didn't design a frigate replacement, as is commonly thought, it designed and produced multi-mission, adaptable combatants that could do anything. And lets be honest, the whole survivability this is garbage anyways, no modern ship is survivable in the face of the weapons that would be launched towards them. 

An up-armed LCS would be good, but not preeminent armament. The LCS is a plug-and-play ship. One day it's an anti-ship platform, the next day it's performing ASW. Putting permanent weapons on the LCS would cut into its adaptability.

We'll have to wait and see with the LCS program though, and the outcome of the joint US-Japan LCS variant.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Víðarr

*Forward Air Controller Uses Android Tablet To Rapidly Order Air Strike*






DARPA is working hard on making it easier for Forward Air Controllers to order fast precision air strikes under chaotic and stressful conditions. Under a new initiative, a revolutionary new way of calling in crucial air support includes migrating away from clumsy radios and hardbook laptops to Android tablets and data links.

This new initiative is called the Persistent Close Air Support program, or PCAS for short, and is described by DARPA as such:
_
PCAS focuses on technologies to enable sharing of real-time situational awareness and weapons systems data through approaches designed to work with almost any aircraft. PCAS envisions more precise, prompt and easy air-ground coordination for CAS and other missions under stressful operational conditions and seeks to minimize the risk of friendly fire and collateral damage by enabling the use of smaller munitions to hit smaller, multiple or moving targets. This capability is critically important in urban environments._

Just last month, PCAS was brought to fruition in the deserts near Yuma, Arizona, during an exercise called “Talon Reach.” Talon Reach was itself part of the larger Weapons Tactics Instructor course capstone exercise that happens a handful of times a year.

During Talon Reach, forward air controllers, also known as Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTACs), dispensed with the heavy computer gear and crackling radios, and replaced them with a tablet computer much like one you would buy for a few hundred dollars at Best Buy. This Android tablet was loaded with intuitive software that leverages satellite imagery, real time intelligence and surveillance data, and easy to fill in fields that represent all the information a JTAC would commonly communicate to an aerial CAS asset. This information is commonly known as a "Nine Line" brief.

The Android tablet itself was connected wirelessly to a data-link system that pushed its information directly to the aircraft overhead. The aircraft used in the exercise was also experimental in nature, as it was Bell’s V-22 Osprey testbed which has recently been equipped with rockets and guided missiles. You can read all about this up-armed Osprey here.






Once the JTAC enters their brief, the overhead aircraft, in this case a V-22 loaded with AGM-176 Griffin low-yield air-to-ground missiles, receives it and the software onboard their side of the PCAS system automatically provides the location of the target on a map and an attack solution for the pilots to execute based on the JTAC’s request, location of friendlies, local terrain and other factors. This drastically cuts down the time it traditionally takes for a JTAC to ‘talk on’ an aircrew to the target, it also should drastically reduces the possibility of fratricide.

In the past, the closest thing to anything like PCAS JTACs and aircraft had at their fingertips was ROVER, which allowed for the aircraft's targeting pod video to be transmitted to the JTAC on the ground so that they could look at and even manipulate it. It was better than just the radio, but a far cry from what PCAS offers.

DARPA describes the two main components of the PCAS system:

_There is PCAS-Air and PCAS-Ground. PCAS-Air consists of weapons management, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), and communications systems located on a modular Smart Launcher Electronics (SLE) device designed to enable plug-and-play hosting of tactical software and mounting of equipment on almost any aircraft. PCAS-Air communicates with ground forces through PCAS-Ground, a suite of situational awareness and mapping software on commercial Android tablet computers. Two interoperable PCAS-Ground software applications have been developed with government partners: the Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division (NAWC-WD) and the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Rome Labs._






The android tablet interface that is central to PCAS has its own very elaborate name, the Kinetic Integrated Low-cost SoftWare Integrated Tactical Combat Handheld, otherwise known as KILSWITCH.

KILSWTICH has been in use for a couple years in multiple evolutionary forms, but it has never been seamlessly integrated with the aircraft overhead. And this is precisely what Talon Reach succeeded in doing. During the exercise's mock engagement, the JTAC sent a precise location near an abandoned truck for the Osprey to engagement along with other key details associated with a Nine Line CAS brief. The Weapon System Officer onboard the Osprey also had a tablet that was receiving the JTAC’s orders in real time, allowing him to quickly confirm the request. Then, the Osprey followed the PCAS-Air’s engagement solution and lased the coordinates of the target with its onboard laser designator. It then fired off a Griffin Missile at over four miles from the target, with the missile impacting exactly where requested. According to DARPA, the success of the exercise was measured in accuracy and especially time, and by both counts it was a stunning success:

_The length of time from initiation by the JTAC to missile impact on target was just over four minutes—even better than PCAS’ goal of six minutes, and more than seven times faster than the half hour or more it can take using current methods that rely on voice directions and paper maps._

Although shortening the kill chain and helping to eliminate fratricide on the modern battlefield is a fantastic thing, KILSWITCH/PCAS has the ability to expand into much more than just a close air support enabling tool. Other data from information, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) sources could be available via the system at a tap of the software’s menu, allowing for greatly enhanced situational awareness by anyone with access to a KILSWITCH tablet. Additionally, if KILSWITCH and an active network, like the one used for PCAS demonstration, were expanded to different levels and permissions across a service, it could provide everyone from the individual soldier all the way up to commanders in the field with a common shared ‘picture’ of the battlespace around them. This could include everything from the latest topographical maps, known locations of friendly and enemy forces and even the locations of emitting sources of radio energy.

An evolved and highly networked KILSWITCH could drastically improve communications around the battlefield via the introduction of common encrypted messaging services and even facetime like capabilities. Another area where this technology could really become a game changer is in the leveraging of real-time Wide Area Aerial Surveillance (WAAS) imagery feeds.The WAAS concept is all about allowing a multitude of customers to use the system's imagery for a myriad of purposes at any given time, and KILSWITCH/PCAS could be a broad distribution architecture to make that happen.

During another phase of Talon Reach, the exciting situational awareness that KILSWITCH tablets provide when Marines are operating within a networked battlespace versus an unnetworked one was also proven with fantastic results:

_Another part of the exercise showed the value of the PCAS-Ground system on its own. In a simulated night ground battle between Marines and adversaries, a group of Marines had KILSWITCH tablets but very limited situational awareness of the location of friendly forces and enemy locations. Another group of Marines, also equipped with KILSWITCH tablets, arrived simultaneously and launched a small unmanned air vehicle (UAV) into the air to provide ISR and network relay capabilities. Within seconds, all the KILSWITCH tablets synced up with the UAV through the Marines' tactical radios and automatically populated the location of all friendly forces, greatly improving both groups' ability to coordinate and accomplish their mission._






So have we reached a point where precision guided munitions will be dropped from the sky seemingly on demand and all a soldier has to do to stay connected and briefed on virtually anything they may need to accomplish their mission is to carry around an Android tablet?

Not quite, but we are getting there.

The weapons on demand model has always been the endgame vision of truly persistent close air support. Under such a concept, heavy bombers, 737 derivatives, or even unmanned aircraft, could be parked up at 35,000 feet, their bellies full of various weapons, some of which have a 50 mile glide range. Then, when the order comes in via data link, the weapons bay doors open and a munition perfectly tailored to the target assigned to it heads off to its destination down below. Think of it as the automatic vending machine of close air support.






There is no doubt that this form of close air support is attractive for its convenience, economy, and speed. One day it could even give a whole fleet of stealthy advanced unmanned combat air vehicles something to do after the enemy's metaphorical door has been kicked down and air dominance has been achieved. Still, its use in extreme danger and close proximity to friendly forces is measured by the weapon's unbending reliability statistics. In other words, unless we are going to drop dozens of very low-yield Griffin missiles in a long row along a treeline, each costing tens of thousands of dollars, nothing can replace a manned aircraft carrying a big gun down low.

That is not to say that for a large portion of CAS scenarios, CAS on demand via an Android tablet and a high-flying arsenal ship loaded with a cocktail of weaponry is not a very attractive solution. Yet such a concept relies heavily on a lot of technology always working perfectly, including data links and computer systems that could be jammed, infiltrated, hijacked or hacked by a capable foe. That is precisely why a low-down and fairly simple form of CAS have to remain in America's quiver.

In the end, highly networked concepts like PCAS are a fantastic layer of combat capability to have, but they are just that, another layer. As long as multiple capability layers of varying technological sophistication exist, each layer will be better for it. Conversely, if just one layer remains, and that layer is highly dependent on complex and disreputable technology, we are inviting disaster as we can't simply decide not to fight when our network isn't working perfectly. There has to be a plan B, and that plan B is a radio, a set of binoculars and the Buuuuurrrrrppppppp from an A-10's 30mm Avenger cannon.






From Forward Air Controller Uses Android Tablet To Rapidly Order Air Strike

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Víðarr

*Watch America's Most Advanced Tank Waltz For Estonians*







Watching a 65-ton rolling battleship waltz around can be strangely enchanting. The Russians, in particular, take their tank ballets very seriously. But America is getting in on the act, showing off their souped up M1A2SEPv2 Abrams main battle tanks to Baltic NATO allies as part of Operation Atlantic Resolve.






The grooving was filmed during a welcoming ceremony in Estonia, with the country's military brass checking out what America’s best rolling fortresses could do. It's all part of the U.S.' push to beef up its readiness and enhancing interoperability with its NATO allies throughout Europe. The Army’s Task Force 2-7 Infantry “Cottonbalers” have been at the tip of this spear, deploying to Poland, Latvia, and Estonia simultaneously while carrying out flash drills with local forces.






The M1A2SEPV2 is the latest configuration of the Abrams main battle tank. In addition to the major sensor and mission systems upgrades initiated by the M1A2 program, the SEPv2 added enhanced user interfaces shown on full color displays, a new computer operating system, and a much more powerful onboard computer system. Upgraded side and frontal third-generation steel-encased depleted uranium armor was also added, as well as a tougher transmission.

Next generation thermal sights are installed as well, one of which is an additional Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV). This added sight allows for "hunter-killer" operations and better situational awareness for the tank's crew. Also, an auxiliary power unit was installed so that crews could run the tank's electrical systems for long periods of time without starting its thirsty and loud gas-turbine engine.

A new cooling system was added as part of the M1A2SEPv2 program, so the added thermal loads from all the Abram's new electronics could be mitigated. Finally, a simple feature – but one that was in huge demand during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan – is a external telephone intercom system so that troops operating alongside the tank cantalk to the crew inside.






One of the most most visible upgrades for the M1A2SEPv2 is the addition of the CROWS II (Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station) atop the Abrams's turret. This system, and its progenitors, CROWS and RAVEN, allow for the crew to fight the tank in 'buttoned up' conditions, even for close quarters battles. This keeps the soldiers from exposing themselves to shrapnel and sniper fire while using machine guns. It also adds another high-mounted thermal site for surveillance.

CROWS II consists of a high definition thermal camera, a laser rangefinder, and a daylight video camera system, all slaved to a crew-served weapon – in this case a .50 caliber M2 machine gun. Smaller caliber guns and grenade launchers can also be carried in the .50 cal's place. The system provides precise, fast panning and elevation, and the fire control system gives ballistic corrections to the CROWS operator. The operator sits within the tank and uses a joystick to control the CROWS turret with its imagery displayed on a flat panel screen.

A new version of the CROWS turret, dubbed CROWS III will bring even better optics and user interface, as well less than lethal capabilities to the CROWS system. Options include a laser dazzler that temporarily blinds people it's pointed at, an LRAD acoustics active area denial device, and extremely bright spot lights that can be ran in a disorienting strobe mode. Also, more cameras will be added for a panoramic staring video feed without the need to rotate the turret at all. Similar, albeit much more complex capabilities, are used on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. It will also have an infrared laser pointer so that tank crews can identify objects at night, and it can even be outfitted with an add-on FGM-148 Javelin missile launcher. This gives any vehicle with a CROWS III setup standoff attack capability against heavily armored vehicles and fortified positions.






One tanker told me that the M1A2SEPv2 derivative of the Abrams is the tank he dreamed of having in Iraq, and when the TUSK (Tank Urban Survival Kit) package is added, it would have been a much more effective weapon during his two deployments. TUSK is a add-on option for Abrams tanks that sees reactive armor "bricks" added to the Abram's sides, along with more armor on the tank's belly and slatted armor in the rear. This all amounts to better survivability against High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) rounds often used in Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPGs) launchers. CROWS was originally part of the TUSK package, but it is now becoming standard outfit for all M1A2SEPV2s.






Just over a year ago, many defense analysts were saying the tank was dead. Now, a year of geopolitical change later, and both the US and Russia seem very keen on showing off their latest and greatest in rolling fortresses.

From Watch America's Most Advanced Tank Waltz For Estonians





*When last we saw the Tomahawk, it was hitting a stationary naval target. Now it's hitting moving targets at extreme distances.
















*Tomahawk Cruise Missile Hits Moving Ship Target*

The Navy is moving closer to having a sea-launched, anti-ship cruise missile able to change course in flight and hit moving ship targets from distances up to 1,000 miles, according to two recent Tomahawk Block IV tests at China Lake, California.

“The USS Kidd, one of our guided missile destroyers, launched a Tomahawk missile that changed course mid-flight and struck a moving ship after being queued by an aircraft,” Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work said in a recent speech at the U.S. Naval Institute. “Now, this is potentially game-changing capability for not a lot of cost. It’s a 1,000 mile anti-ship cruise missile. It can be used from practically our entire surface and submarine fleet.

The two tests, which involved firing Tomahawk Block IV missiles against land and sea targets, were conducted by the Navy and Raytheon at Naval Air Weapons Station, China Lake, Calif., in January of this year.

During the first test, a Tomahawk missile fired from the USS Kidd, a guided missile destroyer, and received real-time target information relayed from a surveillance aircraft to a weapons station at China Lake. Updated target information was related to the Tomahawk in flight before the missile then maneuvered and changed course from a pre-planned mission toward a new target, striking a moving ship on the water.

“This demonstration is the first step toward evolving Tomahawk with improved network capability and extends its reach from fixed and mobile to moving targets,” a statement from Raytheon said.

In the second test, the USS Kidd launched another Tomahawk Block IV missile on a “call-for-fire” mission in support of shore-based Marines, Raytheon officials said.

“Using GPS navigational updates, the missile performed a vertical dive to impact on San Nicolas Island, scoring a direct hit on the target designated by the Marines. The test provided valuable data for the Marine Expeditionary Force to evaluate and evolve their call for fire capability,” the statement said.

Work cited these tests and Tomahawk modernization as an example of how the U.S. can retain its technological edge amid a fast-changing global technological landscape.

“What happens if we take another step and just make an advanced seeker on the Tomahawk rather than building a new missile? We believe if we make decisions like that, that we will be able to outturn potential adversaries and maintain our technological superiority,” Work added.

In fact, Raytheon officials explained that they are working on new passive and active seeker technology for the Tomahawk which would even better enable the weapon to discriminate between targets and destroy moving targets.

A passive seeker can receive an electromagnetic signal and follow it, whereas an active seeker has the ability to send out or ping an electronic signal and bounce it off potential targets.

Raytheon is planning additional testing for its new seeker system on the weapon, which would allow it to separate legitimate from false targets while on-the-move, Raytheon officials said.

After additional lab testing, ground testing and flight testing, an integrate suite consisting of an active seeker, passive seeker and high-speed processor is slated to be ready this year.

Overall, Raytheon has delivered more than 3,000 Tomahawk Block IV missiles to the Navy. The missiles are expected to complete a 30-year service life after being re-certified at the 15-year mark. The inventory of Block IV missiles are slated to go through a re-certification process in 2018 and 2019.

Tomahawks have been upgraded numerous times over their years of service. The Block IV Tomahawk, in service since 2004, includes a two-way data link for in-flight re-targeting, terrain navigation, digital scene-matching cameras and a high-grade inertial navigation system, Raytheon officials explained.

The weapon is also capable of performing battle damage assessment missions by relaying images through a data link as well, they said.

The re-certification process for Block IV Tomahawks will provide occasion to implement a series of high-tech upgrades to the missile platform which improve the weapon’s lethality, guidance and ability to find and destroy moving targets, Raytheon officials explained.

With this in mind, Raytheon has been conducting ongoing re-certification studies with the Navy to take up key questions regarding upgrades and new technologies for the platform.

Along these lines, the fiscal year 2015 budget added $150 million for a new Tomahawk missile navigation and communications suite in order to better enable the weapon to operate in anti-access/area-denial environments. The enhanced communications suite is slated to be ready by 2018 or 2019, Raytheon officials said.

Raytheon and the Navy are also developing a new payload for the weapon involving a more-penetrating warhead called the Joint Multiple Effects Warhead System, or JMEWS. Previously sponsored by U.S. Central Command, the JMEWS would give the Tomahawk better bunker buster type effects — meaning it could enable the weapon to better penetrate hardened structures like concrete.

Tomahawk missiles weigh 3,500 pounds with a booster and can travel at subsonic speeds up to 550 miles per hour at ranges greater than 900 nautical miles. They are just over 18-feet long and have an 8-foot, 9-inch wingspan.

The Navy is in the early stages of conducting an analysis of alternatives exploring options for a next-generation land attack weapon. It remains unclear whether they will use next-generation, upgraded Tomahawks to meet this requirement or chose to develop a new system.

From Tomahawk Cruise Missile Hits Moving Ship Target | Defense Tech

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Víðarr

*This Duck Drone Could Spy on Enemy Subs*

But building a flying-and-swimming robot is harder than nature makes it look.

Nature, which has no need for devices that spy on enemy submarines from the air and underwater, may nevertheless have invented their form: flying fish, for example, or ducks that can zoom over the water’s surface and dive beneath to feed. But the Navy Research Lab, or NRL, which is working on a new drone that can both fly and swim, is learning that combining robots for two different purposes is not as easy as nature makes it look.

Why does the Navy need duck drones? Simply put: flying is faster than swimming, largely because water is 1,000 times denser than air. Consider that the common MK 46 torpedo makes at best 50 mph, while sea-skimming missiles can do five times that speed.

While nature has found a way to accommodate the variety of physical forces that can act upon complex swimming and flying systems, humans have yet to figure this out. Submersible undersea drones, made thick-skinned to withstand water pressures, are generally heavy or equipped with complicated ballast systems. Aerial drones, conversely, are as light as possible, and rarely designed to crash into water.

“For a submarine to fly, the enclosed air volume, which is the main driver of weight for a submarine, needs to be reduced as much as possible. For an aircraft to land on the water, its structural elements need to be more robust to survive the high impact of splashdown.” Dan Edwards, a principal investigator for NRL, writes in the most recent issue of the lab’s _Spectra magazine._

Under its Flimmer program (for “flying swimmer”), the NRLteam built a “Test Sub” — basically a submarine with wings —and simply worked around the fact that it was heavier than the typical drone. They took it on at least three test runs, dropping it from a plane at 1,000 feet. The test sub flew well enough, according to Edwards’s account, performing “as any other aircraft, controllable in three axes and exhibiting sufficient stability for man-in-the-loop flight.” The team then guided it along the surface of the water at 40 knots (about 46 miles per hour) “before sending it beneath the waves where it performed like a regular UUV,” or unmanned underwater vehicle.

The “Test Sub was guided along a standard approach at an airspeed of approximately 40 knots before splashdown with wings level,” writes Edwards. “Upon touching the water surface, the aircraft saw a dramatic increase in drag and decelerated abruptly. After the splash, Test Sub submerged and started moving underwater and was responsive to human controls … Test Sub cruises well above 50 knots in the air, while top speed in the water is below 10 knots, illustrating the ultimate benefit of a flying submarine: assuring quick reaction access to underwater areas.”

The team is experimenting now with floodable wings and more fishlike designs such as the lab’s experimental “Wrasse-inspired Agile Near-shore Deformable-fin Automaton,” or WANDA. Built to mimic the movement of a fish called the bird wrasse, the WANDA’s moving fins may prove too fragile for a machine hitting the water at relatively high speed.

“A four-finned configuration provides high maneuverability and good stability underwater. In air, however, the fins add weight and are relatively fragile mechanisms that need to be able to survive the forces of splashdown. Bringing all these design elements together is the central challenge of the Flimmer program,” writes Edwards.

The team has begun to adjust WANDA’s design for flight and will spend the rest of the year fine-tuning and tweaking the design.

The future of flying fish drones looks neither like a bird, nor a fish, but something new entirely.

From This Duck Drone Could Spy on Enemy Subs - Defense One











It is actively undergoing testing:

Navy tests flying/undersea drone

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Víðarr

*This doesn't completely relate to the US Armed Forces, but it raises an interesting question about the use of wingsuits in the US Military.

*This Video Is The Result Of A Wingsuit, A GoPro And A Death Wish*






Wingsuits allow humans to fly like birds, at least for a finite period of time. As such, the combination of speed and using your body for control is clearly highly addictive, and as you can see in the video below, totally exhilarating. The truth is that there are also clear military applications for the technology as well.

Currently, wingsuits allow for a glide ratio of about two and a half to one, meaning for every foot you lose in altitude you move two and a half feet horizontally. Theoretically, this capability allows for soldiers jumping from aircraft operating at higher altitudes along enemy borders to cross those borders during descent.

If a 20k foot free-fall were prescribed for a high altitude, low opening (HALO) jump profile, this would equate roughly to a 9.5 mile maximum horizontal glide distance if the soldiers were equipped with wingsuits. When you take air pressure, weight, weather and human error into account that number is degraded, but it's still relevant.











In the last decade, rigid and semi-rigid wingsuit type apparatuses aimed to drastically increase glide range. Instead of a glide ratio of two and a half to one, these new wingsuit concepts were envisioned as achieving between a five to one and a ten to one glide ratio. This equates to dozens of miles of glide distance during HALO operations, allowing, at least in theory, for the jump platform (aircraft) to stay farther away from enemy borders and air defenses.






These new Batman looking contraptions can be made out of radar transparent composite materials and coated with radar absorbing paint, making them very hard to detect. When it comes to guidance, a modular helmet system with a display that guides soldiers to their landing spot and maximizes the wing's glide range was seen as a possible way to get the most out of such a high performance skydiving and special force insertion capability. The most high-profile of these rigid wingsuit development initiatives was from ESG/Speclo and named the Gryphon Next Generation Parachute System.






In 2008, Yves "Jetman" Rossi largely changed the whole idea of wingsuits and what a flying soldier could be. With further technological evolution, "jetsuits" like Yves Rossi's could allow for flight range increases approaching one hundred miles, which would open up a much wider range of infiltration possibilities for airborne special forces compared to existing wingsuits or even rigid wing apparatuses.






Since Jetman's first flight, designs have emerged that could potentially allow for takeoff and landing without the need of a drop aircraft or even a parachute at all. Although such a system seems optimistic to say the least, although it is fun to think about the tactical impacts that such an exotic capability could offer, landing without a chute is an area that the wingsuit community seems especially interested in and may very well become feasible one day.






With the great success of "Jetman Rossi" and his amazing jet-wing, as well as Rex Pembertonwho has flown an unpowered rigid wing design, you would think the military would be excited about evolving similar technologies for special operations uses. The reality is that the DoD has been very quiet when it comes to such interesting private sector technological revolutions. Even unpowered rigid wing designs that were high-profile projects around the turn of the decade have largely gone silent, which is peculiar to say the least.

It could be that the technology was seen as not worth pursuing, but considering the special operations community seems fairly aggressive when it comes to gaining every edge it can get, and unpowered rigid wingsuits are not exactly high-cost development projects, the total lack of development when it comes to anything like these concepts within the US military complex is puzzling.






Then again, considering who would be using such a capability and what they would be using it for, maybe the Pentagon's silence on the topic says quite a bit. Like stealth helicopter transports, such a capability would be way more useful if nobody knew it existed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Víðarr

*Fu** Yeah! This is what the LCS needs, it fits very nicely into the US Navy's Distributed Leathality Doctrine - if it floats, it's a shooter.

*Raytheon and Kongsberg Team to Pitch Stealthy Norwegian Strike Missile for LCS*






The Norwegian manufacturer of the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) has teamed with U.S. missile manufacturer Raytheon to pitch the anti-ship missile (ASM) to the Navy as the over-the-horizon (OTH) ASM for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), company officials told reporters in a briefing on Thursday.

The agreement comes as the Navy surface warfare directorate is working through the requirements for a longer range anti-ship missile to include onboard the LCS and the modified LCS frigate design with a request for proposal (RfP) for the capability expected in Fiscal Year (FY) 2016.

The NSM — or a derivative — could also compete for the Navy’s Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) Increment 2 multi-platform competition as a follow on to the Lockheed Martin Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM). LRASM is in a sole source negotiation with Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) for OASuW Increment 1.

A version of the NSM, the Joint Strike Missile (JSM), is being developed for the Norwegian version of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) by both companies.

The NSM — already a staple onboard Royal Norwegian Navy ships — is billed as a stealthy, subsonic missile to replace aging anti-ship missiles like the Boeing RGM-84 Harpoon Block II and the French-designed MBDA Exocet.






“There are several foreign nations that have developed counters to the Harpoon and Exocet missiles — from a range perspective — this particular missile fills that gap and allows [navies] to outrange the folks with the foreign systems that are being directed at our vessels,” Taylor Lawrence, Raytheon Missile Systems president, told reporters.

According to press reports, the NSM has an effective range of about 100 nautical miles.

As to price, Lawrence said it cost a little more than the company’s Block IV Tomahawk land attack missile (TLAM). The Navy quotes the price per round of the TLAMs at $569,000 per round in FY 1999 dollars (about $802,000 in 2015, adjusted for inflation).

“Our missile is competing very well, compared to other missiles when it comes to price per missile,” Harald Ånnestad, Kongsberg Defense Systems president told reporters
“The price will vary a lot if you buy ten or if you buy 400 missiles.”

For the LCS mission, the companies are proposing to place the proprietary canister launchers on the deck of the ship and claim the missiles could easily tie into the combat systems of both classes.






“We’re looking at these canisters to be placed on the deck or an appropriate horizontal surface on the ship and integrated in their missions control, mission planning suites,” Lawrence said.
“We wouldn’t have to have the vessels radically modified to include vertical cells for that matter. These would be placed on the deck.”

An artist’s conception of the placement would put the canisters forward of the deck house and aft of the main gun on both the Independence and Freedom classes of LCS.

From Raytheon and Kongsberg Team to Pitch Stealthy Norwegian Strike Missile for LCS - USNI News

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Víðarr



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Víðarr



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Víðarr



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Víðarr



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Víðarr



Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

Víðarr said:


> Raytheon and Kongsberg Team to Pitch Stealthy Norwegian Strike Missile for LCS


Thank god we at least are getting some more firepower on LCS. Also cant wait for JSM/F-35 combo to come online.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Víðarr

AMDR said:


> Thank god we at least are getting some more firepower on LCS. Also cant wait for JSM/F-35 combo to come online.
> View attachment 214271



Agreed. People are too impatient. the LCS program is still new and few ships have been completed, changes are always made on subsequent ship, just give the LCS time.

and where'd you get the Norwegian flag? I need that for;

Nordic Defense News, pictures, videos and history

Which you should take a look at if you get the time.

Reactions: Like Like:

2


----------



## Víðarr

The US Navy - past and present

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Víðarr

Marine aviation

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Víðarr



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SipahSalar

Víðarr said:


>





Víðarr said:


>


Wow, pretty nice. Are these kind of drop-off's unique to Chinook?


----------



## Víðarr

*Peacekeeper*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Víðarr



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Víðarr

The second Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) has proven so much more reliable than the first that the Navy has been able to experiment with a new expeditionary maintenance model to extend the reach of the ship, the program executive officer for LCS told USNI News last week.

Rear Adm. Brian Antonio said that “as challenging as _Freedom_ was, _Fort Worth_ has just been phenomenal” in terms of material condition and ability to meet its operational requirements. Antonio previously served as the U.S. Pacific Fleet fleet maintenance officer when USS _Freedom_ (LCS-1) made her maiden deployment, so he said he is intimately familiar with the number and severity of the casualty reports (CASREPS) that ship had.

USS _Fort Worth_ (LCS-3), in stark comparison, in her maiden deployment has had “an order of magnitude [fewer CASREPS], in the order of hundreds of hours of corrective maintenance compared to thousands of hours of corrective maintenance, _Fort Worth_compared to _Freedom_. Fewer CASREPS, casualty reports; less severe casualty reports; less time to clear the casualty reports with CASCORS, casualty correction reports. Overall, we are experiencing with _Fort Worth_ what we expect the class as it gets out in numbers to be more like, as opposed to _Freedom_.”

Antonio said that, for example, the Pacific Fleet opted to cancel one of _Fort Worth_’s maintenance availabilities so it could help search for the missing AirAsia Flight 8501 in January. _Freedom_, in comparison, spent more time than expected in maintenance and canceled operational obligations.

As a result, _Freedom_ could not stray far from its maintenance hub in Singapore, whereas the Navy has begun experimenting with extending the reach of _Fort Worth_.

“One of the feedbacks we got back from the fleet with Freedom was that her legs weren’t very long, in that every 25 days or so she needed to come back to Singapore to get a maintenance availability – which means you can only go a certain number of days out, and its’ a big ocean,” Antonio said.

_Fort Worth_, on the other hand, just finished a maintenance availability in Sasebo, Japan, which Antonio said would not have been possible with _Freedom_. The fleet created a “maintenance in a box” concept, which included pre-staging two trailers in Sasebo – one filled with all the parts the ship and its mission package might require, and one with the tooling the maintenance workers would need to perform the work away from the hub in Singapore.

Antonio said the experiment was highly successful.

Going forward, the LCS program is looking forward to seeing its 3-2-1 deployment plan implemented in earnest – three crews for two ships, with one always deployed. _Fort Worth_will hit the halfway mark of her 16-month deployment this summer, and _Freedom_ will go out as soon as _Fort Worth_ comes home.

Meanwhile, in June _Freedom_ will go through the ship class’s first ship restricted availability, an extended maintenance period, which Antonio said will be a learning opportunity for all involved.

By 2018, Antonio said all three mission packages will be tested and have reached initial operational capability; two ships of each hull variant will be deployed in Singapore; and a request for proposals will be out to industry for the LCS follow-on program, the new frigate.

From USS Fort Worth Successfully Tested Overseas Maintenance Outside of Singapore Hub - USNI News

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Imaging that. I new program has a few problems in the first system, but then they are worked out and the program proceeds as planned. Seriously people, just because it has teething issues doesn't mean the program is a failure!

Th LCS is just fine, people are just too impatient and too quick to label a project a failed investment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Navy Frigate Requirements Will Be Finalized Soon, Will Inform Decision on Hull Downselect*






The Program Executive Office for Littoral Combat Ships (PEO LCS) is working with both its shipbuilders to determine how to bring the current LCS designs into a more lethal and survivable frigate design, while it works with other Navy offices to finalize the frigate requirements.

The Navy decided the last 20 of its 52 LCSs would instead be a modified LCS, later renamed a frigate. Though many details are still being worked out, PEO LCS Rear Adm. Brian Antonio told USNI News in an interview at Washington Navy Yard that the frigate will be an LCS, plus more guns, a multi-functioned towed array for submarine detection, over-the-horizon radar and a light-weight torpedo countermeasure, plus the potential to add “capability enhancement” packages – either a 30mm gun and rigid-hull inflatable boats for visit, board, search and seizure missions, or additional sonars.

The program office is also working with the Navy’s Surface Warfare Directorate, Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren, Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems and more to refine the frigate requirements and clearly document them. The Navy will need to work through how to integrate new systems into the combat management system, what hull, mechanical and electrical changes may be needed, how many people will be part of the core crew of the ship, and more.

Antonio said the requirements will be finalized “this year, as soon as we can.”

Surface warfare director Rear Adm. Peter Fanta will lead a series of requirements resource review boards for the frigate, the first of which will look at the combat management system and upgraded over-the-horizon radar, Antonio said.

“We’ll get into what the requirements are for those, and then that will sort of free us up [for] getting into the design work,” he said, adding that would happen “in a matter of weeks as opposed to months.”

The Small Surface Combatant Task Force estimated it would cost about $75 million more per frigate than LCS, Antonio said. The current LCS is about $100 million less per ship than the congressional cost caps, so he said he was confident the small surface combatant portion of the fleet would remain affordable.

One big question looming is whether both LCS designs – a monohull by Lockheed Martin and a trimaran by Austal USA – will move into the frigate program or if the Navy will downselect to one variant. Antonio said all options are being kept open at the moment, but he noted the advantages of keeping both designs in production.

“I have said as PEO, there are great advantages for competition,” he said.
“It provides the opportunity to make sure that we benefit from competition. I think industry actually benefits from competition, it keeps pencils sharp.”

To keep all options open, Antonio said his office has established contractual relationships with both shipbuilders to look at the LCS-to-frigate transition.

“We haven’t set an acquisition strategy in place that says we’re going to continue to build equal numbers of the variants going into the future, but we want to keep that option open as we get closer to FY ‘19,”Antonio said.
“So we’re working with both shipbuilders, saying, what do we need to do to each variant to make these changes to turn it into a frigate based on what the decisions were that came out of the secretary of defense?”

By 2019, when the Navy will need to issue its first frigate contract, two of each variants of LCS will be in Singapore, so the fleet will have the opportunity to provide feedback ahead of a contract decision. Though the sailors operating the ships won’t have the final say in the matter, “they’ll have a say in how the requirements go,” Antonio said.

Once the frigate requirements are set and design work begins, Antonio said he also expects some upgrades may work their way into the Fiscal Year 2017 and 2018 LCSs. The acquisition strategy for those years is not finalized yet, but “what we anticipate doing is combining those two years so we only have to do one solicitation. And we’re still coming through what that RFP [request for proposals] will look like and the overall acquisition strategy. We owe [Navy acquisition chief Sean] Stackley an acquisition strategy approach and will get that approved through the proper chains and be able to come out with an RFP in late 2016 timeframe so we can negotiate an award in ’17.”

In designing the RFP, Antonio said “we have opportunity to say, hey shipbuilders, we eventually want to incorporate as much of the frigate attributes back into LCS over time. We have an opportunity with those last six LCSs, if we’ve got high capability impact, low-cost changes that we can incorporate – armoring, weight reduction, configuration changes where they make sense and still retain the modularity – then let’s go ahead and get those priced in, and if we can afford it we’ll go do it.

“And then what that does, it has several advantages. One is, it gets the shipyard ready in terms of a learning-curve effect, it gets them ready to incorporation of the frigate when we award frigates, regardless of which shipbuilder it is, or both shipbuilders. …. For us, as we come to negotiations and awarding for the ’19, now we have actual return costs on some of these, so we both know across the aisle what some of these changes may cost. So that’s an affordability aspect that’s sometimes lost on people as we move forward.”

For the existing LCS hulls, Antonio said the Navy would look at taking out weight or adding in armor during post shakedown availabilities or other yard maintenance periods to help close the gap between the LCS and the frigate.

Also awaiting final requirements is a decision on which over-the-horizon missile to use on the frigate. Asked about a timeline for the decision, Antonio said “the first thing we need to do is get the requirements set from the Pentagon.”

Given time constraints, he said he was not interested in any kind of development effort; rather, the missile he picks will be a system of record in the U.S. Navy, a system used in other navies or one that industry has matured and could easily integrate with the frigate.

“The advantage of an over-the-horizon missile, though, is undeniable,” he said, saying the fleet has asked for it and it has proven itself in several wargames.

“It’s going to be successful, it’s just a matter of getting the requirements set down, taking a look at what material solution can meet that requirement, and then looking at the integration piece onto the ship,” Antonio said.

From Navy Frigate Requirements Will Be Finalized Soon, Will Inform Decision on Hull Downselect - USNI News

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## F-22Raptor

Navy: P-8A’s Acoustic Sensor System Twice as Effective as the P-3’s

The acoustic sensor system of the Navy’s P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft proving to be twice as effective as that of the older P-3C Orion.

Capt. Scott Dillon, the Navy’s program manager for maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft, speaking to reporters April 14 at the Navy League’s 2015 Sea-Air-Space Exposition, said, “Acoustics is the area where the aircraft has been shining,” while noting that that he has been “getting extremely favorable reviews of the aircraft’s real-world performance.”

The Boeing-built P-8 is likely to deliver even better acoustic detection and tracking capability with the introduction of Increment 2 upgrades, which include the Multistatic Active Coherent Capability (MAC).

MAC, an evolution of Improved Extended Echo Ranging used on the SSQ-110 sonobuoy, uses the SSQ-125 sonobuoy. The SSQ-125 generates loud sounds electronically rather than using small explosive charges to generate sound as in the SSQ-110. The long-range echoes from a target are intercepted by the sonobuoy and relayed to the aircraft’s sensor system. Dillon said the electronic sound sources generate fewer false returns than the explosive charges.

The MAC capability became operational on the P-3 last year. It has passed its operational evaluation, although the full report has not yet been signed out. The next P-8 squadron to deploy, scheduled for September, will incorporate this capability as the Navy has begun retrofits of MAC into the already delivered P-8s.

MAC is one of three major improvements being implemented in the Increment 2 upgrade. The others are the Automatic Information System and the High-Altitude ASW Weapon (HAAWC) system. HAAWC is a Mk54 torpedo with a Boeing-built wing kit, a Global Positioning System (GPS) and a data link with the aircraft. The weapon can glide from high altitudes — allowing the aircraft to maintain a wide search area and increased standoff ranges from threats — and deliver the torpedo to a water entry point. In conjunction with HAAWC capability, the sonobuoys will have a GPS capability to enable the aircraft to maintain a precise plot of the sonobuoy field at high altitude, 10,000 feet or higher. 

Dillon said the acoustic tracking capability of the P-8 is so precise that the decision to delete the magnetic anomaly detector, used by the P-3 at low altitude, from the P-8 design has been validated.

SEAPOWER Magazine Online

LOCUST: Autonomous, Swarming UAVs Fly Into the Future

A new era in autonomy and unmanned systems for naval operations is on the horizon, as officials at the Office of Naval Research (ONR) announced today recent technology demonstrations of swarming unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) — part of the Low-Cost UAV Swarming Technology (LOCUST) program.

LOCUST can launch swarming UAVs to autonomously overwhelm an adversary. The deployment of UAV swarms will provide Sailors and Marines a decisive tactical advantage.

“The recent demonstrations are an important step on the way to the 2016 ship-based demonstration of 30 rapidly launched autonomous, swarming UAVs,” said ONR program manager Lee Mastroianni.

The LOCUST program includes a tube-based launcher that can send UAVs into the air in rapid succession. The breakthrough technology then utilizes information-sharing between the UAVs, enabling autonomous collaborative behavior in either defensive or offensive missions. Since the launcher and the UAVs themselves have a small footprint, the technology enables swarms of compact UAVs to take off from ships, tactical vehicles, aircraft or other unmanned platforms. 

The ONR demonstrations, which took place over the last month in multiple locations, included the launch of Coyote UAVs capable of carrying varying payloads for different missions. Another technology demonstration of nine UAVs accomplished completely autonomous UAV synchronization and formation flight. A Coyote UAV can be seen at the ONR booth at the Navy League’s 2015 Sea-Air-Space Exposition.

ONR officials note that while the LOCUST autonomy is cutting edge compared to remote-controlled UAVs, there will always be a human monitoring the mission, able to step in and take control as desired.

“This level of autonomous swarming flight has never been done before,” said Mastroianni. “UAVs that are expendable and reconfigurable will free manned aircraft and traditional weapon systems to do more, and essentially multiply combat power at decreased risk to the warfighter.”

UAVs reduce hazards and free personnel to perform more complex tasks, as well as requiring fewer people to do multiple missions.

Lowering costs is a major benefit of UAVs as well. Even hundreds of small autonomous UAVs cost less than a single tactical aircraft — and, officials note, having this capability will force adversaries to focus on UAV swarm response.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert’s Sailing Directions to the fleet note that over the next 10 to 15 years, the Navy will evolve and remain the preeminent maritime force. It directs: “Unmanned systems in the air and water will employ greater autonomy and be fully integrated with their manned counterparts.”

SEAPOWER Magazine Online

Navy Research Chief: LDUUV Scheduled for Ocean Voyage off California

The chief of naval research announced that the Large-Diameter Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (LDUUV) will demonstrate its endurance during an open-ocean voyage off California in 2016.

Speaking to an audience April 14 at the Navy League’s 2015 Sea -Air-Space Exposition, Rear Adm. Mathias W. Winter said that the LDUUV will proceed from the ocean off San Francisco to San Diego.

Winter also said the LDUUV, displayed publicly for the first time at the expo, has two more years of development ahead before it makes the transition to a program of record.

Calling the LDUUV “off-the-charts revolutionary,” he described the UUV as a payload and also “a platform in and of itself.”

The Navy still is assessing the endurance of the payload-agnostic LDUUV, which is mission-dependent, but confirmed that it has operated at sea for more than 30 days at a time.

SEAPOWER Magazine Online

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

*Navy will test railgun aboard DDG-1000*

The Navy is evaluating whether to mount its new Electromagnetic Rail Gun weapon aboard the high-tech DDG 1000 destroyer by the mid-2020s, service officials said.

The DDG 1000’s Integrated Power System provides a large amount of on board electricity sufficient to accommodate the weapon, Capt. Mike Ziv, Program Manager for Directed Energy and Electric Weapon Systems, told reporters at the Navy League’s 2015 Sea Air Space symposium at National Harbor, Md.

The first of three planned DDG 1000 destroyers was christened in April of last year.

Ziv said Navy leaders believe the DDG 1000 is the right ship to house the rail gun but that additional study was necessary to examine the risks. A rigorous study on the issue should be finished by the end of this year, Ziv said.

“I think it’s an ideal platform. There is a little bit more work needed to understand the details,” he added.

The DDG 1000 is 65-percent larger than existing 9,500-ton Aegis cruisers and destroyers with a displacement of 15,482 tons,.

The DDG 1000’s integrated power system, which includes its electric propulsion, helps generate up to 58 megawatts of on-board electrical power, something seen as key to the future when it comes to the possibility of firing a rail gun.

It is also possible that the weapon could someday be configured to fire from DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.

“We’ve looked at ships as small as DDG 51s. It takes something of that size. This isn’t something you are going to put on an LCS,” Ziv added.

Meanwhile, the Navy plans to test-fire its new Electromagnetic Rail Gun at sea for the first time in the summer of 2016 from on board the USNS Trenton, a Joint High Speed Vessel, service officials said.

The test shots will take place at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. During the test, the rail gun will fire a series of GPS-guided hypervelocity projectiles at a barge floating on the ocean about 25 to 50 nautical miles away,

“We’re going to fire it against a floating target. We’re trying to gauge the ability to engage a target over the horizon,” Ziv explained. “We’re going to have a gradual ramp up and gather data. This is a significant event but it is also a key learning point.”

The Navy is developing the rail gun weapon for a wide range of at-sea and possible land-based applications, Ziv said. The weapon can fire guided, high-speed projectiles more than 100 miles, which makes is suitable for cruise missile defense, ballistic missile defense and various kinds of surface warfare applications.

The railgun uses electrical energy to create a magnetic field and propel a kinetic energy projectile at Mach 7.5 toward a wide range of targets, such as enemy vehicles, or cruise and ballistic missiles.

“The weapon works when electrical power charges up a pulse-forming network. That pulse-forming network is made up of capacitors able to release very large amounts of energy in a very short period of time. The weapon releases a current on the order of 3 to 5 million amps — that’s 1,200 volts released in a ten millisecond timeframe. That is enough to accelerate a mass of approximately 45 pounds from zero to five thousand miles per hour in one one-hundredth of a second,” Ziv added.

The hypervelocity projectile is a kinetic energy warhead, meaning it has no explosives engineered into it. This lowers the cost and the logistics burden of the weapon, Ziv said.

The rate of fire is 10-rounds per minute, Ziv said.

Due to its ability to reach speeds of up to 5,600 miles per hour, the hypervelocity projectile is engineered as a kinetic energy warhead, meaning no explosives are necessary. The hyper velocity projectile can travel at speeds up to 2,000 meters per second, a speed which is about three times that of most existing weapons.

Although it has the ability to intercept cruise missiles, the hypervelocity projectile can be stored in large numbers on ships. Unlike other larger missile systems designed for similar missions, the hypervelocity projectile costs only $25,000 per round.

The railgun can draw its power from an onboard electrical system or large battery, Navy officials said. The system consists of five parts, including a launcher, energy storage system, a pulse-forming network, hypervelocity projectile and gun mount.

Read more: http://defensetech.org

---------------------------------------------------
*Navy prepares amphibs for first F-35B deployment*

The Navy and Marine Corps are preparing their amphibious assault ships for the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter’s first ever deployment slated for 2018.

The Marine Corps short-take-off-and-landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35B, will be the first ever fifth-generation aircraft to deploy. The Navy is working to prepare the flight decks, sensors and weapons systems on board several amphibs are ready in 2018, service leaders told reporters April 7.

“We are making sure that the amphibs are ready to take the F-35 because they are going to be the first ones out. We will have the first F-35s deployed out in the world – of any service in any country. They will be on big deck amphibs. That’s exciting but it’s a real challenge to move forward with that,” said Maj. Gen. Robert Walsh, Navy Director of Expeditionary Warfare.

The Navy is set to provide the modifications to the USS America, the amphib commissioned this past October. It is the lead ship in a series of 11 planned America-class big-deck amphibs.

“The ship’s going through hull, mechanical and electrical mods for the F-35, including environmental mods. Some of it is deck related and some of it is lighting related. It lands on the deck differently than the Harrier,” Walsh said.

The USS America will undergo a series of intense modifications to ensure the flight deck can withstand the heat of the F-35B vertical take-offs-and-landings. Navy engineers are installing a new heat-resistant material designed to prevent heat from the aircraft’s engines from burning a hole in the flight deck, Navy officials said.

The flight deck modifications entail adding intercostal structural members underneath flight deck landing spots numbers seven and nine, a Navy official said. With the added structure, these two landing spots will provide the capability to perform closely timed cyclic flight operations with the F-35B without overstressing the flight deck, he added.

Also, some of the modifications may involve re-adjusting some of the ship’s antennas in order to allow for a clear flight path for the JSF.

These efforts involve reinforcing the flight deck with additional structural materials and moving items further down below the deck.

“Much of the effort in the America, the very time-consuming piece, is going inside the ship and dropping lighting and ventilation and piping wiring and everything down far enough so you can install new material and weld it in place and then restore all that stuff,” said Rear Adm. David Gale, Program Executive Officer, Ships.

The modifications planned for the USS America will emulate those already completed on board the USS Wasp, an amphibious assault ship which has been testing with F-35Bs for months. The Wasp is slated for F-35B operational testing next month.

“A lot of this is structural flight deck work. We’ve learned a lot on the WASP from a back-fit perspective. A lot of the effort involves having to draw services inside of the ship out of the overheads, take out insulation and go strengthen the flight deck,” Gale said.

The second America-class big-deck amphib, the USS Tripoli, is now being built with the F-35B modifications built in from the start.

“On the Tripoli, the deck is thicker right from the start. The structural supports for the deck are being built into the ship,” Gale added.

The USS Tripoli will be delivered to the Navy in 2019.

Unlike previous amphibious assault ships, the first two America-class big deck amphibs are being built without a well deck in order to optimize the platform for aviation assets such as the MV-22 Osprey and F-35B.

The third America-class amphib, called LHA 8, will feature the return of the well deck.

Walsh said the Navy is outlining how operations will change with the F-35B versus the Harrier jets the fifth generation fighter is replacing.

Harrier jets, which also have the ability to conduct vertical take-off-and-landings, are multi-role jets primarily designed for light attack missions. The Joint Strike Fighter brings a wide range of new sensors, weaponry and aviation technology to the Corps.

“What are the C5I (command, control, communications, computers, collaboration) requirements for the F-35B because they are not going to be how we operated the Harrier. What is the requirement for the F-35 to be able to disseminate data across the battlefield? What pipes need to be there?” Walsh asked.

Rear Adm. Peter Fanta, Director of Surface Warfare, said the F-35B brings a much different capability to the amphibious force, compared with Harriers.

“Having lived with Harriers on big decks – Harriers are relatively short-legged, short, operational rapid turn-around assets. Now we’re putting out an aircraft that can go for hours and travel long distances,” Fanta said.

Fanta also said that sensors, radars and weaponry on board amphibs are also being upgraded to better integrate with the F-35. For example, elements of a combat system called Surface Ship Self-Defense System are being engineered to work with Joint Strike Fighter technologies.

Fanta said the Navy is also upgrading the seeker on various ship defensive systems such as the Rolling Air Frame missile and NATO Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile to an active seeker.

“They are both going to higher threats and higher maneuver capability,” Fanta added.

--------------------------------------------------

*USS America Performing Well in Trials; Shipbuilder Looking for Further Efficiencies*
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. – Post-delivery testing on USS _America_ (LHA-6) went far more smoothly than on previous big-decks, and the Navy and Ingalls Shipbuilding are trying to leverage this success as they move forward with the next two amphibious assault ships.

Capt. Chris Mercer, amphibious warfare program manager at Naval Sea Systems Command, said USS _America_’s (LHA-6) sea trials – which most recently include Combat System Ships Qualification Trials (CSSQT) in March and final contract trials (FCT) this month – “went very well across the board.”

Through almost 500 different test events in the one-week FCT two weeks ago, Mercer said “the trial went very well, especially compared to previous efforts on large decks – probably half the number of deficiencies identified, really great grades throughout. The combat system has been performing excellent, we got perfect grades across the board on our detect-to-engage.”

Brian Cuccias, president of Ingalls Shipbuilding, said that _America _is the 14th big-deck amphib to join the fleet and was the first ever to make it through a sea trial with zero starred cards, which indicate critical deficiencies.

Mercer said the ship would go through a few more test events this month, would do joint testing on its warfare systems at Point Mugu, and then go into a 40-week post-shakedown availability starting in June. After a few more trials, _America_ will go into basic phase workups, probably participate in next year’s Rim of the Pacific international exercise, complete initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) and then deploy.

Mercer told USNI News after his presentation that, since _America_ has an enhanced aviation design and no well deck, the Navy and Marine Corps have spent two to three years working on the tactics for the ship that will direct how it deploys.

“In the beginning it’s just going to be a traditional [Amphibious Ready Group] deployment,” Mercer said. “She may even deploy with Harriers her first time” until the Marine Corps has enough of its Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), he added.

USS _Tripoli_ (LHA-7) will also be aviation-enhanced, and LHA-8 will be the first to re-introduce the well deck to allow surface connector operations.

Cuccias said that _Tripoli_ is ahead of schedule, being already 25 percent erected with higher levels of outfitting than _America_ at this stage in construction. Ahead of its 2018 delivery, though, Cuccias said Ingalls Shipbuilding is trying to find other ways to take more cost out of the ship in innovative ways, such as simplifying the ventilation system to save time and money.

_Tripoli_ will also have some modifications made to its flight deck to make it JSF-compatible, whereas those modifications will have to be backfitted into _America_. Mercer said _America_ would have the modifications made during a maintenance availability, _Tripoli_ would have the modifications added into the contract via engineering change proposals, and future amphibs would include them from the outset.

“_Tripoli_ does have the flight deck mods in the contract, and so since _Tripoli_ is the sister ship of _America_ we really know exactly what it takes to go do that, we’ve offered our assistance to the Navy and they are using some of our technical assistance,” Cuccias said.

It is unclear at this point if Ingalls Shipbuilding will build LHA-8. The Navy decided earlier this year to combine the LHA-8 contract with the T-AO(X) oiler replacement contract into a single competition between Ingalls Shipbuilding and General Dynamics NASSCO shipyard. Each builder would get one program, and the winner with the lowest combined bid would win engineering work on the LX(R) amphibious dock landing ship replacement program, which will be based off of Ingalls’ San Antonio-class LPDs.

Cuccias said he could not talk about the company’s bidding strategy yet because the Navy had not provided information on how the bids would be evaluated.

“I think we’re treating them both with parity,” he said.
“I don’t know how the outcome will come out, I don’t want to pre-predict on how I think the solution will be in how we approach the bid. We’re going to aggressively go after both and have a solid proposal on either side.”

“Certainly the large deck is the more complicated ship to build, LHA-8 is a significantly more complex, much more difficult program and product to implement than T-AO,” he continued.
“We just have to evaluate that when we look at our bidding approach, our build approach. …. We look at what we’re building and we look at how we build it, and you take that into consideration on both projects.”

He did not say which program he would prefer to win, but he said he was pleased the work is guaranteed to be split between the two yards and all their subcontractors.

“I really want to applaud the Navy in addressing the industrial base, I think the industrial base is hugely important,” he said.


----------



## AMDR



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

AMDR said:


> View attachment 217366



heh! I was wondering if they would sneak USS Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in there...and they did.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

Just chillin

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Transhumanist

*What It Feels Like to Shoot With the Military’s Experimental Smart Scope*






You’ve probably never fired an M4 carbine. Until a couple weeks ago, I hadn’t either. But at a recent DARPA demo day, I loaded a magazine (also a first for me), snuggled up to the deadly assault rifle, and looked through one of the most technologically advanced smart scopes ever built. Then I pulled the trigger.

“That’s a hit,” I heard a voice say behind me. The target was only about a hundred yards away, but I hadn’t fired a gun since I earned my rifle shooting merit badge in Boy Scouts. I couldn’t count the number of processes going on inside the futuristic computer on top of the gun, but there were at least four visible sensors on the front. Facing me was a crisp display slightly smaller than a credit card showing crosshairs and some basic ballistics information. In the near future, a weapons system like this might also shoot self-guided bullets—more on that in a second.

The craziest thing: The scope isn’t just built to improve accuracy. It aims to improve everything.

*The Need for a Super Smart Scope*

The M4 carbine is a popular gun in the United States military, but it’s one of many weapons used by soldiers. Virtually all of these have rails that support a seemingly limitless number of accessories, from the most basic optical scope to the most expensive thermal imaging technology. Since each combat scenario requires a unique set of tools, soldiers maybe find themselves weighed down with extra accessories or, worse, swapping out components on the battlefield.

So there’s a demand for an all-in-one scope, one device that simplifies the whole setup. Companies like TrackingPoint have been making futuristic digital optics systems for years—including set ups that designed to make the gun aim itself. They’re prohibitively expensive, however, and literally limited in scope.

This is where DARPA comes in. The military’s research and development arm excels at solving impossible problems, and the challenge of building an affordable super smart scope is exactly that.

Imagine a scope that not only incorporates all of the bulky components a soldier would ever need as well as offer features that top brass have only dreamed about. Imagine a network-connected scope that sends ballistic data back to base. Imagine a scope that not only helps soldiers aim but also tells them who _not_ to shoot. And imagine if that scope fit in the palm of your hand and weighed only a few ounces.





That’s the scope I looked through at my recent visit to Fort AP Hill. (Sidenote: This is the same base where the Army built a fake village—complete with a mosque and subway—for training.) The day’s main event was a live fire demo of DARPA’s newest super smart scope. To be precise, it was a working prototype that’s about twice the size of the final design. The scope works, though, and it could change the way we fight wars

It’s somewhat humbly called the Computational Weapon Optic (CWO). Built within DARPA’s Transformative Applications (TransApps) ecosystem—the same system that DARPA developed to power smartphones and tablets on the battlefield—the device is exactly what it sounds like: a computer that you attach to a rifle.

*What It Feels Like*

I was the only journalist at DARPA’s recent demo day, surrounded by high-ranking officers of several branches of the military, most of whom were wearing fatigues. The live fire demo served as a proof of concept for the Computational Weapon Optic, as well as a chance for the top brass to decide if they might devote some budget dollars to developing the technology further.

By the time Doran Michel, the (now former) program manager of the TransApp program wrapped up the demo day, I was sold. I’m pretty squeamish at the thought of technology that’s designed to help soldiers kill better, but the emphasis DARPA placed on the Computational Weapon Optic seems geared towards more efficient defense rather than more vicious offense. Or at least that’s the pitch I got.






I asked if I could look through the scope to get a better idea of the experience. A few minutes later I had a magazine in one hand and the M4 carbine in the other.

There’s nothing about holding an assault rifle that doesn’t feel dangerous or deadly. Mind you, I’m just nerdy blogger with no military experience. So when I tucked my cheek down onto the cold steel, my hands were sweaty. When I flipped the safety switch off, my finger was shaking a little bit. I can’t imagine what an 18-year-old in Afghanistan must feel like at that moment.

When I looked into the high res display on the Computational Weapon Optic, the first thing I thought of was _Call of Duty_. This is pretty silly, since I’ve never played _Call of Duty_—though Iwas a pretty big _DOOM_ enthusiast back in the day. Something about crosshairs on a digital display gave me feelings, though. I have mixed thoughts on the military and games, but something about that screen made me wonder. I squeezed the trigger.

Firing an M4 carbine kind of hurts. It’s an extremely loud and powerful weapon. Frightened as I secretly was, though, the super smart scope made everything seem more controlled. Maybe it was something about the comfort of a computer doing calculations while I re-learned the feeling of firing a weapon. Maybe it was something about the display blinking with information. Maybe it was the DARPA pitch.

*The Features*

The natural assumption is that a smart scope helps you see your target better in a variety of conditions. But like I said before, the Computational Weapon Optic is designed to make everything better.

For starters, the scope makes it quick and easy to zero the scope, when it’s first mounted on the rifle. (Zeroing a scope is usually a time-consuming process that amounts to calibrating the optic after it’s first mounted.) The Computation Weapon Optic’s connectivity also makes it easy for a coach to guide a new shooter through the process through a tablet. Like the rest of the TransApp ecosystem, the scope runs a highly customized version of Android that’s compatible with a number of devices. The whole system is also controlled with three simple buttons on the top of the scope.

The Computation Weapon Optic also helps soldiers work together. Multiple scopes can be networked through the standard issue Type-1 handheld radio, so shooting can be synchronized. Soldiers already do this in order to fire at a target without giving away their position, but it’s currently done with voice commands over the radio. Radio chatter, quite ironically, is a great way to give away a soldier’s position. So instead of hearing a countdown, the soldiers see commands on the scope’s display.






This is where things get really futuristic. The Computational Weapon Optic is not only equipped with an optical scope but also night vision and thermal imaging. There’s a laser rangefinder and magnetometer to help determine distance to target. Thanks again to the networking capabilities, fellow soldiers can see the expected trajectory of their bullet on a smartphone or tablet as well as the exact distance to their target. This obviously makes aiming easier.

You can see where this is going. If the networked Computational Weapon Optic can communicate with Type-1 radios, it can also determine where those radios (read: soldiers) are. Perhaps the most powerful feature of the scope is that it warns the shooter when the rifle is aimed at one of his fellow soldiers. The military calls this fratricide prevention, but you can just think of it as a solution to the military’s endemic friendly fire problem.

All that, and the whole setup could be cheaper than some of the military’s more complicated solutions that offer fewer features. Meanwhile DARPA’s developing other smart scope technology, like the One Shot XG for snipers. Then there’s the Extreme Accuracy Tasked Ordnance (EXACTO) ammunition project. That’s the self-guided bullets mentioned above, but it’s also designed for snipers. The Computational Weapon Optic can communicate could help any soldier with a rifle.

*The Future*

This is only the beginning. When I visited DARPA’s TransApp program office last year, I wasn’t struck by how advanced the software was. I wasn’t even blown away by the implications, as vast and exciting as they truly are. I was stunned at how out of touch the Pentagon was in terms of innovation.

Soldiers told me how some troops in Afghanistan were still using paper maps from the 90s. So an Army private being deployed might be navigating his hometown with GPS on a smartphone one day and then confined to a pencil and protractor in combat in Afghanistan a few weeks later.

There are a lot of reasons why every soldier isn’t issued a smartphone along with a rifle, but over the past five years DARPA’s TransApp program has made progress in building a foundation for a tech-first future. The software ecosystem not only makes smartphones and tablets useable and useful on the battlefield. It enables all of the technology in a soldier’s toolkit to work together. Now, the software can power weapons systems like the Computational Weapon Optic as well as cheap helmet-mounted displays that put satellite imagery and maps right in front of soldiers’ eyes. The TransApp team has already built one, in fact.

Now think even further ahead. What could the military do with virtual reality? Well, the TransApp program already thought of that, too. The DARPA team came up with something called Crystal Hull for armored vehicles. Using a VR headset like the Oculus Rift a low cost 360-degree camera, this system would enable tank drivers to see in every direction, while making use of the TransApp mapping features. Mission data is stored automatically, just like the ballistics information from the Computational Weapon Optic, so commanders can keep track of their soldiers in real-time without dangerous radio chatter.

I tried out Crystal Hull myself and navigated through city streets as if my vehicle were made of glass. To access mission data, I used a standard Xbox controller, which the TransApp team liked because it would make immediate sense to soldiers. Again, it felt weird to treat war like a video game. But really, these types of innovations are just making use of the same technology that makes video games work. They’re making the military work better, too.

The demo day took place during Doran Michels’ last week at DARPA. The budget for the TransApp program expired this spring. So Michel’s, a former Army infantry officer and FBI Special Agent, will move on to other projects. The TransApp project will continue, nevertheless, through the Army’s Nett Warrior project. Again, the effort to bring mobile apps to the military has only just begun. If the TransApps ecosystem continues to win support from top brass, it’s highly plausible that all soldiers will be using apps that power all of their equipment on the battlefield in the very near future. (Some already are, actually.)

There are a lot of reasons why the military may or may not arm soldiers with DARPA’s latest creation—many of them involve taxpayer dollars. But as I drove away from the base, my finger stinking like gunpowder, I thought of one reason why any peace-loving American should care. The military is treating technology and innovation differently. And it’s a very good thing to see the Pentagon bucking its overly bureaucratic past and trying to act more like Silicon Valley.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Transhumanist

*The Navy's Most Shadowy Spy Is 450 Feet Long & Named After Jimmy Carter*






Submarines are a lot like Batman, they are covered in rubber and are great fighters, but they are gadget toting stealth detectives at their core. Of the Navy’s sub force, there is no boat more capable at sleuthing under the high seas than the heavily modified _Seawolf_ Class submarine, the USS_ Jimmy Carter _SSN-23.

The 12,150 ton displacement USS _Jimmy Carter, _whose namesake qualified in Submarines during his pre-Presidential naval career, is one of only three _Seawolf _Class submarines ever built. The _Seawolfs _are relics of the final stages of the Cold War and are the most lethal fast attack submarines ever created. The F-22 Raptors of the sea, they could dive incredibly deep, could haul along at speeds approaching 40 knots, and they were quieter than any other nuclear submarine on the planet. They were also armed with a cache of 50 weapons and wide 660mm torpedo tubes.

Seeing as the first boat was launched during the “peace dividend” years of the 1990s, its $3B price tag was thought to be too high and its ‘blue water’ sub hunting mission was becoming a secondary priority for the US Navy as the majority of Russia’s submarine fleet was rotting next to a pier. Instead, future subs would need to be more multi-role minded, cheaper to acquire and be more at home in shallow, littoral environments close to shore. As a result, the _Seawolf _class was replaced by the smaller, cheaper, and somewhat more flexible _Virginia_ Class that remains in serial production today.

Regardless of the type’s cancellation, the Navy did receive three _Seawolf _Class boats, the _Seawolf_, _Connecticut _and the _Jimmy Carter_. With the Jimmy Carter, the Navy took advantage of the _Seawolf _Class’sdeep-diving and ultra-quiet capabilities and created a one-off subclass that would become part of a small but very proud lineage of shadowy American submarines that were highly modified for clandestine surveillance and espionage operations.

The _Jimmy Carter, _which was commissioned in 2005_,_ differs from the standard Seawolf Class submarine via a slew of modifications made during her initial construction. A massive 100 foot long hull extension gives the Jimmy Carter a length only second to the massive _Ohio _Class Submarines (SSBN/SSGN) in US inventory. This extension, called the Multi-Mission Platform, is described as a ‘moon bay’ with an hourglass shaped passage running down the center of it.

This rounded underwater hangar of sorts can hold outsized deep-diving vehicles, unmanned vehicles, custom-built heavy machinery, spools of cable, special forces supplies and craft, deployable sensors and weapons, along with just about anything else you can imagine. Through a lockout chamber system built within the MMP hold, divers, commandos and remotely operated vehicles can be deployed and recovered.






Other modifications to the _Jimmy Carter_ include a set of precision thrusters, both fore and aft, that allow the sub to hold its position perfectly within space while conducting sensitive mechanical operations or when quietly trawling shallow waters. The _Carter _also has a large reconfigurable cargo bay, just off the MMP’s lockout chamber/ocean interface, for servicing vehicles and preparing for clandestine missions.

A modular command center can also be tailored to the specific mission at hand, with different configurations available for special operations, deep sea espionage, mine warfare, specialized sensor or unmanned systems deployment and just about any other mission you can think of.

The _Jimmy Carter’s_ mast can be easily adapted to sport unique, purpose-built electronic surveillance and communications sensors. There is also said to be a remotely operated vehicle handling system that may feature the ability to recover autonomous vehicles and even aerial drones with limited human direction.





Finally, SSN-23 can accommodate an extra 50 commandos or mission personnel above the standard crew size of about 130. Instead of sleeping in the torpedo room or other improvised areas as is common for special operations soldiers aboard submarines, this berthing was built into the original ship’s design, making long endurance deployments more palatable.

Because the hull was lengthened 100 feet to accommodate many of the _Jimmy Carter’s_additional capabilities, the boat did not have to give up the baseline _Seawolf _Class fast attack and strike abilities. This means the vessel can protect itself in hostile waters or be tasked for traditional fast attack submarine duties, although it seems like this may be a fairly rare occurrence.

So what does the _Jimmy Carter _do with all its modifications? Like its USS _Halibut_, USS_Seawolf_, USS _Richard Russell _and USS _Parche,_ which were modified ‘special mission’ subs that came before it, the_ Jimmy Carter_ conducts espionage, and could even conduct sabotage, in a variety of manners.

Its ability to hold perfectly on station at great depths, all while deploying custom built ROVs and other elaborate hardware, allows it to tap communications and data cables running along the sea floor. In the past, this was done by splicing in tailor made recording devices, leaving them for a period of time, and recovering them at a later date for exploitation. Today, in an age of fiber optics, more exotic forms of real-time seabed-based communication eavesdropping could theoretically be facilitated by the _Jimmy Carter, _with the NSA rumored to one of the boat’s biggest ‘customers.’






Tapping the world’s massive underwater arteries of data is one thing, but the _Carter _could also be able to sabotage communications nodes via simply cutting through the wire with large claws or torches, or by setting up mechanisms that could do similar tasks on command sometime in the future, should the need arise. Much of this technology has been pioneered in the deep sea oil drilling field (think Deepwater Horizon), which can be adapted and used ‘off label’ for military purposes. Such an ability could partially blind the enemy and limit their global situational awareness and command and control capabilities during a time of war without actually ‘kinetically’ attacking land targets in a traditional sense.

The Carter can also use its underwater manipulation abilities and sensors to find things that foreign governments have lost. Not only can it examine those things up close on the sea floor, but if they are within the dimensions of the sub’s MMP bays, it can recover them and transport them to a safe place for further examination.

The _Jimmy Carter_ can also perform passive signals and communications intelligence missions via moving in close to a country’s shoreline and utilizing its easily customizable mast to deploy aerials that are purpose built to pickup particular radio frequency transmissions. This can be as focused as searching for a single cellular phone transmission in a city, to soaking up an enemy’s electronic order of battle, including air and sea defense radar emissions and command and control communications and data exchanges.

Although all fast attack and guided missile submarines have these capabilities to varying degrees, the _Carter’s_ modular mission center and adaptable systems allow for the installation of new, experimental sensors and command and control interfaces without heavily interrupting the boat’s normal operations or demanding long in-port modification timelines.






Because SSN-23 has what equates to large hangar bay, berthing for 50 and a configurable command and control space, the _Jimmy Carter_ is a special forces dream machine. It can carry out-sized payloads inside its MMP bays, such as boats and underwater speeders, as well as throngs of sensitive gear and dozens of commandos in comparative luxury within its pressure hull. It can also deploy small UAVs for special operations overwatch and communications relay, not to mention it can also carry a standard seal delivery vehicle dock on its spine.

Because of its unique modular nature, the USS _Jimmy Carter _can act as something as anoperational test ship for leading edge technologies. It is rumored that it was the first submarine to be equipped with an aforementioned unmanned aerial vehicle, which it supposedly launched shortly after North Korea barraged a South Korean island with artillery shells, to assess the damage. 






Because of its large MMP bay, and its ability to carry ‘piggyback’ payloads, just like other fast attack and guided missile submarines, it would be the perfect vessel to field unmanned undersea combat vehicles. Not only could these be used as scouts, navigating closer to foreign shores for spying purposes, but they could also act in concert with the _Carter _for hunter-killer operations. Because these vessels are unmanned, they could use complex, coordinated tactics, data-linking their information to their _Carter_ mothership. By fusing their sensor data with the _Jimmy Carter_’s, a large increase in situational awareness and survivability may be possible. Just like unmanned combat aircraft, they could range out a distance from their mothership turn on their active sonars, giving away their position but obtaining critical sensor data, all the while the _Carter_’s stays masked in silence a distance away.






Mine warfare, of both a defensive and offensive nature, is another aspect of undersea combat that the Carter is remarkably well suited for. Its massive cargo space can be used to house mines and other autonomous weapons, while the boat’s ROVs can help deploy them. These same attributes can also be used for deploying unmanned craft and external sensors for detecting and disabling enemy mines, especially high-end ones that can lay on the sea floor for long periods of time, just waiting for the right acoustic signature to come alive and prosecute a surprise attack from below.

Finally, so many of the same warfighting and espionage capabilities that this unique machine possesses can also be used for oceanic research. The craft’s amazing array of sonars, both passive and active, could be re-roled for scientific exploration, from mapping the seabed to seismic research. I know what you are thinking, why wasn’t this incredible asset used to search for MH370, or any advanced military submarine for that matter. Sadly, I cannot answer that question aside from the possibility that operating around a foreign coalition could give away some of the boat’s unique capabilities and expose some of its inherent limitations. This goes for any advanced submarine really.

With the threat of a new Cold War possibly emerging and with China’s rapid expansion, both as an economic and military power, the USS _Jimmy Carter_ is probably in more demand than at any time in its decade long career. When you consider how wide ranging we have discovered the government’s domestic communications spying programs are here at home, you can use your imagination as to just how busy the NSA and other US spy services have been abroad. Just like how the CIA went to the Navy SEALs for one of the hardest clandestine special forces operations in history, the NSA calls upon the Navy’s giant multi-purpose spy ship to do the same, that being the one of a kind USS_ Jimmy Carter.
_

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Transhumanist

SipahSalar said:


> Wow, pretty nice. Are these kind of drop-off's unique to Chinook?



Those types of landings require a rear-door helicopter whose rear wheels are forwards of the door opening - to allow for enough stability and clearance during a landing. It's most commonly seen with the Chinook though:
















However, these types of landing would be extremely dangerous on a conventional configuration due to limited tail clearance and the presence of a tail rotor or jet which could interfere with any debris, vegetation or personal nearby the helo when attempting a landing:






Despite having a rear door, these types of landings would be hazardous using a helo of this type. It's not unique to the Chinook, but it is most commonly done using one.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Transhumanist

*Assorted Pictures of the United States Navy*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Transhumanist




----------



## Transhumanist

SSN 776

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist

US Navy seal

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist

If anyone has any suggestions or would like to see something specific please let me know.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Transhumanist




----------



## Transhumanist

===============================================================================

*HASC Mark Adds $120 Million for 3 Destroyer Combat System Upgrades, Money for Missiles*

The House Armed Services Committee added $120 million to pay for a total of *three Aegis combat system upgrades* to the Navy’s Arleigh Burke guided missile destroyers (DDG-51) as part of the chairman’s mark for the Fiscal Year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act.

The funds would upgrade three planned mid-life modernizations from a basic hull, mechanical and electrical (HM&E) systems repairs to include a complete refresh of the Aegis combat system from current 1980s era computing technology.

The combat systems upgrades would strip out the older computing architecture from the ships, replace the systems with modern modular servers and add an signal processor to allow the ships to both fight off traditional air threats — like enemy fighters — and perform ballistic missile defense at the same time.

The Baseline 9 upgrade also allows the destroyers to tie into the Navy’s Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA (pronounced: nifk-kah) concept that would create a data linked network that uses allows ships to use targeting information from other ships or aircraft to fire missiles well beyond the range of their existing SPY-1D radars.

The Navy had quietly scaled back its modernization efforts as part of its fiscal year 2016 budget submission that resulted in the planned cancelation of five combat systems upgrades to DDGs over the next five years, USNI News reported in March.

If approved, the upgrades would most likely occur in FY 2018.

In its unfunded priorities list, the service had asked for funds to buy back one of the combat system modernizations.

The committee also added funding for a variety of items, particularly munitions, to protect the industrial base, according to the bill.

The Navy’s budget request contained $21.4 million to fund termination costs for Raytheon’s Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) C-1 program, but the bill notes committee concerns about the termination “given the current threat environment, as well as current munition inventories.”

“The committee notes this request contradicts budget justification material used as part of the President’s request for fiscal year 2015. The committee also notes that the Chief of Naval Operations has indicated potential shortfalls exist for the JSOW C-1 munitions,” according to the bill.
“The committee understands that a technical Nunn-McCurdy breach has been triggered by the reduction in quantities proposed in the request, and encourages the Secretary of Defense to expeditiously complete required certifications to continue the remaining program.”

HASC chose to add $47.8 million, for a total of $69.2 million, to buy *200 JSOW*s in FY 2016 to sustain the industrial base and prevent an inventory shortfall.

Similarly, the committee *added $30 million to Raytheon’s Tomahawk missile program* to bring the program to its minimum sustaining production rate of 198 missiles. The committee also added $77.5 million to Raytheon’s Javelin missile program, which the Navy asked for in its “unfunded requirements” wish list.

Also from the unfunded requirements list, the committee recommends adding $1.15 billion for *12 additional Boeing F/A-18E-F Super Hornets* for the Navy and $1 billion for *six additional Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II* Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) for the Marine Corps.

HASC added *$28 million for the AN/SLQ-32 Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program Block II upgrade*, also on the unfunded requirements list.

The committee chose to add *$250 million to the Navy’s procurement account and $29 million to the research and development budget* to help accelerate the LX(R) amphibious dock landing ship replacement program. The Navy plans for the program to go into construction in 2020, but HASC hopes that by beginning advance procurement and design work now, the Navy could bump that schedule up two years.

After years of depleted budgets for maintenance and upgrades for naval aircraft, HASC added several line items in to help rebuild readiness. There is *$25 million for a UH-1Y/AH-1Z readiness improvement effort*, as well as $90 million spread out across the Navy’s operation forces account in the operations and maintenance budget for fleet engineering support, contract maintenance and depot maintenance.

Additionally, the committee added $65 million for *one Northrop Grumman MQ-4 Triton* air vehicle, $36 million for *three Northrop Grumman MQ-8 Fire Scout* air vehicles, $97 million for advance procurement for *a third Afloat Forward Staging Base* variant of the Mobile Landing Platform, and $20 million for submarine towed array procurement.

HASC will mark up its bill on Wednesday before sending it to the full House for a vote. These additions would only be enacted if the Senate Armed Services Committee agreed to them and the House and Senate appropriations committees funded them.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist

*Sticking with Navy command, but moving onto the USMC now:*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Transhumanist




----------



## Transhumanist

*Feedback is greatly appreciated*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist

*75th Ranger







































*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist

*75th Ranger with 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment*


----------



## Transhumanist

*US SOF*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist

*US SOF training Honduran TIGRES*


----------



## Transhumanist

*3rd SFG Airborne




































*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Transhumanist

*Training with Colombian Air Force*


























*Let me know what you guys think, please! More pictures, less pictures, something specific (unit, weapon or operation), feedback is much appreciated!*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist

*Back to the "Corp"*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Transhumanist

*Mastiff UGV of the USMC*











*HIMARS*






*"Corps" Marksman*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

Transhumanist said:


> *Let me know what you guys think, please! More pictures, less pictures, something specific (unit, weapon or operation), feedback is much appreciated!*



You are doing fine


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist

*Life on a US Carrier*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist

]

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Transhumanist

*Continuing on with my "life on a carrier" pics*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Indus Falcon

*Harris Corporation receives $3.9bn contract from the US Army for Rifleman Radios* 
Published: Monday, 04 May 2015 

Harris Corporation has been awarded a 10-year (5-year base, 5 option years) $3.9 billion ceiling, multi-award IDIQ contract from the U.S. Army for rifleman radios and associated services under the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) Handheld, Manpack and Small-form Fit (HMS) program. Harris will deliver 50 radios for qualification testing with Full Rate Production fielding scheduled in U.S. government fiscal year 2017.

"_The Army's selection of Harris as a provider of Rifleman Radios furthers our leadership position in tactical communications and networking,_" said Dana Mehnert, group president of Harris RF Communications. "_With this contract, the Army is one step closer to putting the radios in the hands of warfighters. We have developed a fully compliant radio, the RF-330E, which meets or exceeds the Army's requirements. We are ready for full rate production orders today and look forward to the competition for delivery orders._"
The Rifleman Radio — a lightweight, hand-held radio transmits voice and data using the Soldier Radio Waveform (SRW). Soldiers at all levels can use the RF-330E to send information up and down the chain of command as well as across the network backbone provided by the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T).

Harris RF Communications is the leading global supplier of secure radio communications and embedded high-grade encryption solutions for military, government and commercial organizations. The company's Falcon® family of software-defined tactical radio systems encompasses manpack, handheld and vehicular applications. Falcon III® is the next generation of radios supporting the U.S. military's Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) requirements, as well as network-centric operations worldwide.


Harris Corporation receives $3.9bn contract from the US Army for Rifleman Radios 0405155 | May 2015 Global Defense Security news UK | Defense Security global news industry army 2015

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist

*I Wore the Navy's Oculus Rift, and It Showed Me the Future of Warfare*






When we think of the future of the military, we think of bigger and better weapons. Laser canons and the like. But what about the people operating those lasers? How can a behemoth like the Navy ready its future sailors for the high-tech combat of tomorrow? Believe it or not, with an Oculus Rift.

At the University of Southern California's Institute for Creative Technologies, a mix of real life, augmented reality, and virtual worlds come together to form a project known as BlueShark. It's an experiment to discover not only how the Navy of the future could work, but how it _should _work. I went there to train the way midshipmen will a decade from now.

*What Is BlueShark?*

BlueShark is the codename given to the Enhanced Environment for Communication and Collaboration (aka E2C2). As the true name suggests, despite being largely funded by the U.S. military (a division of the Office of Naval Research known as SwampWorks), the work done here has much broader implications. The project is essentially a collection of technologies and environments (both physical and virtual) that examine how we humans may collaborate in the future, whether we're in the same room or on the other side of the planet.

As for its Naval involvement, BlueShark's focus is to ensure that ships with 50-year lifespansand the generations of sailors manning them can work in harmony far into the future. A control room full of dusty analog switches and knobs may be perfectly functional, but will they be intuitive five decades from now? Or would it be like handing a rotary phone to a seven-year old?

It's a tall order. But considering that BlueShark's working on projects for 2025, it's amazing how far they've already gotten.

*The Experience*

On our recent trip to the Institute for Creative Technologies at USC, I had the opportunity to run through the BlueShark demo as it currently stands. It essentially mimics the type of training that a new sailor might go through.

The ICT's Mixed Reality lab practically overflows with gigantic screens, cameras, sensors, goggles, and more fun toys. Definitely not the kind of place you imagine when you think of classic "Navy training." It looks more like something out of a _WarGames_ remake.

I was led through the demo by Senior Chief Foster, a human-sized virtual avatar displayed on a large flatscreen TV. When you step into your designated position a camera (just a cheap Logitech webcam) senses you, and Foster snaps to life. He gave me a brief overview, had me tell him my name, and then guided me to the first (and most impressive) station.






*Command Center*

The BlueShark Command Center is, as you might have guessed from the name, a simulated command outpost. It features four large screens in front of you, a swivel chair, and a tweaked-out Oculus Rift. The Oculus isn't just there because it's in fashion; its founder, Palmer Luckey, was a lab assistant in the Mixed Reality Lab before he launched his Oculus Kickstarter campaign.

Oh, and this also isn't your regular-old Oculus. The head mounted displays (HMDs) BlueShark us, as you might guess, has a few extra bells and whistles.






The BlueShark Oculus has been outfitted with several red LEDs. While they appear to be solidly lit to the naked eye, in reality each one is strobing at a different frequency. This enables cameras in the room to tell which LED is which, and thus give accurate positioning data, which in turn informs what you are seeing in your virtual display. If you lean in or out, the imagery matches, making the virtual world feel that much more real. Beyond advanced tracking, the lab is finding ways to create fields of view that go beyond the Oculus' current capabilities, virtually wrapping scenes around the user. For example, the photo above shows the Fakespace Labs Wide5, an experimental head mounted display that provides a more immersive 140 degree field of view.

The headset LEDs are matched by LED-covered straps that give accurate positioning data for your hands. It doesn't register finger-wiggles or anything that precise, but I was able to manipulate objects in the virtual world as easily as I would have been able to on a touchscreen.






In the photo at the top of this post, you can see my point of view, looking at a touchscreen with options for Crow's Nest Cam, Bridge, Combat Decision Center, and UAS Cam. In the real world, there was no interface. It was just a plain, cheap square of plexiglass on a stand. Yet, when I touched the spot where the buttons supposedly were, it registered the input perfectly and switched me to a different room.

This has profound implications. Let's say the Navy decides that a room full of touchscreens is the best way to control a new warship. Today, in order to train sailors on it, you'd have to build physical replicas of that control room. But what if you could just place plain pieces of plastic that approximate where the screens would be, slap an Oculus Rift on your face, and perfectly simulate what will be there? Outside of the VR headset, it's just a room full of cheap, blank plastic panels, but for the soldier in training, it would look and behave exactly as the real thing would. This would not only save a ton of money, but it would make the Navy far more adaptable.

The most incredible thing about this system, though, is how just a single press of a button can shift your perspective to a whole new vantage-point. When I hit that virtual button for Crow's Nest, I was instantly transported to the top of the ship's mast. It actually made me want to grab the sides of my chair at first. There I was, floating a hundred feet above the deck of the boat, and yet I still had all of my important screens and controls at my fingertips.

And then the best magic yet; another press of a button and I was even higher, looking down from a drone's point of view. I was flying high above the water, looking down at the boat that my physical body would be on, and looking out over enemy ships, too.

Obviously, this has profound implications. Imagine a drone pilot actually being able to see the entire world from the drone he or she is flying, not just from a single camera angle, but as if they were sitting in the cockpit. You would have so much more situational awareness. You might also have more of a sense that what you are doing is a part of the real world, not just some game, along with all of the moral implications that implies.

It stunned me silent.

*A Flexible Future*

Another advantage of this system is its extreme customizability. Maybe you're left-handed, and you want the ship's throttle over on the left. You can just drag and drop it to where you need it to be. When the next user logs in, it would reset to his or her preferred settings. In this way you can customize the ship itself to work in the way that makes most sense to you.

It also allows for fewer personnel to be physically on a ship. As long as the data speed could handle it, you could virtually pipe in an expert on any subject you needed, and they would be able to see the situation exactly as they would if they were on the ship with you. This could be extremely useful in specialized repair situations, or when a crucial translation is in need.

As incredible as BlueShark sounds—and will become—the system is a long way from perfect. There was occasional lag in the display, and when there's a slight disparity between what you are seeing and what you are physically experiencing, dizziness happens. I don't easily get motion-sick, but I definitely found myself getting queasy. At one point, when the screen froze completely, I became so disoriented I almost took a nose-dive out of my chair.

But we're at the very beginning of this technology. That it's this good at such a rudimentary stage is staggering.






*Where It's Going*

What remains to be seen is how the military adopts and implements BlueShark. One of the banner features of the Ford-class aircraft carriers is that they're made to be modular, so as technology progresses, theoretically entire control rooms could be swapped out. Might we see one that's just a bunch of lifeless glass panels that come to life when you look at them in virtual reality?

Even if that would make it endlessly customizable for the sailors using it, would the Navy ever trust a 100-percent digital system to pilot its boats? Would it be vulnerable to hacking? We asked the Navy these questions and got an official (and surprisingly candid) response from Lieutenant Commander Brent Olde, ONR Deputy, Human & Bio-Engineered Systems Division:

_"Due to rapid advances in unmanned systems capabilities, the military is currently experiencing a paradigm shift in how it commands and controls its assets. With growing confidence and verified reliability in these new control mechanisms, *I'd say yes, someday the Navy could have a completely new way of controlling large vessels - as depicted in BlueShark.* However combat systems require multiple fail-safe redundancies to be in place in the case of system failures (some systems have quadruple redundancy), so if the Navy ever did replace the entire control system, it would only be after rigorous testing and redundant back-up mechanisms to maintain positive control."_

Emphasis added, but suffice it to say that BlueShark could well be a reality, assuming it proved safe and reliable enough.

There are obviously also manifold applications for this technology outside of the military. You could put together a team of experts from around the world, who could collaborate in a virtual environment (with everything they say being instantly translated into the language of each individual listener) on a project. And, obviously, the gaming potential is off the charts.

But ultimately, seeing the world from the perspective of a drone, turning a blank space into the world's most high-tech command center just by looking through some glasses; these have huge implications for our military. If we aren't always ready to adapt, we lose. The more flexible we make ourselves, the more adaptable we'll be. BlueShark is the future—and it's closer than you think.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist

Carrier wing 11, 1988

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

*Hill To Navy: Hurry Up On Rail Guns, Lasers*

WASHINGTON: Rail gun bullets move seven times the speed of sound. Laser beams fire at the speed of light. But Pentagon procurement? Not so fast. But with both Congress and theNavy Secretary expressing impatience, the Navy is accelerating its efforts to move bothlasers and rail guns from the test phase into the fleet.

“We’ve got a laser weapon now in the Arabian Gulf, we’ve got a rail gun under development,” Sec. Ray Mabus said Thursday at the National Press Club. “We’ve got some gee-whiz scientific stuff going on. Part of my job, part of our job, is to get those from the lab to the warfighter quicker….That rail gun, we’ve been working on that since the eighties; we’re gonna put it on a ship and _test_ it next year,” with operational deployment sometime in the future. That timeline, Mabus said, is “way too long.”

Congress agrees. Just hours before, the House Armed Services Committee had passed its draft of the annual defense policy bill. Included: a provision that “directs the Secretary of the Navy” — that’s Mabus — “to develop a plan for fielding electric weapon systems” — meaning both lasers and rail guns, which rely on electric power rather than gunpowder — “and to provide a briefing on the results of this plan to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2016.”

“I like the legislation,” Center for Strategic and Budgetary Studies senior fellow Mark Gunzinger told me today. “It says, ‘let’s move to actually establishing programs to deliver these capabilities instead of keeping them in the S&T world.'” (Science and Technology is the Pentagon term of art for research not tied to a specific piece of equipment the military plans to buy). Currently, he said, “they’re all S&T projects, [and]we need to transition them into the acquisition process.”

“Within two to three years, we could actually have operational directed energy weapons [i.e. lasers] on ships, at our forward bases, even perhaps ones that would accompany our maneuver forces in the field — _if_ there was funding,” Gunzinger said. (A rail gun, he said, is more like 10 years away). At roughly $500 million a year across the defense Department for multiple S&T projects, “there’s been adequate funding for what they’ve done,” he said. “There’s been inadequate funding for _testing_ these technologies,” let alone fielding them.

So what’s the current schedule? For all their similarities, lasers and rail guns are very different technologies on very different timelines. A laser consumes electricity and shoots out light. An electromagnetic rail gun also consumes electricity, but it shoots out a physical object, in the Navy version a 23-pound metal slug. A rail gun round impacts much more forcefully than any laser beam: That allows it to take down tougher targets like reentry-hardened ballistic missile warheads, whose heat shields would simply soak up a laser blast. But the physical projectile requires much more energy to launch, plus all the recoil-absorbing apparatus of a conventional cannon.

As a result the rail gun is bigger, heavier, and not as far along. Physical wear and tear on the barrel remains a major concern for rail gun development, Rear Adm. Mathias Winter, the new Chief of Naval Research, said. The weapon’s been tested so far at low rates of fire, allowing time for the barrel to recover, he said, while defense against incoming missilesmight take 10 shots a minute for minutes at a time.

“We still need to do that science,” Winter told me in a sidebar conversation at April’s Sea-Air-Space conference. On the upside, he went on, thanks to advances in power and cooling, the physical size of the rail gun has come down “over fifty percent [since] about five, seven years ago.”

Next year, the Navy will put a prototype rail gun on a support ship, the Joint High Speed Vessel _Millinocket_. JHSVs are fast, light, unarmed transports, and as transports they have lots of room. The rail gun itself will go on the deck while electrical generators and other equipment will take up the cargo bay.

Meanwhile, the Navy already has a 30-kilowatt Laser Weapon System (LaWS), powerful enough to shoot down drones and disable fast attack boats, installed on a ship in the Persian Gulf. But, again, the ship in question is a transport, specifically the Afloat Forward Staging Base _Ponce_. The AFSB is a repurposed amphibious assault ship, designed to carry a Marine landing force with all its vehicles and gear, so again there’s plenty of room.

An aircraft carrier has similar leeway for lasers, especially the new _Ford_-class flattops. Most warships are packed much tighter. What’s more, with power-consuming systems like jammers, radars, and other sensors advancing more rapidly than power-generating systems, warships rarely have much spare electrical power, either.

The big exception is the DDG-1000 _Zumwalt_ class, the Navy’s new high-tech destroyer. A DDG-1000 actually turns its propellers electrically, rather than with a mechanical shaft attached to the engine, so it has plenty of power to spare when not moving at maximum speed.

In fact, the chief of Navy Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), Vice Adm. William Hilarides, hassaid publicly that his staff is studying installing a rail gun on the third DDG-1000 to be built. That would be the USS _Lyndon Johnson_, which is scheduled for delivery in 2018. (The first two ships are too far along). Because the ship has less spare room and weight than it has power, the rail gun will probably replace one of the destroyer’s two conventional 155 millimeter cannon.

The problem with putting a rail gun on the third DDG-1000 is that ship will also be the _last_ in its class. The Navy decided the DDG-1000s are too expensive and truncated the buy at three, preferring to resume production of its workhorse DDG-51 _Arleigh Burke_ destroyers. So the vast majority of the Navy’s destroyers are and will continue to be variants on a 1980s design, one packed tight by decades of upgrades.

“I don’t think a rail gun on the DDG-51 makes much sense,” said Bryan Clark, a retired Navy commander and former top aide to the Chief of Naval Operations, who now works with Gunzinger at CSBA. But lasers, he said, are entirely doable.

Next year, the Navy will buy its first Flight III _Arleigh Burke_ destroyer, a majorly modernized model with a powerful and power-hungry new radar. To run the radar and other high-tech systems, the Flight III is being built with a lot more capacity to generate electricity than previous versions of the DDG-51. By Clark’s calculations, a Flight III could run its radar at full power and simultaneously blaze away at incoming cruise missiles with a 400-kilowat laser. That’s 16 times as powerful as the prototype now in the Persian Gulf.

Even existing _Arleigh Burkes_ could manage a laser, Clark said, although they couldn’t fire continuously without turning down other power-hungry systems like the radar. As for physical space and weight, he said, the laser would not have to replace the destroyer’s deck gun. Because the bulk of the laser system can be taken apart into different modules and packed wherever they fit aboard the ship, as long as they’re appropriately wired together, he said, “the only piece that’s actually on the deck is the beam director.”

The Navy is now developing a laser they can fit on a destroyer. “It’s still S&T,” Rear Adm. Winter caveated, but the goal is to test-fire the weapon in fiscal 2017. The platform wouldn’t be an operational destroyer, but a retired one now in use as a test ship for self-defense systems. It’s not exactly representative of an _Arleigh Burke_, Winter acknowledged, but it’s a lot closer than the USS _Ponce_ or a JHSV.

But Congress‘s question remains unanswered, for now: When will the Navy get these weapons on actual warships?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Transhumanist

AMDR said:


> *Hill To Navy: Hurry Up On Rail Guns, Lasers*
> 
> WASHINGTON: Rail gun bullets move seven times the speed of sound. Laser beams fire at the speed of light. But Pentagon procurement? Not so fast. But with both Congress and theNavy Secretary expressing impatience, the Navy is accelerating its efforts to move bothlasers and rail guns from the test phase into the fleet.
> 
> “We’ve got a laser weapon now in the Arabian Gulf, we’ve got a rail gun under development,” Sec. Ray Mabus said Thursday at the National Press Club. “We’ve got some gee-whiz scientific stuff going on. Part of my job, part of our job, is to get those from the lab to the warfighter quicker….That rail gun, we’ve been working on that since the eighties; we’re gonna put it on a ship and _test_ it next year,” with operational deployment sometime in the future. That timeline, Mabus said, is “way too long.”
> 
> Congress agrees. Just hours before, the House Armed Services Committee had passed its draft of the annual defense policy bill. Included: a provision that “directs the Secretary of the Navy” — that’s Mabus — “to develop a plan for fielding electric weapon systems” — meaning both lasers and rail guns, which rely on electric power rather than gunpowder — “and to provide a briefing on the results of this plan to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2016.”
> 
> “I like the legislation,” Center for Strategic and Budgetary Studies senior fellow Mark Gunzinger told me today. “It says, ‘let’s move to actually establishing programs to deliver these capabilities instead of keeping them in the S&T world.'” (Science and Technology is the Pentagon term of art for research not tied to a specific piece of equipment the military plans to buy). Currently, he said, “they’re all S&T projects, [and]we need to transition them into the acquisition process.”
> 
> “Within two to three years, we could actually have operational directed energy weapons [i.e. lasers] on ships, at our forward bases, even perhaps ones that would accompany our maneuver forces in the field — _if_ there was funding,” Gunzinger said. (A rail gun, he said, is more like 10 years away). At roughly $500 million a year across the defense Department for multiple S&T projects, “there’s been adequate funding for what they’ve done,” he said. “There’s been inadequate funding for _testing_ these technologies,” let alone fielding them.
> 
> So what’s the current schedule? For all their similarities, lasers and rail guns are very different technologies on very different timelines. A laser consumes electricity and shoots out light. An electromagnetic rail gun also consumes electricity, but it shoots out a physical object, in the Navy version a 23-pound metal slug. A rail gun round impacts much more forcefully than any laser beam: That allows it to take down tougher targets like reentry-hardened ballistic missile warheads, whose heat shields would simply soak up a laser blast. But the physical projectile requires much more energy to launch, plus all the recoil-absorbing apparatus of a conventional cannon.
> 
> As a result the rail gun is bigger, heavier, and not as far along. Physical wear and tear on the barrel remains a major concern for rail gun development, Rear Adm. Mathias Winter, the new Chief of Naval Research, said. The weapon’s been tested so far at low rates of fire, allowing time for the barrel to recover, he said, while defense against incoming missilesmight take 10 shots a minute for minutes at a time.
> 
> “We still need to do that science,” Winter told me in a sidebar conversation at April’s Sea-Air-Space conference. On the upside, he went on, thanks to advances in power and cooling, the physical size of the rail gun has come down “over fifty percent [since] about five, seven years ago.”
> 
> Next year, the Navy will put a prototype rail gun on a support ship, the Joint High Speed Vessel _Millinocket_. JHSVs are fast, light, unarmed transports, and as transports they have lots of room. The rail gun itself will go on the deck while electrical generators and other equipment will take up the cargo bay.
> 
> Meanwhile, the Navy already has a 30-kilowatt Laser Weapon System (LaWS), powerful enough to shoot down drones and disable fast attack boats, installed on a ship in the Persian Gulf. But, again, the ship in question is a transport, specifically the Afloat Forward Staging Base _Ponce_. The AFSB is a repurposed amphibious assault ship, designed to carry a Marine landing force with all its vehicles and gear, so again there’s plenty of room.
> 
> An aircraft carrier has similar leeway for lasers, especially the new _Ford_-class flattops. Most warships are packed much tighter. What’s more, with power-consuming systems like jammers, radars, and other sensors advancing more rapidly than power-generating systems, warships rarely have much spare electrical power, either.
> 
> The big exception is the DDG-1000 _Zumwalt_ class, the Navy’s new high-tech destroyer. A DDG-1000 actually turns its propellers electrically, rather than with a mechanical shaft attached to the engine, so it has plenty of power to spare when not moving at maximum speed.
> 
> In fact, the chief of Navy Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), Vice Adm. William Hilarides, hassaid publicly that his staff is studying installing a rail gun on the third DDG-1000 to be built. That would be the USS _Lyndon Johnson_, which is scheduled for delivery in 2018. (The first two ships are too far along). Because the ship has less spare room and weight than it has power, the rail gun will probably replace one of the destroyer’s two conventional 155 millimeter cannon.
> 
> The problem with putting a rail gun on the third DDG-1000 is that ship will also be the _last_ in its class. The Navy decided the DDG-1000s are too expensive and truncated the buy at three, preferring to resume production of its workhorse DDG-51 _Arleigh Burke_ destroyers. So the vast majority of the Navy’s destroyers are and will continue to be variants on a 1980s design, one packed tight by decades of upgrades.
> 
> “I don’t think a rail gun on the DDG-51 makes much sense,” said Bryan Clark, a retired Navy commander and former top aide to the Chief of Naval Operations, who now works with Gunzinger at CSBA. But lasers, he said, are entirely doable.
> 
> Next year, the Navy will buy its first Flight III _Arleigh Burke_ destroyer, a majorly modernized model with a powerful and power-hungry new radar. To run the radar and other high-tech systems, the Flight III is being built with a lot more capacity to generate electricity than previous versions of the DDG-51. By Clark’s calculations, a Flight III could run its radar at full power and simultaneously blaze away at incoming cruise missiles with a 400-kilowat laser. That’s 16 times as powerful as the prototype now in the Persian Gulf.
> 
> Even existing _Arleigh Burkes_ could manage a laser, Clark said, although they couldn’t fire continuously without turning down other power-hungry systems like the radar. As for physical space and weight, he said, the laser would not have to replace the destroyer’s deck gun. Because the bulk of the laser system can be taken apart into different modules and packed wherever they fit aboard the ship, as long as they’re appropriately wired together, he said, “the only piece that’s actually on the deck is the beam director.”
> 
> The Navy is now developing a laser they can fit on a destroyer. “It’s still S&T,” Rear Adm. Winter caveated, but the goal is to test-fire the weapon in fiscal 2017. The platform wouldn’t be an operational destroyer, but a retired one now in use as a test ship for self-defense systems. It’s not exactly representative of an _Arleigh Burke_, Winter acknowledged, but it’s a lot closer than the USS _Ponce_ or a JHSV.
> 
> But Congress‘s question remains unanswered, for now: When will the Navy get these weapons on actual warships?



I'm generally of the view that the US Congress should sign the budget, provide oversight to keep the military honest and on track, but not dictate how fast the military works. When rushed projects fail. It's a theme repeated far too often across the world. Unfortunately people seem unable to learn the basic axiom, "history repeats itself."

Keep the progress steady, keep to your working schedule and do it right. Don't rush due to the impatience of politicians.















Sometimes the military is a bit too slow though, especially on the procurement side of things.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR



Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
2


----------



## Transhumanist

Decepticon, nice

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
4


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Transhumanist

*A C-130 Is Happy To Deliver A Huge Rocket Launcher Just About Anywhere*






This USAF Special Operations C-130 lands at an austere airstrip and a huge HIMARS Rocket Launcher rolls off its ramp. The C-130 takes back off and the rockets start flying. The way America’s air mobility capability can move big things to pretty much anywhere in the world on short notice is just mesmerizing.

This particular event was part of Exercise Emerald Warrior which has been underway for some time now.






The M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System is a highly mobile, multi-launch rocket system based on the Army’s Medium Tactical Vehicle truck frame. It can carry six guided or unguided rockets or one of the giant MGM-142 surface to surface missile.

Its wide array of weaponry can be configured with all types of warheads and fusing options, including cluster munitions dispensers and air burst rounds. In fact, it uses the same rocket pods and large selection of ammunition as the much larger M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System, although carrying just one pod instead of two at a time.











HIMARS weights 24,000 lbs, has a crew of three, and first saw combat in Afghanistan where it was deemed effective at providing rapid, short to long range (up to about 200 miles with the MGM-142) fire support. Because of its size and high-mobility, it could easily keep up with advancing units and as you can see in the video, it can be forward deployed and extracted rapidly via C-130.

Today, HIMARS serves with both the USMC and US Army along with the militaries of Singapore, UAE and Jordan.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Indus Falcon

*US Navy Cyber Launches Strategic Plan*
By Joe Gould
May 6, 2015





_Vice Adm. Jan Tighe assumes command of US Fleet Cyber Command and US 10th Fleet.(Photo: MC2 David R. Finley/US Navy)_

WASHINGTON — The commander of US Navy Cyber announced a five-year strategy, and like the Pentagon's cyber strategy announcement two weeks earlier, acknowledged the dire need for talented workers with the skills to fend off the nation's foes.

Vice Adm. Jan Tighe, who assumed command of Fleet Cyber Command/10th Fleet a month ago, said the US Navy is strengthening its ability to defend against intrusions, launch offensive cyber weapons and field 40 cyber mission teams — a task that is halfway done.

"You don't get there from here unless you invest in the capacity pieces," Tighe said of the Navy's offensive cyber ambitions, "and that's essentially what the cyber mission force has done; it's granting capacity."

The strategy re-conceptualizes the network as a "war-fighting platform," which in real terms means assuring awareness, control and security of its networks. The plan comes after Iran reportedly breached Navy networks in 2013, though Tighe said there had been no such breaches since.

"We've got to be able to prevent the intrusion in the first place, and if there is an intrusion, respond to prevent lateral movement inside our network," Tighe said. "How often are people trying? How successful are they? We don't necessarily have those measures looking back historically as I would like to have them."

The Navy also plans to deliver offensive cyber "effects," for use by regional combatant commanders and the national command authority, and those need to be matured, Tighe said. Asked what an offensive cyber weapon might do, she contrasted cyber weapons with missiles, saying cyber weapons can have unpredictable effects and require very unique skills to operate.

Threats ranging from criminal to nation-state adversaries have reached such a volume that the Navy is hard-pressed to rapidly sort significant attacks from what Tighe termed "background noise." The command has been investing in new defensive tools, though there continues to be a need for network sensors and other tools with the "analytic horsepower" to discriminate, prioritize and respond, she said.

The goal is for cyber sailors to understand their networks like a home field, detect adversary activity and respond. If an intrusion is significant enough, the command would assign a cyber protection team.

Key to achieving Navy's cyber goals is to staff the teams, intended to be made up of roughly 1,000 active, reserve and civilian workers. The Navy is midway through the effort, Tighe said, with plans to define the precise requirements for her cyber workforce, which in turn will inform recruiting and training efforts.

"One-third of my total workforce is civilian today, and it's an operational workforce," Tighe said. "I depend heavily — for maneuvering my networks, defending my networks — on a civilian population, which is different from other warfare areas, and it's something people have to get used to."

The process of building the teams began in 2013 and will stretch into 2016, as the Navy, with US Cyber Command, ensures the appropriate assignments, training and unit mission-readiness certifications. The pool includes cryptologists, intelligence specialists, information systems technicians and information dominance officers.

"It's not single skill set or work role, we have to bring them together as a team," Tighe said. "We're leveraging the skill set they come with and giving them specific training for the way the team is operating, or the new way, in some cases, the team is operating."

US Navy Cyber Launches Strategic Plan

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AMDR

*Raytheon’s SM-6 Moves from Low-Rate to Full-Rate Production*
SEAPOWER Magazine Online
TUCSON, Ariz. — Raytheon Co.’s Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) program has moved from low-rate to full-rate production, clearing the path for significantly increased production numbers and focus on further cost-reduction opportunities.






SM-6 is a surface-to-air supersonic missile capable of successfully engaging manned and unmanned aerial vehicles and fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft. It also defends against land-attack and anti-ship cruise missiles in flight.

“SM-6 is proven against a broad range of advanced threats, which makes it very valuable to Combatant Commanders who need and want that flexibility,” said Mike Campisi, Standard Missile-6 senior program director. “Full-rate production allows us to significantly ramp up production and deliver to the U.S. Navy the quantities it needs to further increase operational effectiveness.”

The first full-rate production round was delivered to the U.S. Navy from Raytheon’s state-of-the-art SM-6 and SM-3 all-up-round production facility at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Ala. Prior to final assembly, a majority of the SM-6’s section level assembly and testing development took place at Raytheon’s subsystem center factory in Tucson.

Raytheon has delivered more than 180 SM-6 missiles to the U.S. Navy, which deployed SM-6 for the first time in December 2013.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*U.S. Fleet Cyber Command Standing Up Cyber Mission Teams*
SEAPOWER Magazine Online
By RICHARD R. BURGESS, Managing Editor

ARLINGTON, Va. — The commander of Fleet Cyber Command and U.S. Tenth Fleet said her command is halfway through its build-up of more than 1,000 additional cyber warriors, whose role is to conduct cyber defense at a national level or in support of combatant commanders.

“We’re creating 40 teams,” said VADM Jan Tighe, speaking to reporters May 6 at the Pentagon, referring to the effort begun in 2013 to set up the Navy contribution to the U.S. Cyber Command’s Cyber Mission Force (CMF), which will include 133 teams from the various armed services.

In the U.S. Fleet Cyber Command/Tenth Fleet Strategic Plan 2015-2020, released May 6, Tighe said that the CMF teams will perform in three major sectors:


National Mission Forces will defend the nation by seeing adversary activity, blocking attacks and maneuvering to defeat the attacks.
Protection Forces defend the Defense Department’s information networks and, when authorized, other infrastructure.
Combat Mission Forces conduct military cyber operations in support of Combatant commands.
The role of Fleet Cyber Command in standing up the CMF teams is temporary, the document said, in that it eventually will be assumed by the new type command, Navy Information Dominance Forces. The goal for completing this transition is 2017. But Fleet Cyber Command will continue to operate or direct the employment of the Navy’s CMF teams in support of combatant commanders and fleet commanders.

Navy personnel, including Reservists, make up approximately two-thirds of the fleet cyber forces and include information warfare and information systems officers and enlisted cryptologic technicians, intelligence specialists and information systems technicians. Civilian personnel fill critical roles in the command.

One of the challenges Tighe faces is adding to and training the force while keeping maximum readiness to counter cyber threats.

“We can’t let our eye off the ball. The cyberspace domain is changing on a daily basis,” Tighe said, noting the challenge of keeping teams “in a constant state of readiness. Ceding cyber territory to an adversary is what we cannot allow to happen.”

Cyber warfare has become one of the low-density, high-demand capabilities in which demand is always going to outstrip the supply, she said.

Like any warfare in the electromagnetic spectrum, there is a danger in damaging one’s own capabilities while attacking an enemy’s.

“We don’t want our solutions to be worse than what the adversary was going to do,” Tighe said.

Navy cyber forces not only support the combatant commanders and the fleets but also, on a national level, the National Security Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*New Headset to Merge Night Vision, Thermal Imaging*
New Headset to Merge Night Vision, Thermal Imaging | Defense Tech





The U.S. subsidiary of British defense giant BAE Systems Plc is developing a new headset that merges night vision and thermal imaging.

Soldiers typically wear night-vision goggles to see their surroundings in the dark, but use thermal sights mounted on their rifles to engage targets. Soon, they’ll be able to use one device for both tasks, the company announced in a release on Monday.

“On today’s battlefield, this slower approach, which is often further hampered by heavy smoke or bad weather, compromises soldiers’ safety and can reduce mission effectiveness,” it states. “By integrating night vision and thermal targeting capabilities into one sight displayed on the soldiers’ goggles, BAE Systems’ new solution allows troops to more easily acquire targets and engage faster.”

The company said it worked with the U.S Army Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate to develop the technology. It beat several unnamed competitors for the contract, which is valued at up to $434 million over five years.

BAE has received an initial award of $35 million for the program, known as the Enhanced Night Vision Goggle III and Family of Weapon Sight-Individual. It plans to build the headsets at its new factory in Hudson, New Hampshire.

It wasn’t immediately clear how much the product will cost. Initial production of the night vision will begin this summer, while the weapon sight is currently in development and will enter production next year, according to Paul Roberts, a spokesman for BAE’s electronic systems unit.

The headset may be fielded to soldiers downrange beginning in late fiscal 2016 or early fiscal 2017, Roberts said in an e-mail.

The technology relies on a wireless video interface to transfer imagery from the sight to the goggle, according to the release. This feature offers a number of advantages, such as eliminating the need for aiming lasers, a shorter engagement time, increased maneuverability and extended target acquisition range, it stated.

The product is the latest example of companies coming to market with optical systems designed to stream more data and information to shooters.

Earlier this year, smart rifle-maker TrackingPoint Inc. teamed with Recon Instruments to sync imagery from its high-tech scope system directly into protective glasses.

The Austin, Texas-based company showed off the product on in January at a range north of Las Vegas as part of SHOT Show, the biggest small arms show in the world. The glasses weren’t functional and only displayed static images. But officials said the technology will be ready for release this year, possibly in the spring.

The smart-rifle scope includes a Linux-powered computer with sensors that collect imagery and ballistic data such as atmospheric conditions, cant, inclination, even the slight shift of the Earth’s rotation known as the Coriolis effect. Because the computer is wireless-enabled, information can be streamed to a laptop, smart phone or tablet computer for spotting or to share intelligence.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Army sets dates for new camo rollout*
Source: Army sets dates for new camo rollout






The Army expects combat uniforms made of the new Operational Camouflage Pattern to start hitting store shelves on July 1, an Army official has confirmed.

New coyote brown boots to complement the new uniform won't be available until August, the source said.

New recruits should start receiving them in their clothing bags by January, according to the source, who has knowledge of the roll-out but requested anonymity.

Army public affairs declined to discuss the roll-out plan at this time.

Army Times' source said the target wear-out date of old ACUs made of the unpopular Universal Camouflage Pattern, has been set for October 2018. That means, until then, soldiers in garrison could see a mix of uniforms including MultiCam, which has been issued to soldiers deploying to Afghanistan since 2010 and more recently to those in Iraq.

Soldiers have clamored for more details on the new camo, and related wear rules.

The Army has yet to issue guidance on whether new darker accessories (boots, T-shirt, belt) can be worn with old uniforms or vice versa.

In early April, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno told a virtual town hall that OCP would be available in late summer or early fall, and would be issued in clothing bags soon after.

Both MultiCam, and OCP feature a more traditional (non-digital) camo pattern of muted greens, light beige and dark brown.

The Army had said there would be desert and jungle variants of OCP, but this far there have been no details or imagery of potential variants.

The new ACUs are expected to have design changes as well:


The internal knee and elbow pads will be gone.

The upper-sleeve pocket will be an inch longer and zippered instead of Velcro.

The cargo pocket will lose its cord-and-barrel lock.

And the lower leg pocket flap will have a button rather than Velcro.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Indus Falcon

*US Navy Tests Raytheon’s ISR Technologies aboard M80 Stiletto*
06.05.2015




_US Navy Tests Raytheon’s ISR Technologies aboard M80 Stiletto _

*The U.S. Navy has successfully tested Raytheon’s advanced intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) technologies aboard the experimental ship known as the M80 Stiletto, while the vessel was underway. *

The test took place during operations at Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story, Virginia.

The combined technology was created by combining two, proven Raytheon technologies: the Persistent Surveillance System Cross Domain Solution (PSS CDS) and Intersect™ Sentry. The successful test was conducted as part of the Stiletto Maritime Technology Demonstration Program.

PSS CDS receives critical data from multiple sensors and offers two-way sharing of information and commands across both classified and unclassified domains. Intersect™ Sentry is an automation and analysis tool that creates alerts from a variety of intelligence, sensor and reconnaissance data streams according to parameters defined by the user. Both systems have been successfully demonstrated in support of joint and coalition maritime operations.

During the Navy demonstration, Intersect™ Sentry automatically analyzed data streams and sent alerts to the PSS CDS for simultaneous display across various networks, creating a common operating picture for different users operating at multiple classification levels.

The recent capability demonstration, designated CD 15-2, was one of a series sponsored by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research & Engineering. The Stiletto Maritime Demonstration Program and the Stiletto vessel are operated by the U.S. Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division.

_US Navy Tests Raytheon’s ISR Technologies aboard M80 Stiletto | Naval Today_

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Transhumanist

*USG Shows Off its Optionally-Manned Proteus Mini-Submarine*






Huntington Ingalls’ Undersea Solutions Group showed off its Proteus mini submarine at the Navy League’s 2015 Sea-Air-Space Exposition.

The potent-looking vessel can serve as a unmanned underwater vehicle or a manned swimmer-delivery system.
The battery-powered Proteus can carry six combat swimmers 350 to 700 nautical miles, depending on the type of battery used, according to USG officials.






The wet sub measures 310 inches x 63.5 inches x 64 inches and weighs 8,240 pounds.

Proteus has a top speed of 10 knots. Undersea Solutions Group is the prime, working with Battelle and Bluefin Robotics on Proteus.











From USG Shows Off its Optionally-Manned Proteus Mini-Submarine | Defense Tech

===

Looks like a nice replacement from the SDV:

SEAL Delivery Vehicle

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## AMDR

*Congress Adds $60 Million to Navy Submarine Upgrades*
Congress Adds $60 Million to Navy Submarine Upgrades | Defense Tech

Lawmakers have added $60 million toward submarine upgrades to include unmanned aerial vehicles, torpedo enhancements and combat systems modernization.

The funding initiative, which moved the $60 million from Navy destroyer modernization over to submarine research and development, was put in place during the 2016 defense bill mark up by Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee.

“The undersea domain has been an area of historical US advantage, from World War II to the Cold War. To ensure our dominance in the years ahead, we must begin investing in technologies that hold the potential to sustain American undersea power. As our potential competitors make significant investments in the undersea realm, the U.S. must continue researching and developing the undersea technologies of the future,” Forbes said.

The R&D submarine funding is specifically earmarked for particular projects, including the development and deployment of undersea underwater and aerial unmanned vehicles.

One of the programs is called Fleet Modular Autonomous Unmanned Vehicle — a rapid development program to provide the Navy with the capability to safely ship, stow, and deploy an autonomous undersea vehicle with lithium batteries from a submarine torpedo tube. This technology also provides the capability to download mission data without physically docking to the submarine, Congressional sources said.

In addition, the dollars are allocated toward engineering submarine-launched Unmanned Aerial Systems also designed to deploy from a submarine torpedo tube for over-the-horizon targeting.

Additional funding for this effort will accelerate the development of a militarized antenna as well as an electronic warfare and cyber payload for the platform.

About $5.5 million of the funding is slated for hardware and software upgrades to the MK48 Heavyweight Torpedo weapons system. Additional torpedo upgrades include an initiative called the Torpedo Advanced Processor Build designed to improve computer processing speeds for the weapon and improve its probability of destroying targets. These improvements impact the weapon’s navigation system, target motion analysis and improved payload ballistics, Congressional officials explained.

Other areas of undersea innovation specified by the funding initiative are referred to as submarine combat and weapons control modernization efforts. This program will develop commercial off-the-shelf based software and hardware upgrades to integrate improved weapons control technologies for several submarine classes. This includes a technology which enables a torpedo to prepare to fire in less than one minute.

Called “attack in a minute,” this new technology hinges upon new software prototypes and designs, officials explained.

The stepped up funding for submarine technology is not surprising in light of the increased attention to the pace of global undersea modernization. Russia and China, in particular, are known to be making great strides when it comes to undersea technologies.

A recent study said emerging submarine detection technologies, computer processing power and platforms such as underwater drones could quickly erode the U.S. military’s global undersea dominance and ability to operate in high-threat areas such as locations near enemy coastlines.

The U.S. military relies upon submarines and undersea technological superiority for critical underwater intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance missions, which place assets near the surface fleet or coastline of a potential adversary.

In coming years, the technological margin of difference separating the U.S from potential rivals is expected to get much smaller, requiring the U.S. the re-think the role of manned submarines and prioritize innovation in the realm of undersea warfare, according to a January report by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments titled “The Emerging Era in Undersea Warfare.”

*First female F-35 pilot begins training*
First female F-35 pilot begins training > U.S. Air Force > Article Display

*EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. (AFNS) -- *The Department of Defense welcomed its first female F-35 Lightning II pilot here May 5.

Lt. Col. Christine Mau, the 33rd Fighter Wing Operations Group deputy commander, completed her first training flight in the single-seat fifth-generation fighter following 14 virtual training missions in the full mission simulator at the F-35 Academic Training Center.

"It wasn't until I was taxiing to the runway that it really struck me that I was on my own in the jet," said Mau, formerly an F-15E Strike Eagle pilot. "I had a chase aircraft, but there was no weapons system officer or instructor pilot sitting behind me, and no one in my ear like in simulators."

And with that, like the other 87 F-35A pilots trained over the last four years, Mau thundered down the runway and was airborne as the first woman in the Air Force's premier fighter.

"It felt great to get airborne. The jet flies like a dream, and seeing the systems interact is impressive. Flying with the Helmet Mounted Display (System) takes some adjusting, but it's an easy adjustment," Mau said. "The training missions in the simulator prepare you very well, so you're ready for that flight."

The initial flight in the F-35 training syllabus is designed to orient pilots with the physical aspects of flying the F-35 compared to other fighters they've flown previously, such as the F-15E Strike Eagle, F-15C Eagle, F-16 Falcon, A-10 Warthog or F-22 Raptor.

Women have served in combat aviation roles in those and other aircraft for more than 20 years.

Mau acknowledged that although she may be the first female in the F-35 program, her gender has no bearing on her performance as a fighter pilot. She joked that the only difference between her and her fellow F-35 pilots is the size of her G-suit and facemask -- they are both extra small.

"Flying is a great equalizer," Mau said. "The plane doesn't know or care about your gender as a pilot, nor do the ground troops who need your support. You just have to perform. That's all anyone cares about when you're up there -- that you can do your job, and that you do it exceptionally well."

Mau's combat experience and technical prowess in the cockpit were the primary draws for her selection to her position with the 33rd OG.

"Lt. Col. Mau brings a valuable level of combat and operational knowledge to our team," said Col. Todd Canterbury, the 33rd FW commander. "We're nearly a year out from declaring Initial Operational Capability with the F-35. We need battle-tested pilots to help us put the F-35A through its paces and ensure we have a trained and ready force of F-35 pilots to feed into our combat air forces."

Canterbury witnessed Mau's leadership and combat effectiveness first hand when they were both deployed to Afghanistan in 2011, where she was part of another important milestone for women in the combat aviation community.

While with the 389th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron, Mau was part of the first all-female combat sortie. The combat mission provided air support to coalition and Afghan forces in the Kunar Valley, Afghanistan. From the pilots and weapons system officers of the two F-15E jets to the mission planners and maintainers, the entire mission was carried out entirely by women.

"As a service, we need to attract the most innovative and skillful Airmen possible for one reason -- it makes us more effective," Canterbury said. "The broader the net that we cast into the talent pool, coupled with a laser focus on performance, ensures we have the best Airmen in place to carry out the mission. Performance is key, and it's the standard we hold all of our Airmen to in the Air Force."

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Chanakya's_Chant

@AMDR As Boeing has brought forward C-17's production line closure - are there any follow-on heavy airlifter projects on the cards to fulfill USAF's future requirements?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

Chanakya's_Chant said:


> @AMDR As Boeing has brought forward C-17's production line closure - are there any follow-on heavy airlifter projects on the cards to fulfill USAF's future requirements?


 Yes, there are preparations being made for C(X), which will replace the C17 and C130. 

There was a good article on it a couple years ago, which I will quote.Air Force Seeks Jets Beyond C-17 and Even JSF | Military.com

"While the sixth generation fighter and CX cargo plane programs are considered important to the Air Force's future, service officials say the uncertain budget environment raises questions about how, or if, these programs will be funded.Nevertheless, many of the Air Force's roughly 222 C-17s are expected to approach the end of service in the 2030s, the large C-5 cargo planes are slated to remain operational through 2040, and the last Joint Strike Fighter is slated to enter service in 2037, service officials said."

The sixth-gen FA-18E/F replacement and C(X) could be inducted around the same time (2030), which could be interesting because two expensive programs at the same time will suck up a lot of budget money . Right now we don't even have a concept image of what C(X) could look like.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## IrbiS

*VF-51 Screaming Eagles F-4N Phantom intercepts a new Libyan AF Tupolev Tu-22 Blinder, ca.April 1977*
*



*

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Transhumanist



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

all about them JDAMs 




























F-35 w/ GBU-32

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

Like father, like son (UH-1Y)

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
4


----------



## AMDR



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Indus Falcon

*Kongsberg, Raytheon NSM teaming targets USN's future frigate programme*
*Grace Jean, Washington, DC* - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
07 May 2015




_Kongsberg's Naval Strike Missile is fired from the USN's LCS USS Coronado (LCS 4) in September 2014 on the Point Mugu sea test range, southern California. Kongsberg and Raytheon have signed a teaming agreement to offer NSM to potential customers including the USN's frigate programme. Source: US Navy_

*Key Points*

The Naval Strike Missile expected to be offered as an anti-ship weapon for the frigate and LCS programmes
Raytheon's global supply chain and US-based missile production line could help lower NSM costs
With the US Navy (USN) firming up its future frigate acquisition approach, Kongsberg Defence Systems and Raytheon Missile Systems see their recent teaming on Norway's Naval Strike Missile (NSM) as providing an anti-ship missile option to meet the programme's over-the-horizon lethality requirement. The two industry partners also believe that the offering's price point will be 'cost competitive'.

The teaming agreement between Kongsberg and Raytheon is designed to enable the two companies to offer NSM to potential customers in the United States and elsewhere. Company officials said that the joint venture's first US business opportunity is via the USN's frigate (FF) programme, under which acquisitions are planned to begin in fiscal year 2019 (FY 2019).

"The timing for this is optimal," Thomas Bussing, vice-president of Raytheon advanced missile systems, told reporters during an April briefing on the agreement at Kongsberg's Alexandria, Virginia, office. "The USN is looking for innovative low-cost solutions for anti-surface warfare weapons, anti-ship weapons. This teaming relationship allows us to bring a very cost-effective [weapon] to the marketplace at this particular time."

NSM is a Kongsberg-developed, stealthy surface-to-surface guided weapon that is currently operational on board the Royal Norwegian Navy's (RNoN's) corvettes and frigates. With a range of 200 km, the canister-launched sea-skimming missile is able to discriminate targets autonomously, as well as employing evasive manoeuvres to defeat close-in shipboard defensive systems.

Poland also has acquired the missile for a mobile coastal defence system.

Kongsberg and Raytheon officials said that they hope to make inroads into the USN's small surface combatant programme, a 52-ship class comprising two Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) variants and a future upgraded flight 1 vessel (which in early 2015 was re-designated as a frigate). The frigate is intended as a 20-vessel programme to be based on a modified design from the current LCS programme. The navy is acquiring 32 LCSs, currently split between two variants, the Freedom steel monohull and the Independence aluminium trimaran design.

At the annual Navy League Sea-Air-Space symposium in April, USN's frigate programme manager Captain Dan Brintzinghoffer told reporters that he anticipates the navy selecting only a single missile system that would be fitted onto the vessel - even if the service opts to continue procuring two different ship variants. Whichever missile is selected could also be retrofitted onto LCS.

"It'll be a defining of the requirement - how far, how big, how long, what type of targeting capability it has - and then figuring out which missile meets that requirement, either through competitions that have already occurred, or competitions that will occur," said Capt Brintzinghoffer. "We'll end up putting [one missile] on both. I don't see a scenario playing out where the missile would be different on the ships."

For the USN's small surface combatants, Kongsberg officials told _IHS Jane's_ in April that they would employ the same launcher that they use to deploy the weapon from the RNoN's corvettes and frigates. "If the US should select NSM, it's the same canister concept," said Harald Annestad, president of Kongsberg Defence Systems. "We'll be using the mission modules there."

He added that Kongsberg has a 'ready design' to incorporate NSM into the LCS mission modules, which consist of 20-foot ISO shipping containers housing weapon systems that plug directly into the vessel's mission bay area. _IHS Jane's_ previously reported that the company had undertaken work to design a six-round NSM launcher to fit inside the LCS mission module (a four-round NSM launcher operates on board the Norwegian ships). The mission module would reside in the mission bay belowdecks while the NSM canister launcher would be placed topside on the deck and integrated with the ship via a mission control suite.

"We wouldn't look to have ... the vessel radically modified to include vertical cells," Bussing noted.

Annestad added, "NSM is already integrated to the Aegis system on the Norwegian frigates, and we're already working with Raytheon on system integration on the air warfare destroyers in Australia, so we have our hands very well around integrating NSM into [the] LCS' combat system."

Raytheon's expertise in integrating a variety of missiles into ships and submarines offers potential advantages for the partnership should NSM be selected for any USN platforms, officials said. "We've done this routinely with everything from Griffins to Tomahawks to a variety of other weapons that are launched from surface ships," said Bussing. "We do ESSM [Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile], RAM [Rolling Airframe Missile], SM-6, SM-3. Each of these have different launchers, different ways in which they're integrated into the machine control systems, into the CICs [combat information centres]."

NSM would be no different, Bussing argued. "This one is fairly straightforward, especially in the fact you can place it on the deck - not much modification to the ship. [It's] a matter of running power and communications to it and up to the CIC, and incorporating it into the CIC such that it's integrated with the fire-control systems on the ship."

Bussing also revealed to _IHS Jane's_ that Raytheon officials had briefed the USN's chief of naval operations and his staff on NSM as part of a broader discussion on advanced missiles during a March visit to the company's Arizona facilities. He added, "It hits a need that they fundamentally have."

Officials from both companies acknowledged that cost will play a large role in any USN decisions, and emphasised that NSM is an affordable solution.

"On production, with the teaming [agreement] we will work closely with Raytheon to ensure that we get the costs down as far as possible, both combining purchases [and] working on similar components, using the bigger buying power that Raytheon has," Annestad told _IHS Jane's_ .

While Kongsberg officials declined to disclose the cost of the missile, they said that the system compares favourably to competitors in terms of price per missile.

While some systems require multiple missiles to penetrate ship air defences and hit the same target, NSM's cost effectiveness derives from its ability to engage a target in the end phase by manoeuvring to avoid close-in weapon systems.

In September 2014 on the Point Mugu sea test range off southern California, Kongsberg conducted an NSM demonstration on board an Independence variant LCS, USS _Coronado_ (LCS 4). Fired from the flight deck, the missile struck a mobile sea target 100 n miles away.



_The US Navy's ex-USS Ogden (LPD 5) is hit by a Naval Strike Missile (NSM) fired from the Royal Norwegian Navy frigate HNoMS Fridtjof Nansen (F 310) during a sinking exercise at the 'RIMPAC 2014' exercise. (US Navy)_

NSM's titanium warhead weighs around 250 lb but officials classify it as a 500-lb class warhead because of the effects that it has against targets, officials told reporters. In two previous demonstrations, including a live-fire shot at an ex-USN ship during the 2014 'Rim of the Pacific' exercise, the NSM was able to hit the targets with lethal accuracy. Kongsberg officials said that around eight to 12 NSMs would fit on board the LCS variants, depending upon the weight capacity of each vessel.

Raytheon's Bussing said that NSM is comparable in cost to a Block IV Tomahawk missile. "I would say they're the same price point, maybe a little more expensive than Block IV," he said. However, he noted that Tomahawk is intended for "very long-range applications" and so is "not intended to survive the same way against the ship" as NSM.

According to the USN, the unit price for 214 Block IV Tomahawk missiles acquired in FY 2015 was USD1.074 million each. In its FY 2016 budget submission, DoD is requesting USD210 million to acquire a final batch of 100 Block IV Tomahawk missiles.

Officials from both Raytheon and Kongsberg said that because NSM is operational and is being manufactured already in Norway, the USN would not have to pay non-recurring engineering and development costs. As for where the missile would be built if the United States or another customer placed orders, they said the teaming agreement allows for flexibility.

"If a customer comes in with a fairly low volume, it's not cost effective to pick up a new production line. So we will co-operate on technical stuff and on smaller volumes. That will be an existing production line," said Annestad, "but a bigger quantity by [the] USN makes it cost effective to set up a parallel production line in the United States. The agreement is flexible on what makes sense for the two companies and for the customer."

Kongsberg would be able to reduce NSM costs by leveraging Raytheon's worldwide supply chain, officials said. "Raytheon has a huge supply chain. Many of the parts are made in the United States. Just through common buys, we can reduce costs by virtue of ... our own supply chain network," said Bussing.

Raytheon's own manufacturing methods could also help drive out costs, along with swapping out components for less expensive ones, Bussing added. Making use of existing missile production lines at its Arizona-based facility also represents a potential cost saving. "Typically on a line, we make multiple missiles. That allows you to keep the group of individuals that are responsible for manufacturing those things to a minimum, because there's no down time. They move from one system to another so the line is always hot," he said.

In addition to pursuing options with the USN, the team is also marketing the missile concurrently to other potential customers. It has seen success in Malaysia, where NSM was selected for the Royal Malaysian Navy's Gowind 2500-design Second Generation Patrol Vessel - Littoral Combat Ship (SGPV-LCS).

Kongsberg officials see a growing international market, with navies seeking to offset growing threats with new equipment.

"If you look at it, NSM is at the start of its lifetime ... and it's meeting the threats today," Annestad said, "but it also has the capacity to take on new technology to meet the threats in 2025, 2030. I think that's also a big advantage."

Kongsberg, Raytheon NSM teaming targets USN's future frigate programme - IHS Jane's 360

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Falcon

*Kongsberg NSM*








The Naval Strike Missile (NSM) is a fifth generation high subsonic, anti-ship / land attack cruise missile developed by Kongsberg Defence Systems.





The Naval Strike Missile (NSM) is used against sea and land-based targets in littoral and open sea environments. Image courtesy of Pibwl.





A rear-side view of the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) on display at a defence exhibition.





The Naval Strike Missile (NSM) is installed on Nansen Class frigates and Skjold Class missile fast patrol boats of the Royal Norwegian Navy. Image courtesy of George Hutchinson.

 http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/naval-strike-missile-nsm/






Note: I had to edit the PDF file, to reduce it's size, so that it could be uploaded.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

*Navy Christens Sixth Joint High Speed Vessel*
Navy Christens Sixth Joint High Speed Vessel - USNI News






The Navy christened the Joint High Speed Vessel _Brunswick_ (JHSV-6) on Saturday in Mobile, Ala., marking a milestone for the sixth craft in a class still exploring its full potential.

Shipbuilder Austal USA has three JHSVs under construction in its Mobile yard and expects to launch _Brunswic _by the end of the month.

“_Brunswick_ is the result of the successful industry/[Department of Defense] partnership that has developed between Austal USA, Military Sealift Command and the Navy,” Craig Perciavalle, president of Austal USA, said in a company news release.
“We’re very excited about how stable and mature the JHSV program has become as we prepare JHSV-6 for trials and delivery in the fall.”

Originally designed for intratheater lift and humanitarian assistance/disaster relief (HADR) support, the ship class has already found new roles for itself, including filling in the gap in the counter-narcotics and counter-trafficking mission in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific as the Oliver Hazard Perry-class of frigates (FFG-7) decommission.

The Navy also announced last month that the recently delivered USNS _Trenton _(JHSV-5)will host the first at-sea test of the Navy’s electromagnetic railgun next year.

The Navy stood up an Auxiliary Platforms and Payloads Council to explore the full potential of the JHSV class and others, including the Large Medium-Speed Roll-on/Roll-off Ship (LMSR), Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) and T-AKE dry cargo ship.

“The fast-growing JHSV fleet has proven to be flexible in ways we didn’t even consider when this program first started,” Perciavalle said in the news release.

_Brunswick_ is named after the seaport city in southern Georgia and is the fourth Navy ship to bear that name. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus spoke at the christening ceremony and chose his office manager and scheduler, Alma Booterbaugh, to serve as the ship sponsor. Booterbaugh joined the office of the secretary of the Navy in 1999 and has worked for the federal government for more than 30 years, according to Austal.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Falcon

@waz Could we split this thread into two seprate threads? One for pics, and the other for news?


----------



## Indus Falcon

*Deal Will Bring Selex Infrared Tech to US*
By Tom Kington 12:43 p.m. EDT May 11, 2015




_A consortium led by Selex has developed the passive infrared airborne tracking equipment (PIRATE) used on the Eurofighter Typhoon.(Photo: Selex)_



ROME — As the market grows for infrared search and track (IRST) sensors that can function like radars on fighters, one American firm has signed a deal with a European counterpart that will bring to the US infrared technologies already honed on the Eurofighter.

Northrop Grumman has launched a partnership with Italian firm Selex ES under which Selex's infrared know-how will enter the US and possibly be turned around for export products for Foreign Military Sales customers.

"Selex has partnered with Northrop Grumman to bring IRST to the US," a Northrop Grumman spokeswoman told Defense News, adding that further details on the applications for new IRST products would be announced in May.

The deal pushes into the US market the technology Selex has worked on for the Eurofighter's PIRATE (passive infrared airborne tracking equipment) sensor, for the European Neuron UCAV technology demonstrator, and, most recently, for Sweden's Gripens.

As passive sensors, IRST systems cannot be jammed like radar, nor do they give away the position of the emitter, like radar. They are also a useful complement to radar when it comes to tracking aircraft with a low radar cross-section. Even if the target aircraft are nearly invisible to radar, they will generate heat thanks to air friction, leaving an infrared signature.

IRST can be used for air-to-air, air-to-ground and land-based tracking, although humidity and clouds can interfere with results, unlike radar.

One US analyst said that IRST had not received much attention from the Pentagon over the past few decades.

"The US has lagged on development after getting a strong start in the 1980s when Lockheed Martin put a system on F-14s," said David Rockwell, senior electronics analyst at the Teal Group. "The US dropped back for 20 years, but IRST is potentially a huge market," he added.

"There was a requirement for IRST on the F-22 but the program was cut due to lack of funding, while the IR sensor that Northrop Grumman has put on the F-35 is 360 degrees without an equivalent long-range search-and-track sensor," he said.

In February, Lockheed unveiled its Legion IRST pod, which it claimed will bring long-range infrared tracking to fourth-generation aircraft like the US Air Force's F-15 and F-16 fighters.

The 500-pound pod carries the firm's IRST21 sensor, which was approved for low-rate initial production on the Navy's F/A-18 Super Hornet in January.

An Air Force request for proposals is expected for an IRST to mount on the F-15C, with a 2018 delivery date.

A Lockheed official has said the pod-to-pod communication allowed by its Legion pod could also facilitate communication between newer and older fighters.

"If they enter the market, Northrop Grumman and Selex could benefit if the US wants competition, but today Lockheed has the market sewn up. However, it is unlikely Northrop will benefit from the same combination of market factors — including immediate needs after 9/11 — that made Litening successful in the US," he added.

On the other hand, Rockwell said there could be a large market for adding pods to existing fighters around the world, just as US firms are now marketing active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar upgrades for fighters.

Northrop has already had success by teaming with Israel's Rafael to market its Litening targeting pod. It also has a track record with Selex. The Italian firm, which is a unit of Finmeccanica, has long supplied components for Northrop Grumman's directional infrared countermeasure system.

Selex has meanwhile worked on the PIRATE air-to-air sensor for the Eurofighter, which can act as an IR camera or a passive radar operating in the 8-12 micrometers IR band.

Other contracts have followed. The firm built an air-to-ground IRST sensor for the European Neuron UCAV and a sensor for the Turkish Navy in 2012. The Italian Navy has requested a multiheaded version of an IRST for its new multifunctional vessels. A version is already on board Italy's Cavour carrier.

Selex has used the testing of its sensors to improve the algorithms that ensure the IRST can exclude false signals and identify vehicle or vessel types tracked.

This month, Saab awarded Selex a production contract to supply 60 Skyward-G IRST systems for its Gripen E fleet, and Selex is also expected to supply the system to go on board Brazil's Gripens.

Selex is also supplying its AESA radar, identification-friend-or-foe and decoy systems to the Gripen, making it responsible for 30 percent of the aircraft's avionics.

Meanwhile, the firm is waiting for an order to upgrade the PIRATE sensor on Eurofighters.

The Skyward system, which weighs 40 kilograms and consumes about 380 kilowatts of power, projects images onto the plane's head up display.

Likely to interest Northrop is Selex's parallel work on a pod version for use on existing aircraft.

Deal Will Bring Selex Infrared Tech to US

@Desertfalcon

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Falcon

*Air Force: SpaceX certification expected next month*
By Brian Everstine, 
May 11, 2015


The Air Force expects to certify SpaceX no later than June to compete for space launches, under an updated agreement that streamlines the certification process

Once certified, SpaceX, with its Falcon 9 launch vehicle, can compete for national security space launches against United Launch Alliance, the Boeing-Lockheed Martin team that currently has a monopoly on Air Force launches.

The new agreement, announced May 8 by Air Force Space Command, clarifies that the commander of the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center can certify SpaceX as long as the company has demonstrated its ability to design, produce, qualify and deliver the launch system. SpaceX must be able to provide future mission assurance support required to deliver national security payloads to specific orbits on schedule.

"I am very pleased with all we have accomplished," SMC Commander Lt. Gen. Sam Greaves said in a news release. "The updated [agreement] captures important lessons learned along the way about the process and allows the flexibility to certify SpaceX when ready, while maintaining our 'laser focus on mission success.' "

Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James told Congress on April 28 that she is confident the vehicle will be certified and be able to compete for two launches this year, along with seven more in 2016 and 2017. The company, founded by PayPal founder Elon Musk, has already carried multiple payloads for NASA.

SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell said in a statement the new agreement is welcomed.

"We look forward to completing the certification process and competing for EELV [evolved expendable launch vehicle] missions," Shotwell said.

The move comes as the Air Force faces increasing pressure to open up its launches to new entrants, to break the monopoly that ULA has on the launches and ULA's reliance on a Russian-made rocket engine in its vehicles.

Air Force: SpaceX certification expected next month

@Desertfalcon

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*Navy Hornets Mock-Dogfight With Malaysian Flankers In South China Sea*







With Malaysia operating Russian and U.S. made designs alongside one another, including the thrust vectoring Su-30MKM Flanker, U.S. fighter crews love to get a chance to spar with their increasingly close Asian ally. This is exactly what the Carl Vinson Strike Group did Sunday while churning through the strategic South China Sea.






During the dissimilar air combat training (DACT) event, Carrier Air Wing 17’s Hornets and Super Hornets went to war with and against Malaysian Su-30sMKMs, MiG29Ns, and their own F/A-18Ds. Engagements included everything from 1 vs 1 basic fighter maneuvers (BFM) to elaborate combat scenarios featuring large groups of aircraft. According to the Navy, Malaysia’s Su-30MKMs were especially dynamic, showcasing “maneuvering speeds estimated at close to Mach 1, making training aggressive and realistic.”

Cmdr. Dwayne Ducommun, a key operations officer for the Carrier Strike Group, described why this type of training is ideal:

_“Exercises like this validate our training and allows us to see what our aircraft can do... When you’re flying the same aircraft that you are fighting or training against, it comes down to the skill of the pilot, but when you have aircraft that aren’t the same, both technology and the skill of the pilot are tested.”_






Air combat was not the only training event that took place during the _Carl Vinson_’s visit off of Malaysia. A photo exercise also took place, shooting different formations of U.S. Navy and Malaysian aircraft flying together, as well as the incredible shots in this piece_._

There was also a 5 inch gun exercise between a Malaysian Navy frigate and U.S. Navy surface combatants assigned to the Carrier Strike Group, as well as an expendable maneuverable acoustic training target (EMATT) exercise.






The Mk.39 EMATT is used to train aerial and surface anti-submarine assets to search, track and engage submarines by emulating their magnetic and acoustic signature. The torpedo-like device can be programmed to go through a series of dynamic maneuvers, just as an enemy submarine would that is trying to avoid detection, and it can even react autonomously on the spot to different types of sonar pings.

The EMATT exercise is especially useful for training with regional allies as it allows both forces to better understand the each other’s sub-hunting capabilities and how to work as a team in what is a complex and dire (in real combat) operation.






The 5 inch gun live fire drill was held between the Malaysian Frigate KD Lekir (FSG 26) and the Carrier Strike Group’s Cruisers and Destroyers, which include the USS Bunker Hill (CG-52) and the USS Gridley (DDG-101). The firing of deck guns on a regular basis has become a new priority in the US Navy, and doing so with our allies gives American crews the chance to improve their skills and measure their abilities against a foreign counterparts.

America and Malaysia have grown closer in recent years, with many American fighter units taking advantage of the country’s diverse fighter fleet and their enthusiasm for multi-national training. This training is quite valuable, especially for U.S. forces, as China’s most advanced operational fighter mirrors the capabilities, at least to a certain degree, of their Su-30MKMs.

And China is definitely what is on regional players and American military planner’s minds as the country is active building an array of islands throughout the South China Sea, which it most likely will militarize heavy. Additionally, their naval capability is rapidly expanding, with acarrier group of their own now and a submarine fleet that is eclipsing that of the U.S. in numbers.

With all this in mind, China’s potential play to control the air and sea around one of the world’s most strategic waterways is seen as unacceptable by many in the international community, including the U.S.. As a result, American forces have been making a stronger presence and tightened ties with foreign powers in the neighborhood. And there is no better way to enforce freedom of navigation on the high seas than by sailing a Carrier Strike Group right through the area and conducting war games with less powerful military powers that China seeks to overshadow by the very weight of their increasing military might alone.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## AMDR



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Transhumanist

AMDR said:


> View attachment 220920



That's not the total size of the US Navy Air Arm, is it, just the embarked squadrons? I'm not seeing any VX designation - the Air Test and Evaluation Squadrons:

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## F-22Raptor

Air & Missile Defense Radar Sails through Critical Design Review

TEWKSBURY, Mass. — The U.S. Navy and Raytheon Co. have completed the AN/SPY-6(V) Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) critical design review, the company announced in a May 12 release. The outcome confirms Raytheon’s design and technologies as mature, producible and low risk; on track to meet all radar performance requirements, on schedule and within cost.

The review assessed all technical aspects of the program, from hardware specifications, software development, risk mitigation and producibility analysis, to program management, test and evaluation schedules, and cost assessments. The review concluded with Navy stakeholders impressed with the radar’s progress to date and confident in the program’s path forward to on-time delivery.

“This successful milestone is the culmination of our team’s unwavering focus on continuous technology maturity, risk mitigation and cost reduction throughout all phases of development,” said Raytheon’s Kevin Peppe, vice president of Integrated Defense Systems’ Seapower Capability Systems business area. “With customer validation in hand, we will now advance production, driving toward the ultimate – and timely – delivery of this highly capable and much-needed integrated air and missile defense radar capability to the DDG 51 Flight III destroyer.”

The Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase of the program continues and is now more than 40 percent complete. Raytheon attributes its exemplary performance to the implementation of an Agile development and management methodology for AMDR. This approach supports the ongoing hardware and software design verification, technology maturity, producibility, and risk-reduction imperatives – yielding benefits across all program elements in productivity, quality and affordability.

All aspects of the AMDR EMD phase are progressing according to plan, from software development to pilot array testing. The first Engineering Development Model production-representative Radar Modular Assembly is currently undergoing testing in the risk-reduction pilot array at the company’s Near Field Range in Sudbury, Mass.

The team has also delivered the first external combat system interface definition language increment to the Combat System Integration Working Group – the Government-industry team comprised of Raytheon, Navy and Lockheed Martin experts that is focused on AMDR integration with the DDG 51 Flight III’s AEGIS combat system.

SEAPOWER Magazine Online

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

2 *ALQ-218s* on wingtips
3 *ALQ-99s*
2* AGM-88s*
2 *AIM-120s*
2 *EFTs*

Wow

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Transhumanist

AMDR said:


> View attachment 221099
> 
> 2 *ALQ-218s* on wingtips
> 3 *ALQ-99s*
> 2* AGM-88s*
> 2 *AIM-120s*
> 2 *EFTs*
> 
> Wow



 Navy stealth. Why use expensive and hard to maintain RAM when you can just blind every sensor, including your own (Yup, jammers will do that, even to AESA radars), with ECM countermeasures?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

Transhumanist said:


> Yup, jammers will do that, even to AESA radars


True, but could they do it to LPI AESAs? There was an article not to long ago where it said that the EW suite on the EA-18 managed to jam the APG-77 on an F22 to the point where it could engage it with an AMRAAM. However it didn't say in what mode and power the -77 was operating on. If the -77 was operating at full potential. I find it a BS story though because you would need incredibly sophisticated ESM hardware to pick up a radar jumping frequencies like that. Then you need an equally sophisticated jammer to actually degrade it, and the ALQ-99 isn't exactly new.

I love watching the Air Force vs Navy stealth saga tho.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Falcon

*US Navy’s Super Hornet Crashes in the Arabian Gulf*
_Posted on May 13, 2015_



_US Navy’s Super Hornet Crashes in the Arabian Gulf _

*A U.S. Navy F/A-18F Super Hornet assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 211 crashed at 1:30 p.m. (GMT), yesterday, shortly after launching from the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) operating in the Arabian Gulf.*

The two personnel aboard the strike fighter ejected from the aircraft, survived the crash and were quickly recovered by search and rescue personnel from the ship. The recovered Naval Aviators were evaluated by medical personnel aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt. Initial reports indicated that both are without serious injury.

*The crash was not a result of hostile activity.*

Strike Fighter Squadron 211 is based at Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia, and is assigned to Carrier Air Wing 1. USS Theodore Roosevelt, with its embarked carrier air wing, is currently in the U.S. 5th Fleet supporting Operation Inherent Resolve, conducting strike operations against ISIL in Iraq and Syria.

The Navy is investigating the cause of the crash.

US Navy’s Super Hornet Crashes in the Arabian Gulf | Naval Today

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Indus Falcon

*Raytheon successfully tests APG-79 (V) X AESA radar*
13 May 2015

Raytheon has successfully completed the flight test of its APG-79(V) X AESA radar system, demonstrating the functions required to extend the combat relevance of F/A-18C/D Hornet aircraft for 15 to 20 years.

The Hornet fleets, upgraded with new APG-79V(X) radar, will benefit from extended detection ranges, simultaneous air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities, production of high-resolution synthetic aperture radar (SAR) mapping and better reliability.

Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems business Tactical Airborne Systems business development director Mike Garcia said: "We put our latest AESA radar to the test, and it exceeded our expectations.

"Our APG-79(V)X combines the best features of our AESA portfolio to maintain tactical advantage for F/A-18C/D aircraft."

The world's first operational AESA radar for fighter aircraft was deployed in 2000. Since then, Raytheon has delivered more than 500 tactical AESA radars for F-15, F/A-18E/F, EA-18G and B-2 aircraft.

"We put our latest AESA radar to the test, and it exceeded our expectations."
Currently installed on the F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers, the APG-79 system has been used in four combat theatres since its first delivery in 2006.

Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems business vice-president Roy Azevedo said: "Our experience with AESA radar systems ensures a low-risk transition to the APG-79V(X). Installations require less than 60 minutes."

"In these uncertain economic times, when defence budgets are particularly tight, Raytheon's APG-79V(X) radar offers a proven, cost-effective solution for Hornet life extension, as well as significant opportunities for in-country manufacturing partnerships."

In January this year, Raytheon flight tested its APG-79 (V) X AESA radar system on the US Navy's F/A-18C/D Hornet fighter/attack jets.
Raytheon successfully tests APG-79 (V) X AESA radar - Naval Technology

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## F-22Raptor



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*Here's Why Dynamic Mongoose Is NATO's Biggest Anti-Sub Exercise Ever*






Operation _Dynamic Mongoose_ is the biggest anti-submarine exercise NATO has ever conducted, and it reflects both deep-seated fears and the effort to catch up on years of management mistakes.

And yeah, _Dynamic Mongoose_ is a pretty silly name.

When NATO says that the exercise is the biggest one it’s ever held, they aren’t joking. Submarines from Germany, Norway, the United States, and Sweden are converging on chilly Norwegian waters, variously playing the hunter and the pursued. Particularly astute observers of geopolitics might note that Sweden, funnily enough, isn’t actually a member of the vaunted North Atlantic Treaty Organization. While it is friendly with virtually every country in the alliance, it’s never formally joined up for a variety of reasons.

But when it comes to hunting for submarines, Sweden recently received a big reason to up its game, so here it is.

It’s not just about Sweden, however. More than a dozen surface ships from Canada, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the US are taking part as well, along with a ton of personnel and aviation elements.






In short, it’s kind of a big deal. But the reasons why NATO has decided to make such an effort now don’t exist in a vacuum. It’s the result of years of buildup, and, because this is NATO, Russia.

The buildup in this case isn’t actually the result of an increase in forces, but rather the opposite. In the immediate post-Cold War era, when it looked as if humanity might be seeing a new dawn of peace. To anyone that’s been alive in the past 20 years, it’s a bit obvious that that didn’t happen. But for awhile there, it looked like this whole “easy peace” thing might work out, and we even had the Red Army Choir sing “Sweet Home Alabama” with a bunch of Finns in weird suits with even weirder hair.

Things were looking pretty great.

So great, in fact, that the United States Navy (and by extension, NATO) cut deep into its anti-submarine warfare efforts. Billions of dollars were poured into technologies for low-intensity, littoral conflicts, and things once used to hunt Soviet submarines, like the aircraft carrier-based S-3 Viking, were retired without direct replacement.

And it wasn’t just the Americans cutting back, either. The British Royal Air Force retired its land-based Hawker Siddeley Nimrods, and the Dutch put a heavy anti-air emphasis into its surface fleet. Similar re-focusing was reflected pretty much across the board when it came to NATO budgeting, if for nothing else than a great sense of optimism about the future.

But while everything was looking all shiny topside, underneath the surface the world was getting more dangerous. Major advances were made in submarine stealth, with technologies like Air Independent Propulsion coming to the fore, enabling less wealthy countries to build non-nuclear yet incredibly quiet submarines.

And the whole time, lurking like the big bear in the room no one wanted to talk about, was the Russian Navy. It completely atrophied in the years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, with once-mighty _Typhoon-_class ballistic missile subs left rotting away in icy shipyards. But it didn’t stay that way long.

With the rise of Russian President Vladimir Putin, along with the corresponding rise in global oil prices, the Russian Navy saw a bit of a rebound. Massive development was put into new submarine technologies and classes, along with new submarine-launched ballistic missile technology.






In just the past few years, the world has seen Russia launch submarines of the _Borei_-class and_Yasen-_class for the first time, in addition to new improved _Kilo-_class submarines and special service subs, as well as the entry into service of the _Bulava_ submarined-launched ballistic missile. The size of the Russian sub fleet now totals around 60 boats.

But it’s not just Russia. China, too, has found submarines to be a cost-effective way of making sure NATO doesn’t get too comfortable with its aircraft carriers, and the contentious staredownsin the South China Sea look like they’re going to get worse, before they get any better. Couple that with Type-093G subs capable of launching supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles, and suddenly NATO isn’t very comfortable at all.

Put the lack of submarine hunting equipment and skills on the NATO side, and the increased focus on subs on the Russian, Chinese, and yes, even the nutty North Korean side, and you can see why NATO now wants to make a show of force in its anti-sub capabilities.






The only question is whether or not this whole thing is effective. We’re not the only ones who are curious, either. From the sound of people on the inside, it looks like Russia’s interested, too.

@Sinan @cabatli_53 @xxxKULxxx @Hakan - I don't know if you guys frequent this thread, but here's an update that involves Turkey too.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Transhumanist

SvenSvensonov said:


> *Here's Why Dynamic Mongoose Is NATO's Biggest Anti-Sub Exercise Ever*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Operation _Dynamic Mongoose_ is the biggest anti-submarine exercise NATO has ever conducted, and it reflects both deep-seated fears and the effort to catch up on years of management mistakes.
> 
> And yeah, _Dynamic Mongoose_ is a pretty silly name.
> 
> When NATO says that the exercise is the biggest one it’s ever held, they aren’t joking. Submarines from Germany, Norway, the United States, and Sweden are converging on chilly Norwegian waters, variously playing the hunter and the pursued. Particularly astute observers of geopolitics might note that Sweden, funnily enough, isn’t actually a member of the vaunted North Atlantic Treaty Organization. While it is friendly with virtually every country in the alliance, it’s never formally joined up for a variety of reasons.
> 
> But when it comes to hunting for submarines, Sweden recently received a big reason to up its game, so here it is.
> 
> It’s not just about Sweden, however. More than a dozen surface ships from Canada, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the US are taking part as well, along with a ton of personnel and aviation elements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In short, it’s kind of a big deal. But the reasons why NATO has decided to make such an effort now don’t exist in a vacuum. It’s the result of years of buildup, and, because this is NATO, Russia.
> 
> The buildup in this case isn’t actually the result of an increase in forces, but rather the opposite. In the immediate post-Cold War era, when it looked as if humanity might be seeing a new dawn of peace. To anyone that’s been alive in the past 20 years, it’s a bit obvious that that didn’t happen. But for awhile there, it looked like this whole “easy peace” thing might work out, and we even had the Red Army Choir sing “Sweet Home Alabama” with a bunch of Finns in weird suits with even weirder hair.
> 
> Things were looking pretty great.
> 
> So great, in fact, that the United States Navy (and by extension, NATO) cut deep into its anti-submarine warfare efforts. Billions of dollars were poured into technologies for low-intensity, littoral conflicts, and things once used to hunt Soviet submarines, like the aircraft carrier-based S-3 Viking, were retired without direct replacement.
> 
> And it wasn’t just the Americans cutting back, either. The British Royal Air Force retired its land-based Hawker Siddeley Nimrods, and the Dutch put a heavy anti-air emphasis into its surface fleet. Similar re-focusing was reflected pretty much across the board when it came to NATO budgeting, if for nothing else than a great sense of optimism about the future.
> 
> But while everything was looking all shiny topside, underneath the surface the world was getting more dangerous. Major advances were made in submarine stealth, with technologies like Air Independent Propulsion coming to the fore, enabling less wealthy countries to build non-nuclear yet incredibly quiet submarines.
> 
> And the whole time, lurking like the big bear in the room no one wanted to talk about, was the Russian Navy. It completely atrophied in the years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, with once-mighty _Typhoon-_class ballistic missile subs left rotting away in icy shipyards. But it didn’t stay that way long.
> 
> With the rise of Russian President Vladimir Putin, along with the corresponding rise in global oil prices, the Russian Navy saw a bit of a rebound. Massive development was put into new submarine technologies and classes, along with new submarine-launched ballistic missile technology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In just the past few years, the world has seen Russia launch submarines of the _Borei_-class and_Yasen-_class for the first time, in addition to new improved _Kilo-_class submarines and special service subs, as well as the entry into service of the _Bulava_ submarined-launched ballistic missile. The size of the Russian sub fleet now totals around 60 boats.
> 
> But it’s not just Russia. China, too, has found submarines to be a cost-effective way of making sure NATO doesn’t get too comfortable with its aircraft carriers, and the contentious staredownsin the South China Sea look like they’re going to get worse, before they get any better. Couple that with Type-093G subs capable of launching supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles, and suddenly NATO isn’t very comfortable at all.
> 
> Put the lack of submarine hunting equipment and skills on the NATO side, and the increased focus on subs on the Russian, Chinese, and yes, even the nutty North Korean side, and you can see why NATO now wants to make a show of force in its anti-sub capabilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only question is whether or not this whole thing is effective. We’re not the only ones who are curious, either. From the sound of people on the inside, it looks like Russia’s interested, too.
> 
> @Sinan @cabatli_53 @xxxKULxxx @Hakan - I don't know if you guys frequent this thread, but here's an update that involves Turkey too.



A NATO exercise involving Norway - being led and hosted by Norway, I should be able to get some pics from my friends in the Forsvaret. If I can, you'll find them here:

Nordic Defense News, pictures, videos and history

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Gabriel92

@SvenSvensonov @Transhumanist @Nihonjin1051 @C130 @AMDR @Peter C @F-22Raptor @KAL-EL @Desertfalcon 
Good news for Thales,and the US army 

http://www.thalescomminc.com/media/Thales ANPRC-154 Rifleman Radio.pdf
-
*Thales Selected for U.S. Army Rifleman Radio Program

Thales has recently been selected to provide the U.S. Army with Rifleman Radio systems. This award, under a ten-year (five-year base with five-year option) indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract, will allow Thales to compete for the different orders of the programme.The selection is for the Rifleman Radio Full Rate Production (FRP) programme, also part of the U.S. Army’s Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) Handheld, Manpack and Small-form Fit (HMS) programme.





Soldiers of the US 82nd Airborne Division using a Thales AN/PRC-154 family radio*
*
The Army’s projected contract cost through 2025 for radios, accessories, technical support and sustainment, will not exceed $3.9 billion (€3.4 billion).

The Army’s acquisition strategy is to compete individual delivery orders following qualification testing. Testing will be performed on radios delivered under the initial delivery order. Qualified radios are expected
to begin being fielded in 2017.

Thales’s enhanced AN/PRC-154A Rifleman Radio is the most advanced, fielded, and proven soldier radio on the market, delivering voice and data simultaneously. It provides secure, inter-squad, networked
communications and situational awareness to the soldier at the tactical edge of the battlefield, improving mission effectiveness.

Thales has been involved in the development and fielding of the Rifleman Radio since 2004 under Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP). The Army has procured more than 21,000 radios to date under the LRIP.

Thales has leveraged over two decades of handheld radio design experience in its latest Rifleman Radio solution, which exceeds the original programme requirements by improving battery life, mission weight, and waveform performance while also enhancing the user interface.

Thales Selected for U.S. Army Rifleman Radio Program 14051503 | May 2015 Global Defense Security news UK | Defense Security global news industry army 2015*

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## F-22Raptor

Interesting lecture from the head of the US sub force

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

Somebody should post pics of US overseas bases.

Djibouti
Camp Lemonnier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## AMDR

USS Fort Worth (LCS-3) tailed by a Chinese frigate in the South China Sea.






USAF JTAC during the 2001 invasion designating targets with a SOFLAM.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Transhumanist

*These Elite Military Helicopter Units Fly Washington's Power Players - Part 1*






Washington D.C. is a fast moving place, and for those in the very top echelons of power, both time and security trump cost efficiency when it comes to transportation. The Department Of Defense has trio of helicopter squadrons ready to fly these VIPs around the region, and to safety should something catastrophic ever occur.

*US Army’s 12th Aviation Battalion*






When making trips within a couple hundred miles of Washington, high ups such as the Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs Of Staff, the Pentagon’s civilian leadership and others will often use one of the military’s little known flying limousine fleets, the VIP converted VH-60 Black Hawks of the Army’s 12th Aviation Battalion’s Executive Flight Detachment.

Located at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, about 12 miles from the Pentagon, the 12th Aviation Battalion is the prime provider of airlift support for the Military District of Washington (MDW) and Joint Forces Headquarters-National Capital Region (JFHQ-NCR). It is also part of the Army Air Operation Group and the Army Priority Air Transport Command which move military executives around the world via a stunning array of aircraft.






Although the unit also flies UH-72A Lakotas and conventional UH-60 Black Hawks, their VIP fleet, known as “Gold Tops,” are some of the most luxurious helicopters under the command of the Department of Defense, even rivaling the president’s fleet of VH-60N and VH-3D “White Tops” flown my Marine Helicopter Squadron HMX-1.

The 12th Aviation Battalion also flies other government officials, agency heads and high-up DoD bosses, and even key lawmakers and visiting dignitaries under certain conditions. As such, scheduling can be challenging to say the least.






_Secretary of Defense Gates can be seen riding in one of the newer interiors flown by the 12th Aviation Battalion’s VH-60s, which is installed by Sabreliner Aviation, who also provides VIP modifications for Black Hawks for foreign heads of state and royal families from around the globe._

Whizzing around Washington’s elite rulers is not the only mission of the 12th Aviation Battalion. They also provide air traffic control and facility support for landing pads around Washington, including the Pentagon, and they can still do many of the missions a standard UH-60 Army unit can.

Yet the Battalion’s most interesting and darker secondary mission is evacuating key decision makers and defense officials from Washington in a serious rush in the event of a national emergency, either man made or by nature.






_One of the older interiors flown aboard the 12th Aviation Battalion’s VH-60s, some of which are being retired and sent to museums after 30 years of work and replaced by newer VH-60Ms._

If such an incident were to happen, the majority of the 26 helicopters in the 12th’s inventory would descend down onto Washington D.C. to pick up the highest ranking law makers and federal employees as part of America’s Continuity of Government plan. From there, they will be whisked away to secure underground sites like Mount Weather, Raven Rock and Camp David to provide command and control and oversee the survival, and even the possible rebuilding of the US Government under the most dire of circumstances.

This is an outcome that the 12th Aviation Battalion trains for and occasionally exercises in grand scale in front of all of Washington D.C.’s populace. Just last year, the unit put all their helicopters in the air at one time and flew a route through Washington’s highly monitored air space as if such a disaster had occurred.






The 12th’s aircraft are equipped for night vision operations, have specialized avionics for their unique mission set, and have both military tactical radios as well as civilian radios used by first responders. The UH-72 Lakotas in particular have Blue Force Trackers which provide locations of other assets in real time as well as providing connectivity to command and control units. The VH-60s have an upgraded GPS/INS navigation suite and weather radar along with enhanced communications capabilities.






While Alpha Company within the 12th Aviation Battalion is primarily tasked with VIP airlift, and Bravo Company flies the UH-72 Lakotas, Charlie Company is assigned the task of transporting the 911th Technical Rescue Engineering Company, which is a premier urban search and rescue and disaster response unit. If there were a building collapse or an attack like 9/11 on the Pentagon, this elite unit’s Initial Response Team, supported by Charlie Company helicopters, would rapidly deploy to the scene and begin the task of saving lives at almost all costs.

Because the 911th uses specialized vehicles and outsized lifesaving gear, Charlie Company crews constantly train for sling-load operations. During a real disaster, the Company’s nine Black Hawks can make rapid trips too and from their home base, building up a presence at a disaster site regardless of the conditions of the roadways and waterways leading to it.






The 12th Aviation Battalion is really kind of the Superman of Army Aviation. Their daily operations may look pretty reserved, and even luxurious in nature, but their ‘other job’ is anything but. The unit is comprised of some of the most experienced Army Aviators, all with combat time, and some of the most dedicated support personnel in the Army round out the unit. If things were to get really bad in Washington D.C., they would be America’s best bet to get our leadership out of harms way as fast as possible so that the country could survive to fight another day.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Transhumanist

*These Elite Military Helicopter Units Fly Washington's Power Players - part 2*






*United States Air Force 1st Helicopter Squadron*

Located at the northeastern tip of Andrews Air Force Base, the 1st Helicopter Squadron provides similar air taxi services as the Army’s 12th Aviation Battalion, although with their nearly antique UH-1N Twin Hueys. The Squadron has a storied past, being the first helicopter unit to ever fly the president officially and has been a fixture at Andrews AFB for half a century.






The iconic form of the Huey has been seen thumping its way around Washington for 50 years, and Ronald Reagan regularly flew on HMX-1’s VH-1Ns during his presidency. Even with its age, the UH-1N is still capable. It has a relatively small footprint and can get in and out of tight places. It is also single-pilot certified, even for night-vision operations, meaning that in an emergency, the 1st Helicopter Squadron can launch as many aircraft as pilots available. Still, in comparison to the Black Hawk, which is far from a brand new design itself, the UH-1N is pretty cramped and austere.






Some of the 1st Helicopter Squadron’s Hueys are equipped with a basic VIP interior, although it closely conforms to the more stripped down stock Huey models interior, replacing their webbed-canvas seats with plusher cushions and adding more carpeting and sound insulation (click hereto see an example and check out the picture below).

As such, the 1st Helicopter Squadron’s UH-1Ns offer a somewhat utilitarian point to point service, not one of high luxury. The Huey’s basic interior also allows for rapid re-configurations so that the aircraft can perform different missions if need be, a trait that works well with the flexibility and nimbleness of the Squadron’s unique mission set.






The 1st Helicopter Squadron, which is totally unique in the Air Force, carries everyone from key lawmakers to high-up Defense Department civilian and military personnel, as well as visiting heads of state and even Executive Branch workers, but they also have the job of rapidly responding to emergencies around the capital region.

This can be a full-on evacuation of high-ranking officials, as they did during 9/11, or this can be to aid in a search and rescue or natural disaster response scenario. With this in mind, the 1st keeps at least two crews on alert at all times, ready to run out to their helicopters to help confront what could be huge unknown challenges ahead.

This is precisely what happened back in 1982 when an Air Florida 737 came crashing down onto the 14th Street Bridge in D.C. The 1st Helicopter Squadron, along with their Army and Park Service counterparts, leaped into action, ferrying first responders and divers to the crash scene and assisted U.S. Coast Guard in search and rescue operations. With events like this in the unit’s past, and seeing as there is no other Air Force unit like it (the 459th Airlift Squadron located in Yokota, Japan being the closest thing to it) creativity, adaptability and commitment are all characteristics ingrained in the high-profile unit.

The 1st Helicopter Squadron’s geriatric gloss blue and white Hueys have been a constant source of budgetary infighting over the past decade or so as a replacement is said to be badly needed. Along with their Air Force Global Strike Command’s UH-1Ns that provide security and tender duties for America’s ballistic missile sites, the 1st Squadron’s Hueys are not nearly as capable as their modern rotory-wing cousins.






In all, just over 60 of these aircraft remain in service, with less than a third of those serving with the 1st Helicopter Squadron at Andrews AFB, although debate over a replacement aircraft appears to be finally coming to an end. The Air Force now plans to replace these aircraft once and for all with a modern helicopter with enhanced cabin volume, speed and range. At this time, such a replacement looks like it may come to pass over the next decade, with old UH-60A Black Hawks being upgraded and put back into service as UH-60Ls. This would leave only the Black Hawk and CV-22 Osprey in USAF service when it comes to the vertical lift mission.






*US Marine Corps HMX-1 *

Easily the most recognizable helicopters in the world are the “White Top” VH-3Ds and VH-60Ns that are used exclusively to transport the President Of The United States, their family and his closest advisers. When the president is on-board, these aircraft are famously referred to as Marine One. You can see all the details of what these elite aircraft look like on the inside, and their history, by clicking here. 

Under such a plan, it is almost certain that Global Strike Command will be getting all their needs fulfilled before the 1st Helicopter Squadron receives any new airframes, so the venerable Huey, with its distinct ‘whomp whomp’ sound, will not be vacating the Washington DC skyline anytime soon.

Whereas the 12th Aviation Battalion and the 1st Helicopter Squadron are tasked by the Pentagon to fly around various generals, agency heads and secretaries, HMX-1 is focused on the White House and its air transportation needs. This was not always the case though, as President would fly aboard Army helicopters just a regularly (if not more so) than Marine operated ones up until 1976, when the USMC took over sole responsibility for the White House’s vertical lift mission. Still, HMX-1 has been flying the president, and innovating the mission, since the late 1950s.






The “green side” helicopters are also used for HMX-1’s secondary function that stems back to the squadron’s founding, which is test and evaluation and tactics development. New subsystems are put through their paces and new procedures are dreamed up by HMX-1 crews, which are then vetted and deployed to the fleet. As such, the same pilots that fly presidential support missions will also use their skills to build a more effective front-line Marine helicopter force.

Currently, HMX-1 has given up all its venerable “Green Top” CH-53s and CH-46s. In their place are a dozen MV-22 Ospreys. The Ospreys cost over $65M apiece but it can self deploy over long distances, which their slower and shorter-ranged conventional helicopter predecessors could not. In this function, the Osprey’s speed and range is nice, but it is a bit of a performance mismatch when flying in the presidential airlift formation, as the president still flies aboard the much slower White Top helicopters used as Marine One.






Both White Tops, the VH-3D and VH-60N are finally being replaced by a the Sikorsky S-92 Super Hawk based VH-92. This comes after one of the biggest procurement controversies of the last few decades attempted to fund and procure a EH-101 based, triple engine Marine One replacement helicopter. The program was a cost spiraling disaster (as many predicted) and the Pentagon hopes the more conservative S-92 replacement route will be much more economically viable. 

The squadron, which has their own shoreline base in Quantico, Virginia, is separated into two ‘sides.’ The “white side” which handles the president’s exclusive “White Top” helicopters, and the “greens side” which handles the “Green Top” helicopters used to transport the White House Press Pool, invited guests, counter-assault teams, Secret Service, local officials and other White House aides during presidential movements. The two fleets are held to different training, security and maintenance standards, with the “White Top” fleet living within its own protective ‘cage’ within HMX-1’s hangar facilities.

When it comes to transporting VIPs aside from the president, this happens all the time during White House support missions, with key figures riding along with the President, or in the decoy VH-3D or VH-60N aircraft, or even aboard an accompanying Green Top during transits.

Yet the White Top aircraft are not often used for discreet VIP transportation without the president involved as they are an icon of the office and live their lives under tight security and maintenance standards, which makes their operation quite costly. They are also heavily tasked with the president’s travel schedule. That is not specifically to say that they will never be used to move extremely high-power dignitaries alone, although it seems to be a fairly rare occurrence and most likely comes at the orders of the White House Military Office.

Some may ask why this incredibly expensive and complex task needs to happen nearly everywhere the president visits, especially considering that there can be multiple stops by Air Force One in a single day. The answer is simple: contingency operations.

You can use your own imagination on this, but if the president were under great threat, their motorcade were attacked, or a strike against a certain area where he or she was at were imminent, being able to evacuate them on short notice to a safe site a few hundred miles away is a very attractive option to have. As such, the practice of taking a pair of White Tops nearly everywhere outside of Washington D.C. the president goes has been a popular practice at least since the Obama Administration came into power. 

The crews and aircraft of HMX-1 certainly have a role in evacuating the president and their cabinet should something terrible occur in Washington D.C. The VH-3D and VH-60N’s elaborate self defense suite, the most capable on any helicopter in the world, which includesdirected infrared countermeasures and other jamming equipment, along with their extensive communications suites, makes them the absolute best candidate to pluck the president, their family and their closest staff members out of harm’s way.

In order to do so, HMX-1 would not even have to fly up the Potomac 30 miles from their home base to Washington DC, as the squadron keeps a constant presence and forward stages their missions at Naval Support Facility Anacostia right across the Potomac from Reagan International Airport and just 3 miles from the White House. Such a mission would be the highest priority air transport mission of all time if it were to ever occur and it surely is one of HMX-1 and the Secret Service’s biggest and most horrifying contingency plans. 

In addition to the Squadron’s close proximity to the White House, the unit is seamlessly integrated with Secret Service operations, including the deployment of Counter Assault Teams should the president come under attack or his (or her) helicopter were to go down due to mechanical failure. These teams always travel along in Green Tops when the president is traveling abroad and using vertical lift instead of the presidential motorcade. Within the high-security confines of Washington D.C., this support is really not needed and White Tops will often be seen flying without Green Tops in the formation, although at least two or more identical White Tops will work in unison, with at least one as the decoy chopper, whenever the president flying.

Green Top aircraft on the other hand can fly Washington VIPs, although they rarely do so as the Osprey’s large footprint, expensive operating cost and large volume would be overkill for the vast majority of these types of missions. Additionally, between test and development duties and providing the White House with the missions it needs, there is very little time for ‘external’ VIP missions.

Almost everywhere the president travels a pair of White Tops goes as well, even if they never fly the president and are never even seen by the media, with the secret service using the presidential motorcade instead. Like the presidential motorcade, the White Tops arrive a few days prior to the president’s visit aboard a heavy USAF transport aircraft. They are then unpacked, assembled and have their engines ran and are checked for issues. Sometimes they are even test flown. Then they are stowed in a hangar out of site. After the president has left on Air Force One, they are dismantled and loaded aboard a heavy transport (C-17 or C-5) again to be flown to another locale ahead of an upcoming presidential visit or they will be flown back to HMX-1’s headquarters in Quantico.






Generally, HMX-1 spends the majority of its missions around the Capital Region hauling the president to and from the White House and Andrews AFB, although the helicopters are also used for retreats to Camp David and to visit other military facilities within a couple hundred miles of the White House. 

Other power players that are cleared to fly have to put in requests and make their case as to why using a helicopter is a better choice than other forms of transportation, as well as what the flight is for in the first place. Only the highest priority of flights pickup and drop off direct. In other cases, passengers will have to make their way to the helicopter unit’s home base before the flight or travel to one of the helicopter landing areas around D.C.’s outskirts to board if they are not of super-high priority. In other words, unless you are at the very top of the Pentagon or Washington D.C. power structure, don’t expect your helicopter to land outside you house or atop your place of work and take you where you want to go. You may have commute a bit by land in order to commute a lot further by air.

This may seem a little trivial, but the fact of the matter is that flying through Washington DC via helicopter is a complex and elaborate affair. Special training is required to understand operations in Washington DC’s Metropolitan Air Defense Identification Zone (DC ADIZ) and the Washington DC Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone. Reagan International and its air traffic are a major factor as well and crews have to stay in constant contact with Reagan Tower while transiting the area on pre-planned and highly defined helicopter routes. Then there are a bevy of other law enforcement and agency helicopters working in the area. Thus not having to fly right into the heart of Washington D.C. is a major plus. This also allows for some noise abatement for Washington DC’s citizens as well.

Simply put, there is no better executive helicopter transport service in the world than what HMX-1 offers. The attention to detail and mission focus, especially when it comes to White Top operations, is more akin to a space launch than a relatively routine point-to-point transport mission, and the squadron represents the pinnacle of VIP helicopter transport world-wide.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Transhumanist

*These Elite Military Helicopter Units Fly Washington's Power Players - Part 3

Who Gets A Ride?*

*



*

*



*

In a place where ambition is a life force of its own and hierarchy is as important as it is frustrating for many, using Defense Department assets as your personal aerial taxi service is a priority and importance based proposition. When it comes to HMX-1, who gets to fly aboard Green Tops or White Tops and when is generally a White House Military Desk decision and is based on the Administration’s goals and directions. How it works with the 12th Aviation Battalion and the 1st Helicopter Squadron is a whole other story.

Importance and job title, not just rank and seniority, is everything when it comes to competing for VIP helicopter mission slots. The president and the Secretary of Defense sit at the top tiers of priority, with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff falling into the next tier. Below them are the heads of various commands and civilian secretaries of the specific services and departments. Generals also have a pecking order and it is not necessarily based on rank alone but their importance at the time the request is made. For instance, if a General that is running a foreign war is in Washington D.C. for a visit they may get a higher priority ranking than a higher ranking General that is requesting airlift support for a fairly mundane event.






Keep in mind, that these three squadrons of military helicopters, all heavily focused on executive airlift in the capital region, are augmented by the many Federal Government non-military agencies that have their own fleets of privately registered helicopters. There are 550 of them in fact (as of 2011), and that number is rapidly growing, far outpacing the growth of fixed wing aircraft ownership among Federal Agencies.

The Department of State has its own air force, and the Justice Department and the Department Of Homeland Security is not too far behind, but pretty much all other major agencies have their own pocket aircraft fleets as well, many of which include helicopters. 

As to who would get plucked from impending doom should an evacuation of key officials actually occur, that information remains guarded, although it is pretty apparent that the first priority would be to airlift the National Command Authority principals, along with the president’s cabinet and family, and key military leaders and agency heads, along with their inner circles. There is also the succession issue, with the Speaker Of The House being third in line after the Vice President. As such, these individuals may also have to go to separate locations from where the president is taken to for redundancy’s sake.

In the past, members of the Senate and House were also part of the Continuity of Government contingency planning, especially senior members, so if there is extra capacity and time, some of them may be taken as well. Also evacuating at least some of the Supreme Court Justices would be a priority in order to keep some semblance of checks and balances. 

As you can see, this list is quite large, so the 50 mile or so trip to known secure alternative operating sites would have to be made many times if possible. As such, a priority list is sure to exist beyond just the obvious individuals.

Also complicating scheduling are the other commitments that these units have, such as flyover requests for funerals and large events. The 12th Aviation Battalion in particular is on high alert for carrying members of the 3rd Infantry Regiment’s Old Guard as well as a General Officer to Dover AFB where they will meet the arrival of fallen heroes and in some cases their grieving families. This process is called Dignified Transfer of Remains and it is taken very seriously by the unit. As such, there are a lot of competing demands and only so many helicopters to go around.

A major operation for the unit is a 24-hour standby mission to carry members of the 3rd Infantry Regiment’s “Old Guard” and a general officer to Dover AFB to meet the arrival of service members who have died while in the service of their country. Although officially known as the “Dignified Transfer of Remains,” it is called “Fallen Heroes” by the members of the 12th Aviation Battalion. Once the transfer of the remains is completed, the 12th returns the Honor Guard to Washington. They do not transport the fallen hero.

You can get better idea of how scheduling a flight works by checking out the 12th Aviation Battalions home page here for yourself.

Although many of these helicopters have specific missions and are scattered around the US and even the world, the ones that are located near Washington DC can also be used for executive transport as well as their other missions, and some are probably designated solely for the executive airlift mission alone. 

What this all points to is that U.S. Government funded executive vertical airlift has exploded from a cottage industry mainly dominated by the military to a high-demand product with multiple governmental users. Just like big business executives and billionaires, Federal Government power players see a private jet as a necessary tool, but a helicopter is the ultimate time machine and luxury, taking a VIP and their cadre point to point as fast as humanly possible. Then there is also the prestige of showing up in a helicopter. It may sound petty, but it exists, trust me.






It is interesting to note that even though military budgets are under the continued threat of deep cuts, with major and critical weapon systems being retired in the vein of savings, nobody in Washington is complaining about the pocket armada of aerial limousines that zip around the Capital Region right in front of them on a daily basis. 

Maybe this is because lawmakers and government insiders hope to get a taste of this awesome capability sometime in their own careers if they have not already done so, or maybe it’s the fact that these aircraft have a secondary role of rescuing D.C.’s elite should the something horrific happen. As such, anyone who seeks to cut their existence as a budgetary line item may face political retribution should an emergency ever dictate their use. Or even worse, they may be left regretting their actions if Washington D.C. is smoldering around them while they stand on the Capitol Lawn wondering where’s their ride.

@AMDR  You were a bit premature, the article wasn't finished yet. It's done now though.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*Watch The Navy's Hyper Velocity Projectile Rip Through These Plates*






The Office of Naval Research is getting ready to deploy their electromagnetic Railgun for testing for the first time next year. But what is a gun without ammo? The Hyper Velocity Projectile is being built for not the just the Railgun alone, but also for existing 5 inch deck guns as well. And yes, it is very, very fast.






The Hyper Velocity Projectile is basically a flying hypersonic spike and is launched in a similar fashion as the sabot rounds fired by Main Battle Tanks. The super low-drag spike of a projectile whizzes through the air at hyper-velocity speeds (around 5,600mph), hence its name. Oh yeah, and it is guided.

The HVP’s sleek design allows it travel much farther than tradition naval gun shells, from 30 to over 100 miles depending on what it’s fired out of. Because of its high speed, it can arrive on target very quickly. Using different programmed trajectories, a whole swarm of HVP’s can land simultaneously, literally turning an enemy’s silent night into a hell-storm in a blink of an eye. 






_Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work examines the damage caused by a High Velocity Projectile_

The projectile will come in a few different flavors, including an air burst, a kinetic energy penetrator and high-explosive round. Because of its high-speed and miniaturized and hardened internal guidance, it could be used against surface and a ground targets, but it could also be employed against air threats, as well. Think of it as the ultimate version of skeet shooting, where each round costs as much as an exotic car. 






Although guided artillery-type shells exist, and are very effective, speed is what makes the HVP so attractive. A whole slew of new possibilities, many of which make traditional missiles less relevant, especially for short and intermediate range engagements, exist when you factor an operational HVP capability into naval warfare scenarios.

If network connectivity is added to the HVP’s design, it could be guided in-flight with command updates coming from external sensors. This means it can hit moving vehicles using a remote sensor’s data, such as from an unmanned aircraft or a ship’s radar system. Under such a scenario, a HVP could be launched from 100 miles away, toward an enemy land mass, and a loitering unmanned aircraft tracking a vehicle could provide the projectile with terminal targeting information. The whole engagement would last about one minute. 

It also means that the HVP could one day become more deadly than a surface-to-air missile, as its speed makes it almost impossible to defend against. Under such a concept, a Destroyer’s AEGIS combat system, including its powerful phased-array radars, can track an enemy fighter 20 miles away, and fire off a HVP with its existing 5-inch gun. The HVP will use mid-course updates from the ship’s radar sent to it via data-link. The whole engagement would last under 15 seconds, and the projectile’s speed would make it nearly impervious to evasive maneuvers. 

Seeing as such a weapon would not need to carry its own propellant (or its own sensors, for that matter), it would mean that, although clearly not cheap, the HVP could replace some missiles at a comparatively cheap price. They could also allow for precious vertical launch cells aboard US Destroyers and Cruisers to be used only for long-range weaponry, such a cruise missiles and long-range interceptors. This also gives the Navy’s primary surface combatants many more shots to fire and a whole new mission of medium and long-range persistent fire support that currently does not exist. Even a ship’s Close-In Weapons Systems defending against cruise missiles and swarming boat attacks could be augmented by the HVP’s capabilities. 

What’s also cool about the HVP is that it can be dumbed down just like it can be smarted up, by removing its Inertial Navigation System (INS/GPS) along with its data-link and control mechanisms, and filled with more high-explosives instead. Such a setup would be ideal for long-range ship-to-shore area suppression and attacks on large fixed targets. In other words, great for prepping the battlefield for the Marines before a beach landing.

Another enticing aspect of the HVP is that it could give foreign allied navies a huge leap in capability without having to really modify their existing vessels, as the munition is being built in a common 5-inch gun sized format. Although this only offers a fraction of the Railgun’s range, it still is much faster, longer-ranged, and more accurate than any 5-inch shell available today. Combined with an off-the-shelf radar system, the HVP could give ships that were designed for surface warfare and hunting submarines an area air-defense capability on the cheap.






_The Railgun will be tested aboard the Navy’s Joint High-Speed Vessel USS Millinocket (JHSV-3) next year._

Finally, for future ships toting a Railgun, the HVP would be fired without any explosive propellant, making the ship a safer place and less prone to horrific secondary explosions caused by battle damage or accidents. It could also mean that someday, in the not-so-distant future, we might see the return of ships packing multiple big guns. The DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class, with its two 155mm guns is a start, but even a pocket “Electronic Battleship” could be a real possibility. 

@Gabriel92 @Taygibay @Nihonjin1051 @Transhumanist @AMDR @F-22Raptor @Peter C

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Transhumanist

SvenSvensonov said:


> *Watch The Navy's Hyper Velocity Projectile Rip Through These Plates*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Office of Naval Research is getting ready to deploy their electromagnetic Railgun for testing for the first time next year. But what is a gun without ammo? The Hyper Velocity Projectile is being built for not the just the Railgun alone, but also for existing 5 inch deck guns as well. And yes, it is very, very fast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hyper Velocity Projectile is basically a flying hypersonic spike and is launched in a similar fashion as the sabot rounds fired by Main Battle Tanks. The super low-drag spike of a projectile whizzes through the air at hyper-velocity speeds (around 5,600mph), hence its name. Oh yeah, and it is guided.
> 
> The HVP’s sleek design allows it travel much farther than tradition naval gun shells, from 30 to over 100 miles depending on what it’s fired out of. Because of its high speed, it can arrive on target very quickly. Using different programmed trajectories, a whole swarm of HVP’s can land simultaneously, literally turning an enemy’s silent night into a hell-storm in a blink of an eye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work examines the damage caused by a High Velocity Projectile_
> 
> The projectile will come in a few different flavors, including an air burst, a kinetic energy penetrator and high-explosive round. Because of its high-speed and miniaturized and hardened internal guidance, it could be used against surface and a ground targets, but it could also be employed against air threats, as well. Think of it as the ultimate version of skeet shooting, where each round costs as much as an exotic car.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although guided artillery-type shells exist, and are very effective, speed is what makes the HVP so attractive. A whole slew of new possibilities, many of which make traditional missiles less relevant, especially for short and intermediate range engagements, exist when you factor an operational HVP capability into naval warfare scenarios.
> 
> If network connectivity is added to the HVP’s design, it could be guided in-flight with command updates coming from external sensors. This means it can hit moving vehicles using a remote sensor’s data, such as from an unmanned aircraft or a ship’s radar system. Under such a scenario, a HVP could be launched from 100 miles away, toward an enemy land mass, and a loitering unmanned aircraft tracking a vehicle could provide the projectile with terminal targeting information. The whole engagement would last about one minute.
> 
> It also means that the HVP could one day become more deadly than a surface-to-air missile, as its speed makes it almost impossible to defend against. Under such a concept, a Destroyer’s AEGIS combat system, including its powerful phased-array radars, can track an enemy fighter 20 miles away, and fire off a HVP with its existing 5-inch gun. The HVP will use mid-course updates from the ship’s radar sent to it via data-link. The whole engagement would last under 15 seconds, and the projectile’s speed would make it nearly impervious to evasive maneuvers.
> 
> Seeing as such a weapon would not need to carry its own propellant (or its own sensors, for that matter), it would mean that, although clearly not cheap, the HVP could replace some missiles at a comparatively cheap price. They could also allow for precious vertical launch cells aboard US Destroyers and Cruisers to be used only for long-range weaponry, such a cruise missiles and long-range interceptors. This also gives the Navy’s primary surface combatants many more shots to fire and a whole new mission of medium and long-range persistent fire support that currently does not exist. Even a ship’s Close-In Weapons Systems defending against cruise missiles and swarming boat attacks could be augmented by the HVP’s capabilities.
> 
> What’s also cool about the HVP is that it can be dumbed down just like it can be smarted up, by removing its Inertial Navigation System (INS/GPS) along with its data-link and control mechanisms, and filled with more high-explosives instead. Such a setup would be ideal for long-range ship-to-shore area suppression and attacks on large fixed targets. In other words, great for prepping the battlefield for the Marines before a beach landing.
> 
> Another enticing aspect of the HVP is that it could give foreign allied navies a huge leap in capability without having to really modify their existing vessels, as the munition is being built in a common 5-inch gun sized format. Although this only offers a fraction of the Railgun’s range, it still is much faster, longer-ranged, and more accurate than any 5-inch shell available today. Combined with an off-the-shelf radar system, the HVP could give ships that were designed for surface warfare and hunting submarines an area air-defense capability on the cheap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Railgun will be tested aboard the Navy’s Joint High-Speed Vessel USS Millinocket (JHSV-3) next year._
> 
> Finally, for future ships toting a Railgun, the HVP would be fired without any explosive propellant, making the ship a safer place and less prone to horrific secondary explosions caused by battle damage or accidents. It could also mean that someday, in the not-so-distant future, we might see the return of ships packing multiple big guns. The DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class, with its two 155mm guns is a start, but even a pocket “Electronic Battleship” could be a real possibility.
> 
> @Gabriel92 @Taygibay @Nihonjin1051 @Transhumanist @AMDR @F-22Raptor @Peter C



Even though it was built for the US Navy - under the directions of hte Office of Naval Research, BAE Europe was one of the contractors called upon to design a railgun (the other contractor being General Atomics). Perhaps we'll soon see railguns in European arsenals as well, not the same designs (I can't image the US would be too keen on Europe using its railgun without asking), but with the general know-how, BAE can just as soon replicate one for Europe:

This isn't BAE US, it's BAE Europe (working in collaboration with a US partner).
















Products - BAE Systems

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

*US Military's New Swarm of Mini-Drones*
US Military's New Swarm of Mini-Drones

_




Laurent Barthelemy/AFP
A man holds a Cicada, a miniature drone invented by US military scientists, outside the Pentagon on May 14 in Arlington, Va._

WASHINGTON — US military scientists have invented a miniature drone that fits in the palm of a hand, ready to be dropped from the sky like a mobile phone with wings.

The "micro air vehicle" is named after the insect that inspired its invention, the Cicada, which spends years underground before appearing in great swarms, reproducing and then dropping to the ground dead.

"The idea was why can't we make UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) that have the same sort of profile," Aaron Kahn of the Naval Research Laboratory told AFP.

"We will put so many out there, it will be impossible for the enemy to pick them all up."

The "Cicada," short for Covert Autonomous Disposable Aircraft, was designed to be smaller, cheaper and simpler than any other robotic aircraft — but still able to carry out a mission in a remote battlefield.

The prototype cost just a thousand dollars, and the cost could come down to as little as $250 apiece, said Kahn, a flight controls engineer at the naval lab.

With no motor and only about 10 parts, the Cicada resembles a paper airplane with a circuit board.

It is designed to glide to programmed GPS coordinates after being dropped from an aircraft, a balloon or a larger drone, researchers said.

In a test about three years ago in Yuma, Arizona, Cicada drones were released from 57,600 feet (17,500 meters). The little drone flew — or fell — 11 miles, landing within 15 feet of its target.

The Cicada drone can fly at about 46 miles (74 kilometers) per hour and are virtually silent, with no engine or propulsion system.

"It looks like a bird flying down," said Daniel Edwards, an aerospace engineer at the Naval Research Laboratory. But, he said, "it's very difficult to see."

Robotic Carrier Pigeons 

In the flight test, the Cicada had sensors that could send back weather readings for temperature, air pressure and humidity.

But researchers said the mini-drones could be used for a myriad of missions, and outfitted with a range of light-weight sensors, including microphones.

"They are robotic carrier pigeons. You tell them where to go, and they will go there," Edwards said.

One possible scenario could be using the drones to monitor traffic on a remote road behind enemy lines.

"You equip these with a microphone or a seismic detector, drop them on that road, and it will tell you 'I heard a truck or a car travel along that road.' You know how fast and which direction they're traveling," Kahn said.

The micro-planes could be outfitted with magnetic sensors to pick up enemy submarines, or to eavesdrop on troops or operatives.

For the moment, equipping it with a video feed poses a technical challenge, because extracting the video requires too much bandwidth, researchers said.

Although the drones have yet to be deployed, the first use may come outside the battlefield, for weather forecasters.

Meteorologists trying to predict tornadoes have to rely on temperature readings from the ground. But the Cicada drone offers the prospect of numerous temperature readings from the air, providing enough data to build a truly three-dimensional model for forecasting tornadoes.

And despite their toy-like appearance, the Cicada drones are surprisingly robust, Edwards said.

"You can thrown them out of a Cessna or a C-130," he said.

"They've flown through trees. They've hit asphalt runways. They have tumbled in gravel. They've had sand in them. They only thing that we found that killed them was desert shrubbery," he said.

Edwards had the Cicadas on display at the Pentagon's "lab day" this week, as part of a bid by US defense officials to promote technological innovation.

Academics and just about every branch of government have expressed an interest in the Cicada program, including some intelligence agencies.

"Everyone is interested. Everyone," Edwards said.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SipahSalar

SvenSvensonov said:


> The Hyper Velocity Projectile is being built for not the just the Railgun alone, but also for existing 5 inch deck guns as well.


Imagine a tank armed with HVP. It can shoot at a tank behind multiple buildings.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taygibay

SipahSalar said:


> Imagine a tank armed with HVP. It can shoot at a tank behind multiple buildings.


Well, Sipah, as the article stated the sabot principle ( parts of the projectile "falling off" after ejection from gun to lighten / quicken it ) already exists for tanks. But on these platforms, chances are that power generation will be difficult to hike.
We'll have to wait a few years for credible adaption on smaller vehicles.

Thanks Sven for the update, good day all, Tay.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Falcon

*Navy Declares Initial Operational Capability for New Rolling Airframe Missile*
Story Number: NNS150515-21Release Date: 5/15/2015

From PEO IWS Public Affairs 

WASHINGTON (NNS) -- The U.S. Navy successfully achieved Initial Operational Capability (IOC) for the Block 2 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) aboard the amphibious transport dock ship USS Arlington (LPD 24) May 15. 

RAM is a highly successful, 39-year U.S. cooperative program with the German government that has yielded the U.S. taxpayer more than $800 million in cost avoidance and has delivered arguably one of the most capable anti-ship cruise missile defense systems in the world. The new RAM Block 2 missile is designed to counter advanced anti-ship cruise missile threats that U.S. and Allied Navies face today. 

"We're very excited about the significantly increased capability Block 2 gives our warfighters. It could not have been done without the outstanding cooperation between the U.S. and German governments," said Capt. Craig Bowden, RAM program manager. "This program has become the hallmark of transatlantic cooperation."

The IOC declaration is the culmination of cooperative developmental and operational testing events between the U.S. Navy and the German government spanning the last two years. Compared to previous configurations, Block 2 provides significantly improved kinematic performance in maneuverability and range as well as a more sophisticated radio frequency receiver. These improvements allow RAM to increase the battlespace and engage low probability of intercept threats at longer ranges. 

Prior to the IOC declaration, the U.S. Navy and German government successfully demonstrated the enhanced ship self-defense effectiveness of the Block 2 RAM during testing at the Pacific Missile Range Center at Point Mugu, California, between May 2013 and March 2015.

Steven Holsworth, U.S. national deputy program manager for RAM, said, "Through cooperation, this program has continuously met all challenges and has successfully produced more than 3000 RAM missiles (Block 0, 1A, 2) and 200 launchers. The strength of the RAM community is also evident in the high success rate in our 450-plus live firing events in its history. The on-time, on-cost delivery of the first Block 2 missiles embodies the best of the U.S. and German design/production capabilities. With the completion of recent test events, we are ready to write the next chapter of the RAM success story by delivering the enhanced capability to the U.S., German, and allied warships on which RAM is deployed." 

Andrea Schwarz, RAM deputy program manager from Germany concurred. "Since our inception in 1976, the U.S. and Germany have cooperatively developed, produced, and supported the RAM program through 16 international agreements/amendments. It is a testament to the program that both countries have remained steadfast in their commitment and cooperation, including 50/50 government contributions and industry work share. With the introduction of Block 2, we continue the cooperative spirit and technical excellence that has protected our Navies over the past three decades." 

In 2014, the program had a highly successful test and evaluation run where it scored hits on several extremely challenging target sets. Currently, RAM protects the U.S Navy's CVN, LCS, LHA, LHD, LSD and LPD 17 class warships and twenty-two of Germany's warships. 

The RAM Program Office is aligned with Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems, which manages surface ship and submarine combat technologies and systems, and coordinates Navy enterprise solutions across ship platforms.

Navy Declares Initial Operational Capability for New Rolling Airframe Missile

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Falcon

*U.S. MV-22 Osprey aircraft down at Hawaii military base, reports say*
Reports said an MV-22 Osprey was downed at Bellows Air Force Base Sunday morning, sending a dozen marines to the hospital.
By Doug G. Ware | May 17, 2015






_A U.S. military MV-22 Osprey reportedly crashed at Bellows Air Force Base, Hawaii on Sunday, media reports said. File Photo: UPI/Keizo Mori _
_ | License Photo_

HONOLULU, May 17 (UPI) -- A U.S. military aircraft crashed in Hawaii on Sunday at Bellows Air Force Base, media reports said.
According to report by NBC affiliate KHNL-TV, an MV-22 Osprey from the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit set down for a hard landing at the base, which is located on Oahu.

The aircraft was reportedly training in the Marine Corps Training Area with 21 people aboard the aircraft, including four crew members, when it went down about 11 a.m. local time.

A dozen marines were hospitalized following the incident, KHNL-TV reported. At least two may have been critically hurt, an NBC News report said.

Emergency crews responded to the scene and photographs showed thick, black smoke billowing from what appears to be wreckage near the base of a mountain.

It was not immediately known what caused the accident.

The crash occurred as Marine Corps and Navy are getting ready to host nearly two dozen defense leaders from nations around the Pacific for meetings in Hawaii this week, USA Today reported.

U.S. military aircraft reported down over Hawaii - UPI.com



*MV-22 Osprey 'Hard Landing' in Hawaii Kills One Marine, Injures 21*
Associated Press | May 17, 2015 


A Marine Corps Osprey aircraft made a hard landing in Hawaii on Sunday, killing one Marine and sending 21 other people to hospitals  as dark smoke from the resulting fire billowed into the sky.

The tilt-rotor MV-22 Osprey, which can take off and land like a helicopter but flies like an airplane, had a "hard-landing mishap" at about 11:40 a.m., the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit said in a statement.

Officials didn't provide details about the conditions of the injured. Twenty-two people were aboard the aircraft, including 21 Marines and one Navy corpsman assigned to the unit, spokesman Capt. Brian Block said in an email.

The 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit is based at Camp Pendleton in California and is in Hawaii for about a week for training. The Osprey was being used for training at Bellows Air Force Station on Oahu at the time of the hard landing.

Kimberly Hynd said she was hiking the popular Lanikai Pillbox Trail and could see three Osprey aircraft performing maneuvers from her vantage point in the hills above Bellows. She noticed them kicking up dirt but then saw smoke and fire. Hynd, who estimated she was 2 to 3 miles away, didn't hear the sound of a large crash.

"It looked like they were doing some sort of maneuver or formation — and so I was taking pictures of it because usually you can't see them that close up," Hynd said.

Donald Gahit said he saw smoke rising in the air from Bellows when he looked outside his house after hearing sirens pass by.

"At first I thought it was clouds, but it was moving fast and it was pretty dark," the Waimanalo resident said.

Ospreys may be equipped with radar, lasers and a missile defense system. Each can carry 24 Marines into combat.

Built by Boeing Co. and Bell, a unit of Textron Inc., the Osprey program was nearly scrapped after a history of mechanical failures and two test crashes that killed 23 Marines in 2000.

The aircraft have since been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Some Osprey are also helping with earthquake relief efforts in Nepal.
MV-22 Osprey 'Hard Landing' in Hawaii Kills One Marine, Injures 21 | Military.com

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Falcon

*Dillon Aero wins $14M contract for weapon systems on US Army helicopters
18 May, 15, Source:  US DoD*

Dillon Aero,* Scottsdale, Arizona, was awarded a $13,987,456 firm-fixed-price multi-year indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for spare parts for the M134D weapons system in support of the CH-47, UH-60, MI-17, and OH-6 helicopters. Funding and work location will be determined with each order with an estimated completion date of May 15, 2018. Bids were solicited via the Internet with one received. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Michigan, is the contracting activity (W56HZV-15-D-0055).

http://helihub.com/2015/05/18/dillon-aero-wins-14m-contract-for-weapon-systems-on-us-army-helicopters/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed: HelihubNews (HeliHub.com » Daily News Update)





*Standard M134D*

The Dillon M134D Gatling Gun is the finest small caliber, defense suppression weapon available. It is a six barreled, electrically driven machine gun chambered in 7.62mm NATO and fires at a fixed rate of 3,000 shots per minute. Gatling Guns typically feed from a 3,000 or 4,000 round magazine. They are capable of long periods of continuous fire without threat or damage to the weapon making them an excellent choice for defensive suppression.
Dillon Guns are reliable. The M134D has system life in excess of 1,500,000 rounds and an average time between stoppage greater than 30,000 rounds. In the unlikely event of a stoppage the weapon can be serviced and made operational again in under one minute. The multi barrel design means that each barrel only experiences a 500 round per minute rate of fire. This allows for repeated long bursts of fire and a barrel group life of 200,000 rounds.

Dillon Gatling Guns are in service with the US and Allied Armed Forces. The standard application is as helicopter crew served and fixed forward fire installations. In addition to their more traditional roles, Dillon Gatlings are supplanting M2 50 cal. Heavy Machine Guns and M240's on a number of the US Army's vehicles. Dillon M134s are also in service with the US and British navies in the fleet protection role and Special Operations fire support role.

Dillon M134 Gatling Guns are entirely new production weapons. Dillon guns are sold as complete weapon systems or as component upgrade packages for older GE M134 systems.

Part Number: M134D

NSN: 1005-00-903-0751

Weight:

Fixed Forward Fire: 56.9 lbs
Crew Served Gun: 66.1 lbs



Standard M134D: M134 Gun Systems

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Falcon

*Scrap War: US May Compete Nuclear Ship Disposal Deal*
By Christopher P. Cavas
May 17, 2015

WASHINGTON — All nuclear-powered US Navy ships go to die at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington. That's been an immutable mantra since the early 1990s, when the shipyard developed a recycling plan to dispose of old submarines and cruisers that were piling up as they reached the end of their lives.

Under the shipyard's direction, shipboard nuclear reactors are defueled, the reactor vessels and their compartments are removed, encased and barged to the federal government's Hanford Nuclear Reservation in southern Washington State, and the ships' remains are cut up for scrap and recycling. The program has successfully disposed of more than 100 nuclear submarines and eight nuclear cruisers.

As the only US-certified facility with experience recycling nuclear ships, the plan has long been that, sometime in early 2017, Puget Sound would take on its largest disposal job by far — that of the aircraft carrier Enterprise, one of the most famous ships of the Cold War era.

But now, the Navy is considering throwing open the job to commercial bidders — a clear break from prior practice that could open the nuclear ship-disposal world to more competition.

It is not clear exactly what is driving the move, which was announced in May 2014 when Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) published a request for information (RFI) soliciting ideas on how the Enterprise's "non-propulsion sections" — that is, everything but the ship's reactors and propulsion machinery — could be dismantled. A subsequent industry day in June, according to two persons who attended, was as much about the Navy listening to industry's ideas as providing further information.

The Navy refused to discuss the situation or provide further context for this report, declining repeated requests to do so. But NAVSEA, in a tersely-worded written statement, confirmed the issue is still open.

"To ensure the best use of resources, the Navy is currently looking at options for recycling of USS Enterprise (CVN 65), including the possibility of commercial recycling," NAVSEA said May 4 in the statement. "All reactor compartments and radioactive systems will be disposed of by [Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and the Intermediate Maintenance Facility]. No final decisions have been made."

But in discussions with non-Navy sources familiar with various aspects of the situation, it appears that two factors are driving the interest in opening the Enterprise job to commercial bidders. First and possibly foremost, several sources reported the Navy was unhappy with the high cost put forth by the naval shipyard to do the job – which includes towing the Enterprise nearly 14,000 nautical miles from Virginia around South America to Puget Sound. Reportedly, the estimated cost far exceeds funds budgeted for the move.

Another issue seems to be that of capacity at Puget Sound. The shipyard is the primary carrier overhaul facility on the northwest Pacific coast, and it's known to be quite busy tending to the fleet's active ships. The facility also has a backlog of nuclear ships on its waterfront awaiting recycling, including a dozen inactivated Los Angeles-class submarines and the cut-down hulk of the nuclear cruiser Long Beach.

Enterprise is at Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS) in Newport News, Virginia — the same yard that built the Big E from 1957 to 1961. The ship was taken to the yard from nearby Norfolk Naval Base in 2013 for defueling and stripping, part of a workload carefully choreographed between Newport News and Puget Sound. Negotiations, for example, included whether the island superstructure giving the ship its famous profile would be taken off in Virginia or remain in place for the transcontinental tow. Puget Sound reportedly insisted the ship arrive at Bremerton looking as much like her old self as possible, and the island is to remain in place.

And while Newport News is primarily concerned with building and overhauling nuclear carriers and submarines, stripping and defueling the world's first nuclear carrier is a major job, with about 1,100 people across the yard working on the ship.

Newport News has said for some time that it is well-positioned to completely dispose of the Enterprise, being the only shipyard in the US that builds nuclear aircraft carriers. The company's parent corporation, Huntington Ingalls Industries, is expanding its work in the nuclear energy field, and in January formed SN3 — Stoller Newport News Nuclear — described as a "full-service nuclear operations and environmental services company combining the company's S.M. Stoller Corp. and Newport News Nuclear subsidiaries."

Newport News attended the June 2014 industry day — dubbed by NAVSEA as the "CVN 65 Ship-Shaping Industry Day" — and confirmed its continuing interest in bidding for further work on the Enterprise.

"We believe that NNS, working with our SN3 nuclear energy business in a partnership that may also include others, possesses the technical expertise and certainly a great knowledge of the ship that, when combined, may offer our Navy customer with a lower cost option and we are interested in doing this work," company spokeswoman Jerri Dickseski said in a statement.

*Major Job*

The aircraft carriers now being disposed of are the largest warships ever to be scrapped, anywhere. NAVSEA recently broke a longstanding logjam and began awarding recycling contracts for decommissioned conventionally-powered carriers of the Forrestal and Kitty Hawk classes, and three ships — Forrestal, Saratoga and Constellation — are in the ship channel at Brownsville, Texas, all in various stages of being broken up by three different shipbreaking companies. A fourth ship, Ranger, is in the middle of a four-month tow from Puget Sound. Now off Argentina, she is expected to arrive in Brownsville in mid-summer.

Representatives from all three shipbreaking companies in Brownsville — International Shipbreaking LLC, All-Star Metals and ESCO Marine — also attended NAVSEA's industry day. International Shipbreaking and All-Star Metals said they remain interested in the Enterprise job.

Nikhil Shah, president of All-Star Metals, confirmed his company responded to the RFI.

"I think it opened their eyes to see what else is out there," he said May 14 of the industry day. "The Navy does a very good job trying to understand what the industry has to offer, and needed to hear from industry what different options there are."

Shah felt the Navy learned "about certain items they didn't think was in issue, just because they hadn't done it in a private contract." Some of those items included asking about a contractor's nuclear waste disposal capability, and what plan they might have for transporting nuclear waste.

"The Navy has to feel comfortable with the process," Shah said. "They have to identify the process and put it in writing, probably with a request for proposal. There's a technical side to this that takes time to understand so that everyone's on the same page."

All-Star is recycling the carrier Forrestal, and is about 75 percent complete with the task, Shah said. The company is to finish the job in October.

International Shipbreaking is working on the carrier Constellation, Vice President Robert Berry said May 14, and will recycle the Ranger. Work on the Constellation, he said, is about 20 to 25 percent done, with completion expected in 2016. Berry provided some insight into what the Navy is looking for with the Enterprise.

"They were looking for ideas on how to reduce the amount of material that had to go to Bremerton — in other words, cut the ship down to size so that Bremerton wouldn't have so much to deal with."

The Navy, he said, "had a couple of scenarios. One was to cut the carrier down to the hangar deck, then put it on a semi-submersible heavy-lift ship and carry it" to Puget Sound. "The thing was to get some weight off it and reduce the width."

Another scenario discussed, Berry said, was to "take some weight off, narrow it up," then tow the cut-down Enterprise through the new Panama Canal, which is expected to open in 2016.

The original canal's 110-foot wide locks have been the most significant factor limiting the size of ships that pass through since completion in 1914. US capital ships were once designed to fit that restriction, but beginning with the Midway-class carriers in 1945 all US flattops have been too large to use the canal. The overall width of most US carriers, including Enterprise, is about 250 feet — a figure that includes the hull, projecting sponsons and the overhang of the flight deck. But the hull, with all projections cut off, is only 133 feet wide.

The new Panama Canal now under construction will have much larger lock chambers — 180 feet wide, 1,400 feet long and 60 feet in depth. Enterprise, Berry said, could be cut down to fit through those new locks.

The Navy has given no indication which way it's leaning, Berry said. "We really don't know what they're going to come up with."

The situation with the third company in Brownsville, ESCO Marine, is in doubt. The company completed about 25 percent of the recycling and remediation work on the carrier Saratoga before it suspended operations last winter in a dispute with a creditor. According to media reports, ESCO Marine laid off about 300 employees in February and is effectively closed. Phone calls and emails to ESCO were unanswered.

"The Navy is monitoring the situation at ESCO Marine, and is working closely with the company to ensure they fulfill their contractual obligations," Chris Johnson, a NAVSEA spokesman, said May 14. "The Navy retains ownership of the Saratoga until all scrapping work is completed. We are assured the vessel is being kept in a secure condition as specified in the contract."

Should Newport News secure the Enterprise work, several sources indicated, the actual job of reducing or breaking the ship would not likely be done in Virginia. No one would confirm specific talks between Newport News, All-Star Metals, International Shipbreaking or others, but it seems certain discussions have been held about potential partnerships.

"We'd do anything that makes good business sense, absolutely," Berry said.

"We're always in discussions, always looking at strategic partnerships to grow and foster the maritime business," Shah said. "The maritime world is small and getting smaller. We're always looking at alternative ways to partner with someone."










_The carrier Enterprise being moved into a drydock May 2 at Newport News Shipbuilding, Virginia.(Photo: Dar Deerfield-Mook/Newport News Shipbuilding)_

Scrap War: US May Compete Nuclear Ship Disposal Deal


----------



## Indus Falcon

*Nanosatellites could provide future battlefield communications*

By Kevin McCaney
May 15, 2015





*Dr. Travis Taylor holds a plastic rocket engine in front of the SMDC-ONE, at right, and the larger imaging satellite.*

Keywords, nanosatellites, Army, situational awareness, SMDC, SMDC-ONE, imaging, satellites, C4ISR, communications, Space and Missile Defense Command, Taylor

Over-the-hill visibility is a valuable asset for troops in the field, but it’s not always available, especially in remote areas. The Army may soon be able to get around that problem by giving soldiers access to a new kind of eye in the sky—small, inexpensive nanosatellites that can provide voice, data and even visuals.

The service’s Space and Missile Defense Command - Tech Center, or SMDC, has developed and tested a nanosatellite that provides voice and data, called the SMCD-ONE (Orbital Nanosatellite Effect), and is developing an imaging satellite that would work the same way.

The first SMDC-ONE is in orbit now, and the tech center is planning to launch three more this year, with an as-yet undetermined number to be launched in 2016. "It's basically a cellphone tower in space, except it's not for cellphones, it's for Army radios," said Dr. Travis Taylor, the senior scientist in the center’s Space Division, who talked about the satellites at this week’s DOD Lab Day at the Pentagon.

The satellite, in the shape of an oblong box maybe a foot long, can connect dismounted soldiers to a forward operating base or to sensors in the area. It was designed, starting in 2008, to last a year or longer in orbit and cost no more than $350,000 each, according to Ducommun Miltec, which developed the satellite. (PDF) Miltec delivered eight of the satellites to SMDC in 2009 in advance of the current orbital tests.

SMDC-ONE nanosatellites could be joined in space by larger (but still considered nano) imaging satellites, the first of which the Army plans to launch on a test flight in February from the International Space Station. That satellite, still unnamed, will have a ground resolution of two to three meters, enough to identify a tank or truck. “This is capability the Army doesn't have right now," Taylor said.

It will require some manual work, since the imaging satellite will only be able to process one image at a time. The example Taylor gave was of a squad leader requesting an image of an area nearby from a brigade’s base, where someone would have to give the request priority. He said the satellite could process an image in about a minute.

Although still in the demonstration phase, Taylor said he hopes the tests will be successful enough to create the demand for a full constellation of them. "If we put five to 12 of these small satellites in orbit, it will cover most areas soldiers are operating, providing them real-time, all the time" communications, he said.

A key to the project is positioning the satellites, which will be in low-Earth orbit. Nanosatellites wouldn’t be launched individually, but would hitch rides with larger satellites and be deployed once in orbit. That doesn’t guarantee it will be in the right place—the host satellite has its own orbit to follow—so SMDC developed a small, plastic device that serves as an engine. "This is an actual rocket motor, made from a plastic printer," Taylor said. "Inside is liquid nitric oxide and a sparker—just like a barbeque lighter inside—so the nitric oxide combusts with the plastic" when the sparker is fired. "That's your rocket fuel. Then you have a very good rocket motor."

Taylor said if the current tests prove the values of the technology, they could be deployed for use in three to five years.

Nanosatellites could provide future battlefield communications -- Defense Systems


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

SvenSvensonov said:


> *Watch The Navy's Hyper Velocity Projectile Rip Through These Plates*



That "dispense" part is truly key against an anti-ship missile. Get an explosive up quick to a target.


----------



## AMDR

*Keel is Laid for Virginia-Class Submarine Indiana*
SEAPOWER Magazine Online

NEWPORT NEWS, Va. — With more than 500 guests looking into a submarine unit as the ceremony backdrop, Newport News Shipbuilding, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries, celebrated the keel laying of Virginia-class submarine _Indiana_ (SSN 789) on May 16, the company announced in a May 18 release.

The submarine’s sponsor is Diane Donald, wife of retired ADM Kirkland Donald. As the keel authenticator, Donald chalked her initials on a metal plate, which were welded into the plate by Newport News welder Heather Johnson. The plate will be permanently affixed to the submarine, serving as a symbol of Donald’s enduring relationship with the shipbuilders, the submarine and the crew.

“I am confident that the shipbuilders of Newport News and their partners at Electric Boat, along with the hundreds of suppliers that provide equipment and craftsmanship unmatched in the world, will extend their legacy of delivering the very best ship,” she said.

Ceremony participants included VADM Michael J. Connor, commander, Submarine Forces; Stephen Trautman, deputy director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program; Matt Mulherin, president, Newport News Shipbuilding; and Jeffrey S. Geiger, president, General Dynamics Electric Boat.

Connor stressed the quality and importance of the Virginia-class program at Newport News and Electric Boat.

“We talk every six months now about yet another milestone in a record of producing submarines ahead of schedule, under cost, highest quality ever, as if it were easy,” he said. “It’s not easy. And as we go forward, if we’re going to continue to do that, your effort here needs the support of the entire country in terms of steady, predictable budgets.”

The ceremony took place on Armed Forces Day, a holiday established by President Harry Truman for citizens to thank U.S. military members for their service. In this spirit, Mulherin acknowledged how fitting it was to celebrate the submarine and its crew and highlighted the mindset and commitment that can be found among the Navy, shipbuilder and supplier team that builds Virginia-class submarines.

“Together, we are delivering these boats ahead of schedule and under budget while continuing to find new and more innovative ways to build them, and we do it with the highest safety and quality standards,” he said. “The Virginia-class program continues to be hailed as the nation’s best shipbuilding program, and Indiana will continue that winning legacy.”

_Indiana_ will be the 16th Virginia-class submarine and the eighth submarine to be delivered by Newport News and the sixth of the Block III submarines. Construction began in September 2012, with 4,000 Newport News shipbuilders contributing. The submarine is about 48 percent complete and on track for delivery in 2017.

Geiger addressed the shipbuilders’ commitment to producing capable and affordable submarines like Indiana.

“By honoring our commitment, we will help the U.S. fleet attain the submarine force levels required to sustain undersea dominance and safeguard our nation for decades to come,” he said.

The submarine is named for the residents of the state of Indiana and for their support of the U.S. military. Although not on the coast, Indiana is home to the Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane Division, the third largest naval installation in the world. Seventy-five Medal of Honor recipients are accredited to Indiana, spanning the Civil War through the Vietnam War.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Taygibay

About the nanosats story, there is at present no difficulty in sending many such small payload safely but …
there is a limited bubble around us that would saturate quite quickly if that idea was applied to major war.

For reference :
NASA - A Beehive of Satellites






Tay.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*The 218-Year-Old Constitution Is Getting A Refit In Its Ancient Dry Dock*






After standing guard on Boston Harbor for nearly twenty years, the centuries old USS _Constitution_, the U.S. Navy’s symbolic flagship and floating museum will be put into her almost equally as vintage dry dock for inspections and repairs to her wooden hull and complex rigging.

Boston Naval Shipyard, which is no longer active, was _almost_ the first yard in the hemisphere to have a dry dock, a claim to fame it missed by just one week when Norfolk Naval Shipyard opened their first dry dock on June 17th, 1833. Still, the achievement was a huge one, and the first ship to be brought into Boston’s then state-of-the-art Dry Dock #1 was, you guessed it, the USS _Constitution.





_
The Constitution still uses this nearly purpose built vintage facility today to get refreshed every two decades or so. This is not only very cool, but it also offers visitors to “Old Ironside” and her museum a spectacular view of the entire ship, including its weathered hull, in a setting that looks nearly period correct.






Just like when she was originally pulled in for a refit nearly 200 years ago, special wooden keel and hull blocks, along with other wooden support rigging, will be used to keep the ship in a stable state while allowing workers to reach her every nook and cranny.

The last time the floating icon was put into dry dock was in 1995 and stayed their for two years. For this major restoration and overhaul, which will begin May 19th, she will remain at Dry Dock #1 for nearly three years. During her time there, her hull will be re-coppered, worn rigging will be replaced, an rotting planks will be replaced with new ones. Other repairs and restoration efforts will be centered around the bow, stern and the captain’s cabin. The effort is supposed to cost roughly $15M and the ship will be open for tours throughout the process. The ship normally sees about 500,000 visitors per year.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## KAL-EL

SvenSvensonov said:


> *The 218-Year-Old Constitution Is Getting A Refit In Its Ancient Dry Dock*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After standing guard on Boston Harbor for nearly twenty years, the centuries old USS _Constitution_, the U.S. Navy’s symbolic flagship and floating museum will be put into her almost equally as vintage dry dock for inspections and repairs to her wooden hull and complex rigging.
> 
> Boston Naval Shipyard, which is no longer active, was _almost_ the first yard in the hemisphere to have a dry dock, a claim to fame it missed by just one week when Norfolk Naval Shipyard opened their first dry dock on June 17th, 1833. Still, the achievement was a huge one, and the first ship to be brought into Boston’s then state-of-the-art Dry Dock #1 was, you guessed it, the USS _Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> The Constitution still uses this nearly purpose built vintage facility today to get refreshed every two decades or so. This is not only very cool, but it also offers visitors to “Old Ironside” and her museum a spectacular view of the entire ship, including its weathered hull, in a setting that looks nearly period correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like when she was originally pulled in for a refit nearly 200 years ago, special wooden keel and hull blocks, along with other wooden support rigging, will be used to keep the ship in a stable state while allowing workers to reach her every nook and cranny.
> 
> The last time the floating icon was put into dry dock was in 1995 and stayed their for two years. For this major restoration and overhaul, which will begin May 19th, she will remain at Dry Dock #1 for nearly three years. During her time there, her hull will be re-coppered, worn rigging will be replaced, an rotting planks will be replaced with new ones. Other repairs and restoration efforts will be centered around the bow, stern and the captain’s cabin. The effort is supposed to cost roughly $15M and the ship will be open for tours throughout the process. The ship normally sees about 500,000 visitors per year.




Very cool! Thanks for sharing @SvenSvensonov

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

SvenSvensonov said:


> *The 218-Year-Old Constitution Is Getting A Refit In Its Ancient Dry Dock*



Geez even I didn't know this. Might just check it out.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Falcon

SvenSvensonov said:


> *The 218-Year-Old Constitution Is Getting A Refit In Its Ancient Dry Dock*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After standing guard on Boston Harbor for nearly twenty years, the centuries old USS _Constitution_, the U.S. Navy’s symbolic flagship and floating museum will be put into her almost equally as vintage dry dock for inspections and repairs to her wooden hull and complex rigging.
> 
> Boston Naval Shipyard, which is no longer active, was _almost_ the first yard in the hemisphere to have a dry dock, a claim to fame it missed by just one week when Norfolk Naval Shipyard opened their first dry dock on June 17th, 1833. Still, the achievement was a huge one, and the first ship to be brought into Boston’s then state-of-the-art Dry Dock #1 was, you guessed it, the USS _Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> The Constitution still uses this nearly purpose built vintage facility today to get refreshed every two decades or so. This is not only very cool, but it also offers visitors to “Old Ironside” and her museum a spectacular view of the entire ship, including its weathered hull, in a setting that looks nearly period correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like when she was originally pulled in for a refit nearly 200 years ago, special wooden keel and hull blocks, along with other wooden support rigging, will be used to keep the ship in a stable state while allowing workers to reach her every nook and cranny.
> 
> The last time the floating icon was put into dry dock was in 1995 and stayed their for two years. For this major restoration and overhaul, which will begin May 19th, she will remain at Dry Dock #1 for nearly three years. During her time there, her hull will be re-coppered, worn rigging will be replaced, an rotting planks will be replaced with new ones. Other repairs and restoration efforts will be centered around the bow, stern and the captain’s cabin. The effort is supposed to cost roughly $15M and the ship will be open for tours throughout the process. The ship normally sees about 500,000 visitors per year.



WOW!!!! Thank you for sharing appreciate it!!!!


----------



## Transhumanist

*Six USMC F-35Bs Land Aboard The Wasp For Critical Operational Trials*






A half-dozen F-35Bs just landed on the deck of the USS _Wasp _(LHD-1) to begin the first shipboard phase of their operational trials. For the next two weeks, the six jets will prove they can operate aboard a Gator Navy Flattop under real-world conditions similar to those the jet will face during its operational lifespan.






No less than five squadrons will be involved in this portion of the F-35B’s operational testing. These include Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 and 501, as well as Marine Test and Evaluation Squadron 22. Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 13 and 31 will also play a crucial role to see if these new jets continue operating throughout this critical evaluation phase.

Dubbed OT-1, the testing will including operating the F-35B during a wide array of flight deck scenarios, including day and night operations, while flying in various configurations. It will also assess the jet’s connectivity with the ship’s communications and data systems, the landing signal officer’s new software tailored for the F-35B, as well as all types of maintenance scenarios. There will also be the loading and unloading of weapons on and off the jets as it operates at sea.

Beyond testing the jets themselves, this period at sea will also be used to assess what other modifications will need to be made to the USS _Wasp _and other helicopter landing ships in order to support the jet during its operational career. This has been a sensitive topic as the F-35’s hot exhaust has proven to be very abrasive to the decks of all existing ships that could accommodate it.






The sea trials phase comes as the F-35 program office is looking to declare the USMC’s version of the jet operational this summer, even though it will be stripped of many of its capabilities and its software and testing will remain deep in development.

Operating from a ship with a contingent of six aircraft under conditions they have never faced is a challenging event that has its risks. Even though the F-35B has been to the ship before on multiple occasions it has never been pushed like how it will be during OT-1.






The F-35 program hopes that this evaluation period will go just as well as the F-35C’s initial boat trials a few months ago, although that event was far less complex than this one and only included two jets. The Navy’s F-35C operational test trials remain years away.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## AMDR

*Airbus Provides TRS-4D AESA Radars to Freedom-Class Littoral Combat Ships*
SEAPOWER Magazine Online




HERNDON, Va. — Airbus Defense and Space Inc. now is under contract with its affiliate, Airbus Defence and Space GmbH, to provide an additional TRS-4D naval radar for the U.S. Navy’s littoral combat ship (LCS) program through Freedom-class LCS prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, Airbus said in a May 18 release. The radar is planned to go aboard LCS 21 following the already planned installations of TRS-4D aboard LCS 17 and LCS 19.

The TRS-4D radar for LCS is a rotating version of the Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) fixed panel TRS-4D radar currently going aboard the German F-125 class frigates. It combines mechanical and electronic azimuth scanning to achieve fast generation of target tracks.

System characteristics of the TRS-4D are an excellent match for the environment faced by LCS and its evolution to a frigate. The radar’s AESA technology delivers increased sensitivity to detect smaller targets with greater accuracy, as well as faster track generation to give LCS more time to react to advanced threats.

This software-defined radar is programmable by the customer, enabling changes to radar characteristics to match future threats that evolve over the life of the ship. The ability to customize the characteristics of the TRS-4D helps enable LCS to evolve through its service life and adapt to evolving required operational capabilities and projected operational environments in an affordable manner.

“Superior performance and adaptability for the future are key characteristics of the TRS-4D radar,” said Mike Cosentino, president of Airbus Defense and Space Inc. “It supports the LCS evolution to a frigate, meets current and future threats, and can readily be adapted to change over the service life of the ship.”

Employing state of the art AESA technology, the TRS-4D is a three-dimensional, multimode naval radar for surveillance, target acquisition, self-defense, gunfire support and aircraft control. It automatically detects and tracks all types of air and sea targets, alleviating crew workload requirements.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*US Air Force to decommission final MC-130P Combat Shadows*
US Air Force to decommission final MC-130P Combat Shadows - Airforce Technology






The US Air Force's (USAF) final two MC-130P Combat Shadow aircraft landed for the last time in Hurlburt Field, Florida, during an MC-130P heritage flight, prior to their decommissioning.

The aircraft, designated 66-0217 and 69-5819, were built in 1969. They will take their last flight to the boneyard in June at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona, US.

1st Special Operations wing-commander colonel Sean Farrell said: "We are truly saying goodbye to a legend.

"The Shadow's been a warhorse for Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) and US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and the nation for over 25 years, and the airframes are even older. It is a legacy of valour that we are honouring today."

The MC-130P started its special operations career in the mid-1980s and received their P designation in 1996. The aircraft carried out critical air refuelling missions in the late 1980s during Operation Just Cause in Panama, and the early 1990s during Operation Desert Storm.

Operations the aircraft have been involved in include Operation Desert Storm, Northern and Southern Watch, Deny Flight in Yugoslavia, Restore Democracy and Uphold Democracy in Haiti, Deliberate Force and Joint Endeavor in Bosnia.

In addition, the units were part of Assured Response in Liberia, Guardian Retrieval from Zaire, Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, Iraqi Freedom, New Dawn, and Odyssey Dawn.

The Combat Shadows are scheduled to be replaced by the MC-130J Commando II aircraft, which are being built by Lockheed Martin as part of Air Force Special Operations Command's fleet-wide C-130 recapitalisation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*USMC Eyes Options for Light Vehicle*
USMC Eyes Options for Light Vehicle

WASHINGTON — As the US Marine Corps returns to its expeditionary roots, it is planning a safety and reliability upgrade — and a possible replacement — for its internally transportable vehicle (ITV), designed to fit in an MV-22 Osprey.

The efforts dovetail with higher demand in operations and the service's Expeditionary Force 21 concept, which emphasizes lighter forces, such as its quick-reaction Marine expeditionary units (MEUs), a Corps official said. When the last dozen or so MEUs have deployed, each has brought as many as 20 ITVs with them.

"Dispersed company operations are our way forward, and with this platform we are finding, with the infantry community, a desire to reduce the load they're carrying on their backs," said Mark Godfrey, transportation branch chief at the Marine Corps' logistics division and capabilities integration directorate.

The efforts also run parallel with US Special Operations Command's effort to develop an Osprey-transportable vehicle.

This fall, the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory is conducting a limited objective experiment and a limited technical assessment to define the need and find vehicles that could fill it. Though originally designed for light-strike missions, such a vehicle is also considered a contender for logistics and casualty evacuation missions.

The machine, or machines, are envisioned as readily available at an affordable price, particularly as the Marine Corps prioritizes its Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV). The ACV, in development now, is expected to eat a significant chunk of the service's budget when it is fielded, Godfrey said.

The Corps is in talks with 12 vendors whose vehicles can fit inside a V-22 to participate in the technical assessment at the Nevada Automotive Test Center. The limited objective experiment will involve an infantry company in an exercise set for Camp Pendleton and Fort Hunter Liggett in California.

These efforts mark something of a comeback for the ITV. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan saw a reluctance to use a vehicle without armor to protect it from roadside bombs. Intended for the infantry, ITVs were fielded primarily to the reconnaissance, Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command and artillery communities.

When the last of the vehicles was purchased and fielded in 2010, the requirement had been pared from 750 to 266, with another 145 "prime mover" variants, which carry a 120mm mortar. These M1161 and M1163 Growlers were originally manufactured by American Growler in 2004 and subsequently bought out by General Dynamics.

"The fielding was a bit of bad timing because we were heavily involved in [Iraq and Afghanistan], and trying to field a vehicle that was unarmored led to a delay before there was a lot of use of this platform," Godfrey said. "Of late, we are seeing a lot larger demand signal as we are trying to transition the Marine Corps back to its expeditionary roots."

Meanwhile, the program office is working to resolve the readiness and parts supply issues that have gnawed at the ITV program. The goal is to have the Corps' own maintenance and supply personnel maintain the vehicle organically by 2020, said Andy Rodgers, the Marine Corps' program manager for light tactical vehicles.

The original ITV had to be light enough to fit into the V-22 and

"You added a lot of complexity on the maintenance side to achieve the lightweight parts needed to have it fit in the aircraft, and durability to go over that same terrain that you expected a Humvee to go over," Godfrey said.

For Rodgers, parts and supply issues play into the argument for better cooperation with Special Operations Command and its effort to develop an ITV.

"Any opportunity for commonality between services is a good thing for lifecycle support and overall cost to the government," Rodgers said.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## monitor

*Boeing, Pentagon discussing space-based hyperspectral sensor options*
By: James Drew
Los Angeles
Source: Flightglobal.com
12 hours ago
Boeing says it is in discussions with the US government about deploying a space-based hyperspectral imaging sensor several years after the air force started flying Raytheon’s Airborne Cueing and Exploitation System-Hyperspectral, or ACES-Hy, system tactically on an MQ-1 Predator UAV.

ACES-Hy, which captures images based on an object’s electromagnetic signature, was originally tested on a satellite before being integrated with an unmanned aircraft. Now, Boeing says there is interest from the Pentagon in augmenting a space-based capability with its airborne hyperspectral imaging pods.

Umesh Ketkar, Boeing’s director of advanced space and intelligence systems, said at company-sponsored media tour in Los Angeles May 19 that the commercial sector is interested in providing hyperspectral imaging services to the government, but the Pentagon might also choose to deploy its own payload on a satellite.

“We’re engaged with government at two levels,” he explains. “One is a government acquisition of a space system, and the other that the government has expressed a lot of interest in is acquiring the data without having to acquire the satellite system.

“We’re having a lot more discussions with them about providing them data or even [alerting them to] signals of interest.”
Ketkar says the defense department is still assessing its requirements, and it could be a while before any decision is made.

“They’re trying to figure out what mix of air-based – things like ACES-Hy – and space-based systems they need,” he says. “I don’t think they’ve come to a final conclusion on that yet.”

The US Air Force currently leads the development and fielding of hyperspectral imaging technology, and is currently working on an improved, high-resolution ACES-Hy camera, according to its latest budget documents.

The research and development programme attracts $14.5 million in funding through 2020. L-3 Communications and Exelis both support ACES-Hy with Raytheon as the prime contractor. A space-based system would require a much larger investment.

The air force's Advanced Responsive Tactically Effective Military Imaging Spectrometer (ARTEMIS) hyperspectral imaging payload was put on orbit in 2009 for a two-year mission.

Hyperspectral sensors are used to detect minute changes on the battlefield and they have been used to detect improvised explosive devices and other hidden threats.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist

All credit to @SvenSvensonov for the original post.

Please go here for more info:

Micro stories - small news bits too small to have their own thread | Page 18

*March 20, 2015 X-37B launch:*











*Austal USA Launches Sixth Joint High Speed Vessel*






The sixth Joint High Speed Vessel launched on Tuesday from Austal USA’s yard in Mobile, Ala., Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) announced in a statement.

The aluminum catamaran _Brunswick_ (JHSV-6) will now undergo final outfitting before the ship delivers to U.S. Military Sealift Command (MSC) later this year.

“Launch marks a major milestone for this ship as this is the first time it’s entered the water, signifying its readiness to prepare for tests and trials and eventual delivery,” said Capt. Henry Stevens, Strategic and Theater Sealift Program Manager, Program Executive Office, Ships. “This is a very busy time for the Navy and the shipbuilder as we continue to mark the major milestones that bring each ship closer to delivery and eventual in-service operations.”
The ship was christened earlier this month and the fifth JHSV, _Trenton_, completed acceptance trials in March.

_Trenton _(JHSV-5) will host the first at-sea test of the Navy’s electromagnetic railgun next year.

JHSV began as a joint Army and Navy Program until the Army left the ten-ship $2.5 billion program.

The 1,515 ton ship can carry up to 600 tons of troops and gear. The ships displace 1,515-tons, can cruise at 35 knots at a range of 1,200 nautical miles.

From Austal USA Launches Sixth Joint High Speed Vessel - USNI News

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Transhumanist

*I saw where the F-35 gets one of its most classified features, and it's amazing*






"This room is the most advanced painting facility in the world," retired US Air Force pilot and F-35 simulation instructor Rick Royer told me as we toured Lockheed Martin's highly secure plane facility in Fort Worth, Texas.

The Aircraft Final Finishes bay is where America's most expensive weapons system gets coated with a highly classified stealth technology, which makes it invisible to radar.

After the jet is assembled and before it can take flight, three laser-guided robots apply the Radar-Absorbing Material (RAM) to each of Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II variant aircraft.

Here's all we know (and can share) about how the F-35 gets its invisibility cloak:

*First, each F-35 variant is assembled in Lockheed Martin's mile-long production facility.*






*Once an F-35 is ready to leave the production line, it is carefully rolled ...*

*



*

*... into the windowless, multistory, 226,000-square-foot Aircraft Final Finishes (AFF) complex.*

*



*

*The jet is placed in one of two paint bays where three laser-guided robots are programmed to spray RAM on all surfaces except the tails and various parts that are coated at a separate area called the Robotic Component Finishing System.*

*



*

*According to an SAE International report, the first coating process was completed on a F-35B in 2008 and took three days.*

*



*

*Lockheed Martin's AFF facility services seven planes a month and is expected to increase to 17 jets by 2020.*

*



*

*From Where F-35 gets classified features - Business Insider*

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Transhumanist

*This Stealth Missile Will Use EMPs To Cripple Enemy Electronics *






The Pentagon’s Counter-Electronics High-Power Advanced Microwave Project (CHAMP) has been one of the sci-fi like weapons programs that has the ability to change warfare as we know forever. Now it looks like the CHAMP has found an ideal delivery vehicle, the stealthy Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range.






The whole idea behind CHAMP is to be able to destroy an enemy’s command, control, communication and computing, surveillance and intelligence (C4SI) capabilities without doing any damage to the people or traditional infrastructure in and around it. In other words, it can eliminate a facility’s effectiveness by destroying the electronics within it alone, via a microwave pulse, without kinetically attacking the facility itself. Think of it as the mother of all less than lethal weapons. 






The effects of a CHAMP are very similar to what would happen during an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) caused by a high-altitude nuclear detonation or by a powerful solar storm, just on a much smaller, more focused scale. Unlike an EMP bomb, which are area weapons and indiscriminate as to who they target within their blast area, CHAMP is really an EMP assassin that comes in and surgically eliminates an enemy’s war enabling technology, barely leaving a fingerprint it was ever even there.

The technology has been around conceptually for many years and something like it was even rumored to have been deployed secretly before. For instance, there were reports that during the fall of Qaddafi, unmanned aircraft orbited over Libya’s most volatile weapons stockpiles and zapped vehicles engines and electronics that approached.






Regardless of if this technology already exists in any operational form or not, CHAMP is a heavier hitting capability that could very well save many lives while dealing the enemy a huge blow during the opening stages of major air campaigns. CHAMP, which is a Boeing and Air Force Research Laboratory project, was successfully tested in 2012 aboard a AGM-86 Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missile (CALCM). During the test, which occurred over a bombing and testing range in Utah, the CHAMP equipped CALCM flew over a two story building filled with computers and other powered technology and initiated a high-power, directed microwave burst above it as it passed by. The burst knocked out all the equipment inside. The test went on to zap six more targets successfully before the missile crashed itself in a pre-designated area. Other test flights are set to have followed, and even hardened targets were not completely immune to CHAMP’s zapping power.

CHAMP’s previous tests are said to have used a unit based on a powerful vacuum tube that used a magnetron that produces large directed pulses of microwave radiation. Newer systems will most likely be based on Active Electronically Scanned Arrays (AESAs) like those used in cutting-edge radar systems. These systems have a whole slew of advantages of their ‘analogue’ predecessors, one of which is miniaturization, beam focus and agility.

X-band AESA radar arrays are currently flying aboard F-15C and F/A-18E/F/G and F-22 fighters, and will be a centerpiece sensor aboard the F-35. They are also migrating to airborne surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, as well as surface combatants. Details as to these platform’s ability to use their powerful radars for pinpoint “soft kill” attacks against electronics, especially those fitted onto sensitive enemy sensors and even incoming missiles, remains cloaked in classification but is clearly exists. As one contact of mine in the electronic warfare field puts, “everywhere there is an aperture (an antenna or radar array) there is a vulnerability.”

Now, as CHAMP is nearing operational form, it needs a proper platform that can deploy it against the enemy. Although the CALCM is a proven weapon, and converting older AGM-86s over to CHAMP makes sense in the interim, it is an old missile and not nearly as capable or survivable as modern stealthy cruise missiles such as Lockheed’s Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, or JASSM.






JASSM-ER (for Extended Range) is a logical platform for CHAMP as it can be launched by both bombers and fighters, and is a proven design that is already being evolved into a highly advanced anti-ship missile, the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile, or LRASM. Also, it is smart and stealthy, able to actively detect threatening radars and evade or attack them, making it survivable against the world’s most capable air defense systems.

The ER model also offers double the range as the older AGM-158 JASSM model (about 550 miles), and this may even end up being extended further as the CHAMP equipped JASSM-ER will need no terminal homing sensor or warhead at all, which could make space for more fuel.

Once integrated into JASSM-ER, CHAMP will be a ‘first day of war’ standoff weapon that can be launched outside an enemy’s area-denial/anti-access capabilities, and fly a route over known C4SI facilities, zapping them along its way, before destroying itself at the end of its mission. Because of its stealth design, long-range and is expendable, it will fly where no other assets could and because it does not blow anything up, its use does not necessarily give away the fact that the enemy is under direct attack in the first place. In that sense, it is a psychological weapon, capable of at least partially blinding an enemy before they even know that a larger-scale attack is coming.






CHAMP may have trouble knocking out the most hardened enemy electronic systems, but their sensors are possibly another story. Command and control components and sensors used at surface-to-air missile sites and for integrated air defense system connectivity could be put at great risk by the stealthy JASSM-ER/CHAMP combo. Such a system could loiter for prolonged periods of time over enemy territory, and use similar radar warning receivers as those featured on the LRASM to attack enemy air defense nodes that come online.

If a swarm of these missiles were networked together, they could work as a team to suppress the enemy’s ability to communicate and defend itself in real time without any direction from human operators. In such a role, CHAMP equipped JASSM-ERs could be used alongside Miniature Air Launched Decoys to play complete havoc on an enemy’s ability to defend its airspace to an incoming attack.

Although the stealthy and expensive JASSM-ER will be an effective ‘fire and forget’ platform for a CHAMP-like device, this capability is really suited for unmanned aircraft that can have all the advantages of JASSM-ER but can return to base to be used again when their mission ends. Really, any combat aircraft could benefit from a CHAMP-like ability.

Even if laser weaponry is seen as the future’s super pinpoint aerial attack capability, it still causes physical damage to its target, including to human beings. CHAMP on the other hand would be able to neutralize many targets by destroying electronics alone. In doing so the system could be greatly effective at doing everything from stopping trucks full of insurgents, to rendering improvised explosive devices (IEDs) inoperable, to disabling massive command and control facilities full of computers and communications devices. As such, everything from a Predator unmanned aircraft to an F-35 could use such a capability in its quiver.






Seeing as CHAMP can fit inside a CALCM today, and probably inside a small diameter bomb in the future, there is no reason to think that combat aircraft around the globe will be equipped with CHAMP-like pods in the not so distant future. Even here at home, law enforcement could use such a device to totally eliminate dangerous high-speed vehicle chases. The Coast Guard and Navy could also potentially use similar devices to disable unresponsive ships or those that are swarming around surface combatants in a combined attack.

A very precise, close-in air defense version of CHAMP, based on an AESA type emitter, could solve the White House’s and other VVIP’s hobby drone problems. Simply zap them out of the sky by frying their electronic components instead of using kinetic weapons, such as missiles or bullets, or even lasers. This precise ‘soft kill’ capability solves so many modern day security and defense problems that it could very well revolutionize the way we look at ‘striking’ a target.

Right now, CHAMP is like the first guided bombs of the 1970s. Sure, its technology is exciting and shown to be effective, but where it will quickly lead has the ability to change modern warfare as we know it forever, and for the better.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Indus Falcon

BAE Systems Submits Bid for US Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle 1.1 Program
(Source: BAE Systems; issued May 19, 2015)





_Like most of its competitors, BAE Systems teamed with a European manufacturer – in this case, Italy’s Iveco – to compete for the Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle program. (BAES photo)_
_ The company’s solution, built from the ground up to be a truly amphibious vehicle, would provide a significant benefit to the Marine Corps’ current and future needs. _

BAE Systems is teamed with IVECO Defence, which brings additional proven experience having designed and built more than 30,000 multi-purpose, protected, and armored military vehicles in service today. The team’s U.S.-built, non-developmental solution has completed thousands of miles of mobility testing and a full range of amphibious operations, including demonstrations of launch and recovery of the vehicle from amphibious ship test platforms. 

“Our solution will provide the Marine Corps with a truly amphibious capability, designed into our solution and backed by our more than 70 years of experience designing and building amphibious vehicles,” said Deepak Bazaz, director of new and amphibious vehicles at BAE Systems. “Our ACV 1.1 proposal offers a mature, cost-effective solution with growth capacity to meet future Marine Corps needs.” 

The Marine Corps plans to award up to two initial contracts later this year to deliver 16 engineering, manufacturing, and development prototypes beginning nine months after the contract award.

BAE Systems Submits Bid for US Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle 1.1 Program

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Transhumanist

*Navy Has Begun EMALS Testing on Carrier Ford*

_




Pre-Commissioning Unit Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) transits the James River during the ship’s launch and transit to Newport News Shipyard pier three for the final stages of construction and testing in November 2013. US Navy photo_.

The Navy conducted its first-ever shipboard full-speed catapult shot with the General Atomics Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) aboard the aircraft carrier_Gerald R. Ford_ (CVN-78) earlier this month, the Navy said in a May 15 statement.






EMALS will replace steam catapults on the Ford-class carriers. It is more maintainable, reliable and efficient than the steam system, generates more launch energy and puts less stress on the aircraft by creating a smoother, more linear acceleration, according to the Navy statement.

The recent test shots were called “no-loads,” as nothing was attached to the launching shuttle. The test was meant to demonstrate the integration of the catapult system. In the next phase of testing this summer, the catapults will launch “dead loads” – wheeled steel vessels up to 80,000 pounds that simulate the weight of an aircraft – to verify that the catapult and each of its components are working properly.

“This is a very exciting time for the Navy,” Program Executive Officer for Aircraft Carriers Rear Adm. Tom Moore said in the statement.

“For the first time in over 60 years, we’ve just conducted 22 no-load test shots using electricity instead of steam technology.”

Moore has previously said the dead load testing would take place in June in the James River, near the Newport News Shipbuilding yard in Virginia.

On the other end of the carrier, the Navy has had problems with the GA Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) that is two years behind its testing schedule.

From Navy Has Begun EMALS Testing on Carrier Ford - USNI News

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Transhumanist

*Army Tests New Acoustic Threat Detection System*






The U.S. Army is experimenting with acoustic threat detection systems to help soldiers in combat zones pinpoint the location of incoming fire, from automatic weapons to rocket-propelled grenades, officials said.

The service is testing products including FireFLY, which was used in Afghanistan for a two-year period through 2013, and a newer and bigger system called Serenity, which is works with infrared cameras to produce more precise geolocation data.

“It’s not an official program of record, but it’s based off of 10 years of research and it’s in the late prototyping stage,” David Anderson, president of Invariant Corp., said last week during an exhibition at the Pentagon to showcase various military research projects.

The company teamed with Hyperion Technology Group to develop the technology in collaboration with the Army Research Lab and the Army Aviation Research, Development and Engineering Center, known as AMRDEC.






Serenity, made by Logos Technologies LLC, builds upon technology developed for the FireFLY ground system and integrates data from both electo-optical and acoustic sensors to increase accuracy and reduce false alarms. It features a six-microphone array and eight-sensor camera pod that can be mounted on a blimp or radio tower to detect threats such as rocket-propelled grenades and detonations up to 10 kilometers away.

“The infrared looks for a flash from a gunshot and the acoustics listens for the bang,” said Geoffrey Carter, president of Hyperion. “So we get the flash and the bang, and then we cue the operator. The accoustics get us very accurate azimuth, or bearing, to the threat. The combination of knowing the speed of light and the speed of sound, we’re able to get the distance in the time of arrival to the threat.”

The product is designed to be installed around the perimeter of a contingency operating base, or COB, or forward operating base, or FOB, where troops can have limited situational awareness, Carter said. “They hear gunshots but they don’t always know where they’re coming from,” he said. “So this gives them very pinpoint geolocation where the activity is coming from.”

A typical configuration for FireFLY costs around $45,000, while the bigger Serenity system goes for about $400,000, officials said.

From Army Tests New Acoustic Threat Detection System | Defense Tech

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

*Air Force Getting Closer to Testing Hypersonic Weapon, Engineers Say*
Air Force Getting Closer to Testing Hypersonic Weapon, Engineers Say | Defense Tech







The U.S. Air Force is making progress in developing a hypersonic weapon based on the success of an experimental scramjet program, engineers said.

The service in 2013 conducted its fourth and longest flight of the so-called X-51 WaveRider. After separating from a rocket launched beneath the wing of a B-52 bomber, the hypersonic vehicle built by Boeing Co. climbed to 60,000 feet, accelerated to Mach 5.1 and flew for about three and a half minutes before running out of fuel and plunging into the Pacific Ocean.

At that speed, which is equivalent to about 3,400 miles per hour, a missile could travel from Washington, D.C., to Atlanta in just several minutes — making it a potentially powerful weapon against enemy air defenses.

“We are the Air Force. What do we want to do with this technology? We want to weaponize it,” Ryan Helbach, an official with the Air Force Research Laboratory, said last week during an exhibition at the Pentagon to showcase various military research projects. “The follow-on program to this is the High Speed Strike Weapon effort. It’s taking a lot of the lessons learned and the technology and moving to a weapons acquisition.”

The hypersonic missile program comes as the U.S. faces increasing competition from China and other countries working to capitalize on the defense technology.

“Certainly, the U.S. is not the only country involved in developing hypersonic weapons,” Mica Endsley, the Air Force’s chief scientist, said in a recent interview with Military.com “They (China) are showing a lot of capability in this area. The advantage of hypersonics is not just that something goes very fast but that it can go great distances at those speeds.”

She added, “For example, currently today to get from NY to LA is a five hour flight in a commercial aircraft. With a hypersonic weapon, you could do that same thing in about 30 minutes. You can go great distances at great speeds.”

The nine-year, $300 million X-51 program was designed to demonstrate that the military could build a scramjet capable of accelerating, ingesting hydrocarbon fuel, and actively cooling in flight, Helbach said. Unlike a traditional engine, a scramjet, or supersonic combusting ramjet, has very few moving parts and relies on an air-breathing propulsion system to travel faster than the speed of sound.

But it needs a kick, like a boost from a rocket, to get there. So the WaveRider was first propelled by a solid rocket booster, a surface-to-surface missile called the MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System, to about Mach 4.5, then separated and activated its scramjet engine built by Aerojet Rocketdyne. (A weaponized version of the vehicle would use another missile, not a ground system design.)

“There are no moving parts in the flow path, so that means there are no compressor blades to suck in the air, so we need something to get us up to above Mach 4 in order to get the compression into the engine,” Helbach said.

The Air Force program, which had a couple of failed tests, came several years after a similar NASA effort called the X-43, which in 2004 shattered speed records when it flew at nearly Mach 9.7, or about 6,600 miles per hour, for 10 seconds. But the engine couldn’t withstand the temperatures involved.

“The engine basically melted because it got so hot,” Helbach said. “They didn’t actively cool it. So for our program, we actively cooled the engine, which means that along the outside of the engine, we cycled the fuel around it to suck out the heat from the engine, heat up that fuel, and then inject it into the combustor for the scramjet engine.”

The X-51 was designed to start its engine using ethylene and transition to a hydrocarbon fuel called JP-7 — the same type of endothermic fuel employed by the SR-71 Blackbird spy plane.

“It basically means you can dump a lot of heat into that fuel,” Helbach said. “When you crack the fuel, it actually makes it more combustible. It increases the amount of combustion you can create from the fuel.”

For the follow-on weapons program, the Air Force has teamed with the Pentagon’s research arm, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, to shrink the technology into a hypersonic weapon that could fit on most of the bomber fleet, according to Kenneth Davidson, manager of the hypersonic materials development at the Air Force Research Laboratory.

“If you look at the X-51, the size is slightly too big to put it on our current bombers,” he said. “It was made as a demonstrator. There’s no weapon in it. There are no sensors on board for controlling the guidance. So we’re looking at making it more durable, getting the guidance control developed so that it can become a weapon system, developing the ordnance.”

Carrying a small, conventional warhead, a hypersonic weapon could be used as a stand-off missile, so the military could strike targets at a safe distance without putting pilots and aircraft at risk.

“You could then attack defensive targets, those heavily defended or the time-critical targets in a very timely manner — if it’s a moving target, before it can move,” Davidson said. “And then ultimately, these would have a sensor so that they can track a moved target — not necessarily something that is moving, but if the target moves or it gets into the area, they can see the target and hit it very, very accurately.”

The High Speed Strike Weapon is affiliated with other demonstration projects being developed by DARPA, including the Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept and the Tactical Boost Glide, both of which have test flights scheduled for 2018 or 2019.

“Our goal is to make sure the Air Force has the knowledge in 2020 or over the next five years to be able to make acquisition decisions using this technology,” Davidson said. “Our goal is to provide a capability to stand off, launch these vehicles off the aircraft to hit time-critical dependent targets … And ultimately from a manufacturing standpoint, it’s got to be affordable.”

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Transhumanist

*What It's Like To Fly In The Military's Crazy V-22 Osprey*

“Oh yeah, they’re going to have an Osprey,” the NYPD K-9 unit policeman told me when I arrived at the Lower Manhattan Heliport at 4:30 AM. “Those things haven’t been too reliable. A lot of crashes lately. Good luck.” Two hours later, we were lifting off the ground.

I had gathered on the wind-swept, desolate pier with Tavarish, a handful of other journalists, reigning Miss USA Nia Sanchez, and Dean Cain (yes, _that _Dean Cain) to participate in this year’s New York City Fleet Week festivities, and they were already off to a nerve-wracking start. I had been telling myself for a week that I’d be fine. That the multitude of crashes incurred during the V-22 Osprey’s development, and another one just last week that killed one Marine and injured 21 others, didn’t mean that our Osprey would be going down too.

But they did hand us a helmet, a life vest, and an oxygen tank, just in case.

(_*Full Disclosure: *The United States Navy wanted us to fly in an MV-22 Osprey so badly that after a little more than a year of intermittent begging and pleading for any sort of Fleet Week embark, they finally acquiesced to us hopping on board a helicopter to ride out to the USS _San Antonio_ about a week before we were set to go. Little did we know that the aircraft we were about to get on is almost, but not entirely, completely unlike a helicopter._)

In case you’re not familiar with the Osprey, it’s borne of a very simple need. Helicopters can take off and land vertically, and they can hover as well. That’s really all well and good, until you realize that slapping a propeller on the top of an aircraft and lopping the wings off tends to make it as slow as a DMV line. So if you want an aircraft to move fast, it’s got to be an airplane.

There’s an old saying, however. A plane makes sense because it clearly obeys the laws of physics, wings and all. A helicopter doesn’t make any sense, because it just beats the laws of physics into submission. The Osprey is an attempt at combining those two things.

Back in the 1980s, the US military wanted something that could land like a helicopter, and go quickly like a plane. Eventually the solution was to basically have an airplane with two enormous engines fixed to the wingtips. For take off and landing, the engines and propellers would point vertically, beating the air into submission so that it can do all sorts of things in a vertical fashion, as well as hover.

But when it wants to get going, the entire engine and propeller assemblies rotate downwards, making sure all the thrust goes horizontally. The wings provide the lift, just as it would on any other airplane. In short, the whole process ends up looking a lot like this, except, you know, in the air:






The end result is a massively complex system, but one that can top 300 miles per hour at 15,000 feet.

And because of all that speed, the incredibly polite Navy reps that were guiding us through the day informed us we’d be boarding our US Marine Corps MV-22 Osprey last. The issue arose as it would take six UH-60 Seahawk helicopters, and one Osprey to get the entire media group out to the _San Antonio, _a huge amphibious transport ship that you can think of as much like an enormous floating parking garage, capable of carrying enough troops to take an entire beach. Unfortunately, the _San Antonio_ and its accompanying destroyers, the USS _Stout _and the USS _Barry_, could only spare three Seahawks to ferry all of us.

So while the Seahawks (a navalized version of the Blackhawk) made two trips, us fortunate souls awaiting the Osprey would have to wait a little longer.

(Not that the guy running the heliport seemed happy that one would be arriving at all, mind you, as apparently the massive downwash generated by the enormous 38-foot rotors was vastly greater than the Navy’s workhorse Seahawks, which made the heliport’s fuel boxes blow open the last time a V-22 came through, with President Obama’s entourage.)

Which was fine, as when you already live your day-to-day life with the same anxiety as a Woody Allen character, you want more time to contemplate your seemingly inevitable demise on what everyone kept joking about was a very unreliable aircraft.

And let me assure you, in the most sarcastic way possible, that gallows humor is _hilarious_.

But how often do people get to ride on one of these things? I figured the huge opportunity outweighed the small risk, the same way a blue whale outweighs a mouse. There was no way I wasn’t going through with this.

After we watched the Seahawks come and go in the early dawn skies, it was finally our turn. An incredibly professional Marine officer had just begun to give us the rundown on how exactly our safety equipment would work, when we heard the WHOMP WHOMP WHOMP from the Osprey.






As loud as three Seahawks were, the Osprey easily put them to shame.

Because of all the noise, I couldn’t really hear much at all. We were given the life jacket, which went around our necks and which inflated with the pull of something, a helmet, which was supposed to protect our heads in the event of something, and a small bottle of oxygen connected to a hose which was connected to a mouthpiece, which we were supposed to use in the event of something as well.

I didn’t quite hear how to use it, but I do distinctly remember hearing the words “30 to 45 seconds of breathable air” before having to run. Let’s just hope that the something never would come to occur, and we’d never end up having a bit of a splash, as I’m pretty sure I would have spent 30 to 45 seconds dying in my own brain before finally snapping out of it, realizing I was maybe still alive, and then maybe trying to figure out how to get the damned bottle to work.

Thankfully, I didn’t have to figure it out, but it was time to get on board anyways. I squished my head into the helmet, which had attached noise suppressors which made the world around me go relatively silent, save for the muffled WHOMP WHOMP of the rotors. I scurried out onto the helipad, where the sheer drama of the thing immediately struck me. An Osprey doesn’t quite look like any other flying vehicle in the world, and yet, there it was, sitting in front of me with its twin blades spinning in the air.

Also, there was about a bunch of other journalists as dorky as myself taking pictures as I ran towards it, but that didn’t really take away from how awkward it looks on the ground.






I clambered up the open rear ramp, and suddenly realized what an absolute mess it was in side. Not because the Marines who run it are anything but virtually spit-shined and polished, in their own way, but the MV-22 is built for nothing if not utility. Bundles of exposed wires and cables cluttered the ceiling, pipes ran along the sides, and parallel sets of canvas seats lined the walls.






I hopped into an open seat, and immediately started fumbling with the seat belt. It’s not some five-point super-safety harness either, just a canvas lap belt, like you’d find in an old van. One of the Marines watching over us told me how to tighten it and checked to make sure that it was clasped.

I’m sure it was safe.

But I didn’t really have time to tediously contemplate anymore, as this thing was going. There wasn’t any time to dawdle with it. All of us dorks were all helmeted, lifejacketed, and seat belted in. I waited for them to close the rear hatch, and get going. I know I looked like an adorable nerd in all the gear I had on, but I didn’t care. They were about to close that big hatch, and we were about to set off in a vehicle that I had barely contemplated ever coming close to before.

Except they didn’t close what looked like a gaping hole in the back of the Osprey. We were just going anyways, with the back door wide open. And while that may sound nuts, and your mother would freak out at the notion of you flying out the back, it really was the complete opposite. As there’s only two real windows to speak of in the back of the aircraft, it was our one view onto the world throughout the trip.






And damn, what an awesome and incredible view it was, as Manhattan receded below. Lifting off in an Osprey doesn’t quite feel like lifting off in a regular airplane. It’s almost entirely vertical, with no real horizontal push back into the seat, or in this case sideways, as we were sitting along the walls. You just go.

The noise, even with the big earmuffs pressing into your jawbone so hard it hurts, is massive. Just the screaming, grinding, constant cacophony that is the valiant war cry of human-built machinery over the laws of physics. The whole thing vibrates and bumps and shakes along, like you’re on a constant gravel road in a car an old pickup with nothing out back.

It’s great.

A few things were surprising, however. As there aren’t really any good views out a window, you don’t really notice the engines rotating. Intellectually, you know it must be happening, but above the noise of the engines themselves you don’t actually hear any mechanical whirring, as I expected, when they move into place for horizontal flight. The only thing you really hear and feel over everything else is the big _THUNK_ from the landing gear shoving up into the belly of the aircraft.

And because you can’t really see out the back once the Marines had raised the bottom half of the rear hatch, you mostly rely on your gut to feel what’s happening. You feel yourself moving up and down, yawing this way and that, banking hard (or what felt hard for me, as the smallest plane I’ve ever been in is a CRJ regional jet, but I’m sure wasn’t actually very hard at all), and slowing down as the pilots saw fit.






But even what you could see out the half-open back hatch was a crazy sight, with the Freedom Tower shrinking in the distance, and the beaches and sprawl of New Jersey following it.

I wish I could say it was an uneventful half hour ride, that it all went smoothly and then got kind of boring, but that would be lying.

Because after about a half hour, when we were unsure of exactly where we were beyond the vague notion of “somewhere off the coast of New Jersey,” we heard the Marine yelling something that sounded a lot like “WE’RE GOING TO MAKE A COUPLE OF LOW PASSES.”

The back hatch was lowered fully once more, and out it, you could see a vast ship.






The USS _San Antonio. _

Surrounding it was a veritable picket fence of destroyers, Coast Guard vessels, and even the odd NYPD boat making sure no one got too close. But we were about to land on it.

We swooped three times over the ship, each time getting closer, each time picking out more details from its slab sides, to its two Bushmaster cannons, to all the people walking around the deck. One of the Marines got an even closer look, lowering a hatch on the starboard side of the Osprey, and sticking what looked like damn near three-quarters of his body out.

After the third and final swoop, my gut got a big sinking feeling as we slowed to what felt like a slow crawl. Out the back, all I could see was a wide swath of churned water emanating from the propellers of the _San Antonio_.

I turned to my left, to look out the still-open side hatch, when I just glanced what seemed to be a guy clad entirely in purple standing just to our right. Before I could finish wondering how someone was standing outside our Osprey, we landed on the deck with a big thud. It almost felt like a regular airplane landing, except the sort you’d do with a new, trainee pilot, despite probably being incredibly soft considering we were in some sort of bizarre plane-helicopter hybrid gently setting down on a pitching, rolling, and moving ship.

A few seconds more, and we were given the signal to undo our belts and head out the back. The propeller downwash was incredibly powerful, to the point where it almost felt like it would knock you over.






But we were aboard. And holy hell, what a ride. If a weird plane-helicopter hybrid thing beats the laws of physics, then I don’t want them.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Transhumanist

Flying though international airspace? A provocation.

Issuing a warning to an aircraft in international airspace? A-Ok



Vietnam, The Philippines, Japan, Indonesia, India, the screws slowly tighten around China's neck.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## F-22Raptor

Pentagon plans long-range missile defense radar in Alaska

The U.S. Defense Department on Friday announced plans to deploy a new long-range radar in central Alaska that would help the U.S. missile defense system better discern potential enemy missiles launched by Iran or North Korea and increase the capacity of interceptors in the ground in Alaska and California.

Raytheon Co, Boeing Co and Lockheed Martin Corp are competing to build the new radar, which is expected to cost just under $1 billion.

The new radar would begin defensive operations in 2020, pending completion of required environmental and safety studies, the department said in a statement.

It said the new long-range discrimination radar (LRDR) will help the multi-layered U.S. ballistic missile defense system better address potential countermeasures that could be launched by potential foe to confuse U.S. defensive systems.

Missile Defense Agency Director James Syring and other senior Pentagon officials told Congress in March that the new radar was critically important to help defend against the increasing capabilities by North Korea and Iran to launch missiles at the United States.

The radar would likely be placed at Clear Air Force Station, an Air Force Space Command radar station located in central Alaska, but the final decision would be made after completion of the environmental studies.

Riki Ellison, founder of the nonprofit Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, said placing the new radar in central Alaska rather than in the Alaskan Aleutian islands would allow the system to keep an eye on threats from both North Korea and Iran.

He said it would also considerably cost less to build the new radar in Alaska, which could free up funding for an additional radar in Hawaii.

The Missile Defense Agency is moving ahead with the design and development of the long-planned new radar. It launched the competition in January and is expected to award a contract by Sept. 30, the end of the current fiscal 2015 year.

UPDATE 1-Pentagon plans long-range missile defense radar in Alaska| Reuters

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

Starwars one step closer: DARPA’s ‘death ray’ to begin field tests — RT USA

*Starwars one step closer: DARPA’s ‘death ray’ to begin field tests*






The US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has received government permission to field test its HELLADS laser weapon system.

_“The technical hurdles were daunting, but it is extremely gratifying to have produced a new type of solid-state laser with unprecedented power and beam quality for its size,”_ DARPA program manager Rich Bagnell said in a statement cited by the agency’s website. The testing is set to start this summer.

High-Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System (HELLADS) has been in development since 2003. It is intended for use as a protection system for aircraft.

_“Enemy surface-to-air threats to manned and unmanned aircraft have become increasingly sophisticated,”_ DARPA states on its website. _“High power lasers can provide a solution to this challenge, as they harness the speed and power of light to counter multiple threats.”_

*READ MORE: Next-gen US drone: Now equipped with ‘death ray’ laser*

The statement adds however, that the laser could also be used for attack: _“Laser weapon systems provide additional capability for offensive missions as well—adding precise targeting with low probability of collateral damage.”_

To deploy that in practice, though, DARPA says the weapon must be made smaller and lighter than currently possible – and America’s drones will have to stick with relatively imprecise missiles for the time being.

The goal of the HELLADS project is to build a laser with 150 kilowatts of power, weighing under 750 kilograms, and with a size less than 3 cubic meters.

In mid-April, DARPA’s contractor General Atomics Aeronautical Systems (GA-ASI), unveiled the HEL Generation 3 laser. It meets these size specifications and is fitted with a module generator system, which enables it to produce 75 to 300-kilowatt beams.

Developers believe it can be mounted on GA-ASI’s new Avenger drone. The drone’s jet engine is capable of producing enough energy to recharge the laser’s battery in flight, essentially giving the weapon infinite ammunition.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## AMDR

Looks like UCLASS is now known as the *RAQ-25A *to NAVAIR. I don't know whether that will be the official designation when UCLASS finally rolls out. This isn't my forte

"The aircraft is being referred to as the RAQ-25A by the Naval Air Systems Command." 
- Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System (UCLASS)

Still, I have a feeling that's a name we're going to hear a lot over the next couple of decades

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*US Sending B-52s To Sweden As Russian Bombers Skirt Swedish Airspace*






America is in tit-for-tat military escalations on two fronts: China in the east and Russia in the west. On Thursday, Russian bombers flew directly towards the Swedish coastline, abruptly turning away at the last moment. This came as it was announced the US will be flying B-52s to Sweden for a major exercise.






The Russian bombers, swing-wing supersonic Tu-22M Backfires, flew over the Gulf of Finland and then swung around to the south, right off the southern end of Oland. Although Russia has been flying strategic aircraft throughout the region on a regular basis, a highly provocative event occurred over Sweden last fall when a formation of Su-24 Fencer attack aircraft are said to have actually penetrated Swedish airspace. This, along with other flagrant events, have resulted in Sweden viewing Russian aircraft operating near its shores as threats. As such, they are usually accompanied by Swedish JS39 Gripen fighters that launch on alert whenever they approach.

The move to send B-52s, America’s venerable nuclear-capable strategic bomber, a Cold War icon, to Sweden for drills marks the closest forward deployment American bombers have made to Russia’s tense border with Europe. Another long-range B-52 mission took place last April, but did not include direct simulated attacks as part of a allied exercise hosted by a foreign nation, nor did it venture anywhere near as far east as the Sweden’s Baltic Sea coastline.






The B-52s are participating in an exercise called “Baltops,” which will include 4,500 personnel, 50 ships and 50 combat aircraft. Two of these aircraft will be B-52H Stratofortresses which will fly from the US mainland on June 13th to execute one of the jet’s latent mission sets: laying down large strings of naval mines.

The use of naval mines is largely viewed as an area denial tactic and sends a unique signal to Russia, whose naval bases on the Baltic could be temporarily put out of commission by the deployment of such weaponry. For this exercise, the B-52s’ long-range mine-laying mission is said to simulate rebuffing a marine invasion of Sweden’s southern shores. This is also a uniquely pointed scenario considering Sweden’s frantic phantom submarine hunt that put the country on edge last fall.

The B-52 is capable of deploying an array of naval mines, ranging in size from 500lbs to 2,000lbs. It can carry 50 of the 500lb class weapons, 30 of the 1,000lb class and 20 of the 2,000 class. It may be able to carry even more mines in the future as upgrades to its internal bomb rack systems mature.

Beyond the tactics and weapons the B-52s will be using during Baltops ‘15, Independent Sweden’s increasingly close cooperation with NATO is meant to send strong signals to Russia. Among these messages is that the more you poke and prod, the tighter strategic military alliances in the region will become, which represents a collective deterrent to Russian aggression.

With all this in mind, it looks like it is going to be a chilly summer on the Baltic Sea...

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## F-22Raptor

SvenSvensonov said:


> *US Sending B-52s To Sweden As Russian Bombers Skirt Swedish Airspace*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is in tit-for-tat military escalations on two fronts: China in the east and Russia in the west. On Thursday, Russian bombers flew directly towards the Swedish coastline, abruptly turning away at the last moment. This came as it was announced the US will be flying B-52s to Sweden for a major exercise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Russian bombers, swing-wing supersonic Tu-22M Backfires, flew over the Gulf of Finland and then swung around to the south, right off the southern end of Oland. Although Russia has been flying strategic aircraft throughout the region on a regular basis, a highly provocative event occurred over Sweden last fall when a formation of Su-24 Fencer attack aircraft are said to have actually penetrated Swedish airspace. This, along with other flagrant events, have resulted in Sweden viewing Russian aircraft operating near its shores as threats. As such, they are usually accompanied by Swedish JS39 Gripen fighters that launch on alert whenever they approach.
> 
> The move to send B-52s, America’s venerable nuclear-capable strategic bomber, a Cold War icon, to Sweden for drills marks the closest forward deployment American bombers have made to Russia’s tense border with Europe. Another long-range B-52 mission took place last April, but did not include direct simulated attacks as part of a allied exercise hosted by a foreign nation, nor did it venture anywhere near as far east as the Sweden’s Baltic Sea coastline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The B-52s are participating in an exercise called “Baltops,” which will include 4,500 personnel, 50 ships and 50 combat aircraft. Two of these aircraft will be B-52H Stratofortresses which will fly from the US mainland on June 13th to execute one of the jet’s latent mission sets: laying down large strings of naval mines.
> 
> The use of naval mines is largely viewed as an area denial tactic and sends a unique signal to Russia, whose naval bases on the Baltic could be temporarily put out of commission by the deployment of such weaponry. For this exercise, the B-52s’ long-range mine-laying mission is said to simulate rebuffing a marine invasion of Sweden’s southern shores. This is also a uniquely pointed scenario considering Sweden’s frantic phantom submarine hunt that put the country on edge last fall.
> 
> The B-52 is capable of deploying an array of naval mines, ranging in size from 500lbs to 2,000lbs. It can carry 50 of the 500lb class weapons, 30 of the 1,000lb class and 20 of the 2,000 class. It may be able to carry even more mines in the future as upgrades to its internal bomb rack systems mature.
> 
> Beyond the tactics and weapons the B-52s will be using during Baltops ‘15, Independent Sweden’s increasingly close cooperation with NATO is meant to send strong signals to Russia. Among these messages is that the more you poke and prod, the tighter strategic military alliances in the region will become, which represents a collective deterrent to Russian aggression.
> 
> With all this in mind, it looks like it is going to be a chilly summer on the Baltic Sea...



The noose around the Russian and Chinese necks keep getting tighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

You are never safe....

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## F-22Raptor

I just wanted to take a moment on this Memorial Day weekend to say thanks to all of the men and women who have fought and died in service of the United States of America. May God bless them and their families!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## IrbiS

*An 18th Wing F-15C based at Kadena Air Base, Japan releases flares from the ALE-45 dispenser over the Pacific






F/A-18F of 'Daredevils' Sqn. dropping 10 JDAMs






Dust Devils 215, F/A-18F Super Hornet launches an AIM-9X Sidewinder air-to-air missile during developmental testing of the Block II version







Dust Devils’ Super Hornets loaded with live GBU-31 JDAMs







The AV-8B now uses the BRU-70 digital improved triple ejector rack (DITER) that enables the aircraft to carry three GPS-guided weapons on a single station. A DITER can be fitted to the outer pylons (as shown) giving the aircraft four GPS-guided compatible stations.*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AMDR



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

Hmm...the Blue Angels are buzzing my office window.

Must be a photo shoot.

Edit: Blue Angels will fly over Boston today - Massachusetts news - Boston.com

They are flying pretty low.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## F-22Raptor

Virginia-class Sub _John Warner _Successfully Completes Initial Sea Trials

Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) announced May 26 that the newest Virginia-class submarine, _John Warner_ (SSN 785), successfully completed its initial sea trials on May 23.

Sea trials are aggressive operational tests that demonstrate the submarine’s capabilities at sea. _John Warner_, the first Virginia-class submarine to be named for a person, is being built as part of a teaming arrangement between HII’s Newport News Shipbuilding division and General Dynamics Electric Boat.

“Alpha sea trials represent the first underway test of the quality of the craftsmanship that went into the construction of this great vessel and the skill of the crew that operates her,” said Jim Hughes, Newport News’ vice president of submarines and fleet support. “Both the ship and the crew performed incredibly well, resulting in extremely successful trials that enable the ship to advance directly into its next set of tests. The _John Warner_ is now well on its way to being another successful and early Virginia-class delivery.”

All systems, components and compartments were tested during the trials. The submarine submerged for the first time and operated at high speeds on the surface and underwater. _John Warner_ will undergo several more rounds of sea trials before delivery to the Navy by Newport News.

“The sea trials were a huge success,” said CDR Dan Caldwell, the submarine’s prospective commanding officer. “The ship is in great material condition, and I could not be more proud of the way the crew performed. They have worked tirelessly for the last two years preparing to take this ship to sea, and it showed during sea trials. We look forward to completing the ship’s delivery and joining the operational fleet.”

Construction of _John Warner_ began in 2010. The boat is 99 percent complete and on schedule to deliver in June — more than three months ahead of its contracted delivery date.

SEAPOWER Magazine Online

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Transhumanist

*F-35B Passes Shipboard Night Flying Phase During Operational Trials*






A half dozen F-35Bs are deployed aboard the USS _Wasp_ for Operational Test phase one of shipboard F-35 trials and the first order of business was to test the F-35B and its pilots ability to operate from a Gator Navy flattop in the dark of night.






Each pilot had to takeoff and land aboard the _Wasp _four times at night in order for the test to be considered a success. During which, they could not use the aircraft’s advanced electro-optical and night vision systems to do so. Instead, they had to rely on a more traditional sensor for making a successful landing, the unaided human eye.

Maj. Michael H. Rountree Jr. who is the senior landing signal officer (LSO) for OT-1 and assigned to Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 501, explains:

“We use the night pattern for unaided recovery... We are not approved to use the night vision camera, or distributed aperture system in the ship environment yet. We are simply using the naked eye to get us onto the ship. We fly an approach that funnels us into a good position to take over and land the jet visually... I went out there for the first time to fly at night and everything went smoothly... With the controls and interface between the pilot and aircraft so seamless and the task loading so low, this aircraft is really a joy and a pleasure to fly.”

You can get an idea of just how easy the F-35B is to control during vertical flight mode in the video below:






There is little doubt that the F-35B’s amazing avionics and its ability to automatically hang in mid air without the traditional ‘balancing act’ that AV-8B Harrier pilots have had to to master for decades to achieve similar results should make the F-35B a much more docile aircraft to operate from the boat. Although, it would be interesting to know how much work it would take to see the Harrier upgraded with a digital flight control system that can offer the same simplicity of operation as the F-35B. Although, actually doing so wouldn’t make much sense now as investing in a platform that will be retired in the not so distant future makes little sense. Still, pairing such a capability with the Harrier, even later in its operational life, may have been able to save lives and aircraft.






Regardless of the F-35B’s incredible ability to take the traditional flying workload off the pilot’s shoulders, night flight operations aboard the tight confines of a Helicopter Landing Dock is a dangerous affair. Communication and situational awareness are key for all those involved as risk is greatly increased when compared to daytime operations.

Considering that this is the first time the F-35B will be operating from the deck using its short takeoff and vertical landing capability in an operational manner, the unknown is a major factor as well and things can go very wrong very quickly when you are talking about a still largely experimental 20 ton fighter jet hovering on a pillar of air above a steel deck with people working nearby.






Sgt. Daniel Beaston, a mechanic with VMFAT-501, describes how different night can be from day when it comes to operating a $150M+ fighter jet from a couple acres of steel floating in the middle of the ocean.

“At nighttime, you have a lot more risk, so safety is paramount. You must constantly keep your head on a swivel and be especially watchful. It is also important to maintain communication between yourself and the pilot... The smallest breakdown in communication at night can be extremely disastrous and everything can become complicated.”

The F-35 will continue its OT-1 ship trials as the USMC marches closer to declaring the jet operationally capable this summer. We will keep you updated as to how these potentially volatile tests aboard the USS _Wasp _continue to advance.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AMDR

*Navy Preps to Build Next Generation LXR Amphibious Assault Ship*
Navy Preps to Build Next Generation LXR Amphibious Assault Ship | Defense Tech

The Navy is preparing to build its new LXR amphibious assault ship in order to meet the fast-rising need for amphibs across the globe, Congressional sources said.

Efforts to begin the process of production and delivery of the new ship come as the service is finalizing its plans to start a competition to build the vessel — a new platform designed to replace the services’ existing fleet of LSD 41/49 dock landing ships.

The existing Navy plan calls for the service to award the detail design and construction contract for the lead ship by 2020 with delivery planned for 2026, Maj. Gen. Robert Walsh, director of Navy Expeditionary Warfare, told Military.com.

However, during its mark-up of the 2016 defense bill, House Armed Services Committee lawmakers added $279 million for advanced procurement of materials for the LXR.

The Navy is now finishing up what’s called a capabilities development document in preparation to release a formal proposal to industry groups interested in competing to build the new ship.

After an extensive analysis, the Navy has decided to base the LXR design upon the hull of an LPD 17 Amphibious Transport Dock, Walsh added.

This decision means the new ship will have more command and control technologies and aviation capability than the LSD ships they are replacing in order to allow for more independent operations.

This is because the LSD, which is key to bringing a lot of equipment from ship to shore inLanding Craft Air Cushions, or LCACs, does not have the same ability to operate independently of an Amphibious Ready Group compared to the LPD 17.

“An Amphibious Ready Group has traditionally been together in three ships. Now, in today’s environment, the new normal for operations means that we are splitting those ships out in three different directions in many cases. Having an LPD 17-type ship for the LXR is going to allow us to do even more,” Walsh explained.

The 1980’s era LSD dock landing ships consist of eight Whidbey Island-class 609-foot long ships. The 15,000-ton ships, configured largely to house and transport four LCACs, are nearing the end of their service life.

Both the LSD and the San Antonio-class LPD 17 amphibious transport docks are integral to what’s called an Amphibious Ready Group, or ARG, which typically draws upon a handful of platforms to ensure expeditionary warfighting technology. The ARG is tasked with transporting up to 2,200 Marines and their equipment, including what’s called a Marine Expeditionary Unit, or MEU.

The current configuration of the LPD transport dock is slightly different than the LSD dock landing ship in that it has more aviation capability, more command and control equipment, a crane for use on small boats and a different well deck configuration, Navy officials said.

The LPD is designed to operate with greater autonomy from an ARG and potentially conduct independent operations as needed. A LSD is able to operate four LCACs and the more autonomous LPD 17 can launch two LCACs.

Having more amphibs engineered and constructed for independent operations is seen as a strategic advantage in light of the Pacific rebalance and the geographical expanse of the region. The widely dispersed territories in the region may require a greater degree of independent amphibious operations where single amphibs operate separately from a larger ARG.

Walsh explained that the greater use of amphibious assault ships is likely as the Marine Corps continues to shift toward more sea-based operations from its land-based focus during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Also, the LPD is able to transport up to four CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters or two MV-22 Ospreys. The Navy had been planning on maintaining only 11 LPDs in the fleet, however additional funding has allowed the service to procure a long-desired 12th LPD, Navy officials said.

Overall, the Navy’s need for amphib continues to outpace the amount of ships available for missions, many Navy and Marine Corps leaders have said.

Navy and Marine Corps leaders have said the service needs as many as 50 amphibious assault ships to meet the needs of combatant commanders worldwide. Recognizing that reaching that number is not possible in today’s fiscal environment, Navy leaders have taken a number of steps to ensure more of the needed missions can be accomplished.

As part of this effort, the Navy has stood up an auxiliary platforms council designed to help develop other ships able to pick up a portion of the missions typically performed by amphibs.

This includes greater use of Mobile Landing Platforms, or MLPs, Afloat Forward Staging Bases, or AFSBs and Joint High Speed Vessels, or JHSVs, to perform the missions, Walsh said.

“We’re looking at all the different ways to repurpose them and use them in different ways to augment the current fleet. If you take these ships for some operations you can allow an amphibious ready group to focus on other missions,” he said.

Some of these missions might include anti-piracy, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief or the delivery of medical supplies, Walsh added.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## F-22Raptor

New Virginia Class sub "John Warner" conducting sea trials

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Transhumanist

*C-17s Infiltrate The Carolinas During Massive Airlift Exercise*







Joint Base Charleston was put under pressure last week conducting an extraordinary exercise to evaluate their ability to deploy a large aircraft formation during a simulated crisis. And by large I mean very big airplanes in a very big formation.






As part of Crescent Reach 2015, 15 aircraft departed the military base in Charleston from the 437th airlift wing for a multi-ship formation to Pope Air Force Base in North Carolina including 11 C-17 Globemaster IIIs. The 437th joined forces with the 628th Air Base Wing and reservists from the 315th Airlift wing to get things off the ground successfully. Along the way, the formation was met by four additional C-17s, six C-130s, E-8 JSTARS and two F-16s during the 82nd Airborne Division’s participation in All American Week.






Testing the pilot’s abilities to fly in a large formation was only a portion of the goals for this exercise. Deploying members’ ability to survive and operate in dangerous environments was also exercised through Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear Explosives training and evaluation events. As another part of the mobility portion of the exercise, over 1,500 paratroopers and critical equipment were dropped to simulate a Joint Forcible Entry of the Global Response Force. Additionally 40 Container Delivery System (CDS) bundles, eight dual row platforms and one heavy platform were dropped from the airlift aircraft.

CDS bundles are roughly the size of a coffin and used to supplement equipment carried by the airborne paratroopers or resupply forces already on the ground. The CDS has its own self contained cargo parachute that deployed with a 20 foot static line attached to the C-17.






The dual row platform is intended to drop much heavier equipment with weights upward of 14,000 lbs. Heavy drop is used by airborne forces most often to deliver vehicles, bulk cargo, and equipment.











The value of a exercise of this magnitude allows the armed forces the opportunity to see training completed on a smaller scale now executed of a larger, more real world scenario. The annual mobility exercise allows the airlift wing the chance to perform almost every aspect of a combat mission including intelligence development, aircraft loading and launch, airdrops and special operations and landings on semi-prepared runways.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## F-22Raptor

USS John Warner








Transhumanist said:


> John Warner and friend:



You beat me to it!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Transhumanist

F-22Raptor said:


> USS John Warner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You beat me to it!



It's a cute picture with the dolphin. I'll delete mine, you can have this one.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

F-35Cs Cut Back As U.S. Navy Invests In Standoff Weapons | Defense content from Aviation Week
_"Two new initiatives cover standoff weapons launched outside the range of surface-to-air threats. The new-start Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile – Extended Range (AARGM-ER) gets $267 million in development funding across the 2016-20 FYDP and will mate the existing guidance system and warhead of the AGM-88E AARGM with a new motor. Two motor options were studied: dual-pulse for a 20-50% range improvement, or solid integrated rocket-ramjet for doubled range. Budget documents indicate that the Navy has chosen the rocket."_

There were rumors that they are also going to trim the forward wings that are usually found on the regular AGM-88 down to a size that would allow AARGM-ER to fit the internal bay of a F-35, but I haven't found any official information confirming that. Could anyone else confirm this?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Falcon

@AMDR was there a thread on lasers?


----------



## AMDR

Indus Falcon said:


> @AMDR was there a thread on lasers?


This one? Star Wars comes a step closer: US military bosses reveal success tests of airborne 'death rays'

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Falcon

AMDR said:


> This one? Star Wars comes a step closer: US military bosses reveal success tests of airborne 'death rays'


Thank You my young friend!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Falcon

*Northrop to receive $4bn worth of Global Hawk work through 2020*
By: James Drew
Washington DC
Source: Flightglobal.com
20:48 12 May 2015

The US Air Force plans to award Northrop Grumman contracts valued at $4 billion to sustain and modernize the RQ-4 Global Hawk over the next five years as the high-flying unmanned aircraft emerges from the shadow of potential retirement into a normalised defence programme.


The awards would follow a protracted debate in Washington over whether the spying variant of the RQ-4 should be retired in favor of the manned alternative – Lockheed Martin’s U-2 Dragon Lady – which saw Northrop’s Global Hawk Block 30 programme dropped from the air force’s budget plan for fiscal 2013.

Now, with funding restored and milestone C approval from the Pentagon, the programme office based in Ohio wants to put the Global Hawk’s tumultuous acquisition history behind it and move the unmanned spy plane purchase into the operations and support phase, with just three more Block 30s left to deliver.

The contracts, including modifications to existing efforts, are to be awarded sole-source to Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation in San Diego, California, are worth $4 billion in total and cover fiscal years 2016 to 2020. The deals are foreshadowed in a May 8 justification and approval document published on the US government’s contracting website, which notes that it would take about four years and $300 million to $500 million to qualify another company to assume the prime contractor role form Northrop.

According to the notice, the positive milestone C decision by the Pentagon’s top acquisition executive in February puts the Global Hawk programme back on firm footing after years of uncertainty and significant cost breaches. It also allows the programme office to move ahead with new modifications efforts, like improvements to the ground control system and communications upgrades.

Other planned improvements include an anti-icing system for the air vehicle’s wings and v-tail, the installation of a weather radar, and engine enhancements – allowing the aircraft to push through bad weather conditions to the target area, which is particularly important in the Pacific region. The air force also wants to modify the aircraft to carry different payloads like the U-2’s MS-177, optical bar camera and senior year electro-optical reconnaissance system.






But according to the notice, the sole-source nature of the contracts does not relieve the air force of its “ongoing responsibility to actively assess and pursue competition”. Instead, the air force must reevaluate the “competitive environment” prior to any contract actions with Northrop in fiscal 2019 and 2020.

Northrop’s director of global intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems John VanBrabant told Flightglobal last week that normalising the program with the milestone C decision signals to other Global Hawk customers that the air force is fully committed to the programme. “It sends a very positive signal,” he says.

“The airplane and system is lobbying for itself,” he says. “Just the facts are saying to the air force that this is a worthwhile program to maintain and continue to invest in. And, it sends a signal to the appropriators and the armed service committees [in Congress] that this is a reliable system doing good things for the air force.”

The Global Hawk started life as a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency technology demonstration effort in 1995 and transferred to the air force in 1998. The original manufacturer was Teledyne Ryan, bought by Northrop in 1999.

The UAV entered development in 2001, and the aircraft were quickly fielded to support combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq despite well-documented design flaws.

The Block 30 programme was dropped from the fiscal 2013 budget proposal in February 2012 due to cost and capability concerns, but the air force chief of staff ordered that the aircraft keep flying.

Congress then blocked any retirement actions in defense policy legislation. Funding was fully restored in fiscal 2015, and now the U-2 will be retired instead starting in 2019.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...FGUAV-2015-0527-GLOBnews&sfid=70120000000taAj

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

Transhumanist said:


> *C-17s Infiltrate The Carolinas During Massive Airlift Exercise*




Hmm this bridge pic seems familiar..

oh yeah this awesome video

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

*L-3 KEO Wins Contract for Navy Low-Profile Photonics Mast Program*
SEAPOWER Magazine Online

NEW YORK — L-3 Communications announced in a May 26 release that its electro-optics business, L-3 KEO, was awarded a $48.7 million contract from Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) to develop and build a new, slimmer version of its photonics mast for the Block 4 Low Profile Photonics Mast (LPPM) program for use on Virginia-class submarines. 

Under the terms of the contract, L-3 KEO will perform engineering and design work for the lower-profile mast during the first year, with options to produce up to 29 photonics masts over a subsequent four-year period, as well as engineering services and provisioning item orders with a contract maximum ceiling value of $157 million.

The non-hull-penetrating LPPM provides a sleek profile that significantly reduces the signature of the periscope, making it less identifiable as a U.S. Navy submarine because it appears similar to existing periscopes.

“We are extremely pleased to collaborate with the U.S. Navy on the Block 4 LPPM program, which will significantly enhance Virginia-class submarines in deployments around the globe,” said Steve Kantor, president of L-3 Electronic Systems. “This is a great opportunity to build on our long-standing partnership with the Navy by delivering sophisticated imaging technologies to a valued customer with well-defined, mission-critical requirements.”

“We are very pleased to have been selected to provide the U.S. Navy with a photonics mast that combines the enhanced situational awareness capability it wants with the more stealthy footprint it needs to avoid detection in international waters,” said Matthew Richi, president of L-3 KEO. “As the leading submarine imaging provider in the world, we look forward to focusing on the interoperability of our systems to explore export licensing opportunities with international navies.”

Richi added that KEO plans to develop its LPPM so that NAVSEA can support new construction submarines, as well as retrofits to existing submarines, as part of a continuous modernization program that addresses reliability, performance and affordability.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Transhumanist

*Navy Assessment: LCS Fort Worth Needed 90 Percent Less Maintenance than Freedom in First 3 Months of Deployment*







The Littoral Combat Ship USS _Fort Worth_ (LCS-3) is six months into its 16-month deployment and requiring an order of magnitude fewer hours of corrective maintenance than its predecessor, USS _Freedom_ (LCS-1).
In _Fort Worth_’s first 90 days deployed, the ship was underway for 53 days – 11 more days than planned. In contrast, _Freedom was _underway only 36 days in a similar period, according to an internal Navy assessment of _Fort Worth’s_ early performance obtained by USNI News.

The second ship surpassed its expected underway days when it skipped a restricted maintenance availability and delayed a preventative maintenance availability to participate in the search and rescue efforts for Air Asia Flight 8501 in January.

_Fort Worth_ also had fewer casualty reports than _Freedom_ – 39 total, compared to 44, and zero of the most severe Category 4 (CAT 4) casualty reports.

The real difference between the two deployments, though, is in corrective maintenance needs. _Fort Worth_ required just 396 man hours of corrective maintenance in three months – less than a tenth of the 4,200 man hours of corrective maintenance _Freedom_ needed._Forth Worth_ required just one stop for corrective maintenance, which was performed during its preventative maintenance availability, whereas _Freedom_ had to stop operations and perform corrective maintenance in four separate occasions.

“Technical adjustments, training improvements, and operational changes have given operational commander confidence to extend _Fort Worth_’s area of operations and to delay maintenance when required for operational tasking,” the document notes.






The extended area of operations the document refers to was made possible by a “maintenance in a box” concept the Navy tested in the spring. Program Executive Officer for Littoral Combat Ships Rear Adm. Brian Antonio told USNI News in April that the Navy pre-staged two trailers in Sasebo, Japan – one with all the parts the ship and its mission package might require, and one with the tooling the maintenance workers would need to perform the work away from the main LCS hub in Singapore.






“One of the feedbacks we got back from the fleet with _Freedom_ was that her legs weren’t very long, in that every 25 days or so she needed to come back to Singapore to get a maintenance availability – which means you can only go a certain number of days out, and its’ a big ocean,” Antonio said in the April interview.

_Freedom_ will begin a selected restricted availability in San Diego next week, in preparation to replace _Fort Worth_ when it returns in March 2016, USNI News understands. Lockheed Martin won a $10.3 million contract modification to complete the dry-docking availability, which includes maintenance, modifications and upgrades, the Defense Department announced in April. The work should be complete by October.

_Fort Worth_ also just conducted a crew swap last week, with LCS Crew 102 departing San Diego for Singapore to relieve LCS Crew 103. Detachment 4 Surface Warfare Mission Package crew and Detachment 3 from Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron 35 deployed too for the next approximately four months of the deployment. The LCS ships are manned under a 3-2-1 model – three crews will support two ships, one of which will always be deployed.






From Navy Assessment: LCS Fort Worth Needed 90 Percent Less Maintenance than Freedom in First 3 Months of Deployment - USNI News

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## F-22Raptor

More F-35B testing aboard the USS Wasp

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

*Air Force Developing Swarms of Mini-Drones*
Air Force Developing Swarms of Mini-Drones | Defense Tech






The Air Force is in the early phases of developing swarms of mini-drones designed to overwhelm and confuse enemy radar systems or blanket an area with multiple sensors at the same time, service officials said.

While still primarily in the laboratory stage, the concept is gaining traction with Air Force scientists who are making progress developing algorithms for swarms of small unmanned aircraft vehicles, or UAVs, said Mica Endsley, Air Force Chief Scientist.

“It is built on the biological concept of say a swarm of bees, for example, where you can see a lot of them fly as a group but they do not run into each other. They manage some type of coordinated activity between them in order to be able to navigate successfully,” Endsley told Military.com. “In the laboratory – we have developed algorithms that allow small UAVs to be able to operate that way so that they can work in conjunction without running into each other.”

Endsley added that the precise roles and missions for this type of technology are still in the process of being determined; however experts and analyst are already discussing numerous potential applications for the technology.

Swarms of drones would be able to blanket an area with sensors even if one or two get shot down. The technology could be designed for high threat areas building in strategic redundancy, Air Force officials said.

“You might want to set the task for five or six UAVs to go and cover a particular area where they work in conjunction with each other. Maybe one has one type of sensor and the other has another type of sensor — so they could cue each other,” Endsley said.

“If one picked up an object of interest, it could cue another one to go examine it with maybe a different kind of sensor that might a higher resolution. They would be working together to accomplish a particular mission.”

Groups of coordinated small drones could also be used to confuse enemy radar systems and overwhelm advanced enemy air defenses, Endsley acknowledged.

“This has the ability to provide so many targets that they cannot be dealt with all at once,” said Phillip Finnegan, UAV expert at the Teal Group, a Virginia-based consultancy.

“This is an important area of research because it offers the potential to provide new ways of attacking an adversary at lower cost. It is also important to understand that an adversary might wish to use swarms against the United States — so this has an offensive and defensive character,” Finnegan added.

In addition, small groups of drones operating together could function as munitions or weapons delivery technology. A small class of mini-drone weapons already exist, such as AeroVironment’s Switchblade drone designed to deliver precision weapons effects. The weapon, which can reach distances up to 10 kilometers, is engineered as a low-cost expendable drone loaded with sensors and munitions.

Cost is an important element of the mini-drone swarming concept, Finnegan added.

“From a cost perspective, it is important to figure out how to do this in a low cost way. If you start using expensive munitions, it is prohibitively expensive,” he said.

Air Force plans for new drones are part of a new service strategy to be explained in an upcoming paper called “autonomous horizons.” The new Air Force strategy, to be released next month, also calls for greater manned-unmanned teaming between drones and manned aircraft such as F-35s.

The Office of Naval Research is also working on drone-swarming technology through an ongoing effort called Low-Cost Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Swarming Technology, or LOCUST. This involves groups of small, tube-launched UAVs designed to swarm and overwhelm adversaries, Navy officials explained.

“Researchers continue to push the state-of-the-art in autonomy control and plan to launch 30 autonomous UAVs in 2016 in under a minute,” an ONR statement said.

The demonstration will take place from a ship called a Sea Fighter, a high-speed, shallow-water experimental ship developed by the ONR.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Transhumanist

*17 Wacky Naval Aviation Terms You Never Knew You Wanted To Know

1. Ease Guns to Land:* As soon as carrier pilots hit the landing area, the engines are at full military power (full power without afterburner). This is because in case the hook misses one of the wires, the plane has enough power to take off and continue flying. Ease Guns To Land is when a pilot pulls the throttles back in an effort to help set the hook for arrestment. This is a big no-no, and results in a stern debrief and probably a mandatory break from flying.







*2. “Taxi One Wire” written as “T1W”:* The ship has four arresting cables (CVN’s Reagan, Bush and Ford only have three), with the most aft wire being #1 and the most forward wire being #4. The target wire (what every pilot is trying to hit) is normally #3. While catching any wire can be considered “good”, you want to avoid the #1 wire because it is the closest to the back of the ship. Hitting the back of the ship is not recommended. Taking that thought a step further, pilot’s who land well before the #1 wire and “taxi into it” are on a very dangerous path.






*3. Tower Flower: *During the launch and recovery of aircraft, each squadron has to send a Junior Officer (JO) up to the tower (called Pri-Fly, short for Primary Flight Control) to provide the Air Boss and his team with a liaison for their aircraft and any problems (or stupidity) that may arise. Unfortunately for the JO, the Air Boss is not always in the greatest of moods, so communication tends to flow in only one direction. The poor soul on the receiving end of the Air Boss’s wrath is the Tower Flower.






*4. Greenie Board: *Each pass at the carrier is graded by Landing Signal Officers (LSO’s). The results for each pilot are displayed using colored dots on a “greenie board” displayed in their respective ready rooms for all to see. The green color represents the highest grade a pilot can receive. A fair is normally yellow and considered an average pass. Red represents the worst and is referred to as a “cut pass” (such as ease guns to land). A Brown dot is used for a pass called a “no grade.” This pass is considered safe but certainly below average and affectionately known as a turd. A rule to live by: Avoid the brown.






*5. Foc’sle Follies:* At the end of each grading period for landings (called a Line Period), the awards for Top Hook and other accomplishments are handed out during Foc’sle Follies. The name comes from the location on the ship where this ceremony takes place (Ships Foc’sle) and where crazy, funny, and sometimes straddling the line of political correctness skits are performed. It is a great camaraderie building event and normally happens before a port call or just prior to the end of a long cruise—so spirits are high.






*6. Roll ‘em:* A Roll ‘em is a term used for showing a movie in a squadron’s Ready Room. Roll ‘ems can be very formal events with set doctrine and mandatory attendance. The events might include a Call Sign Review Board where a new guy is formally blessed with a call sign, a “Stoning” where someone is brought before the crowd and stoned with paper rocks for performing a mildly dumb act that day, and an attempt to guess the movie about to be shown using drawings of the movie subject matter—kind of like charades. Roll ‘ems include popcorn, sodas, and as much candy as can be purchased from the ship’s store.






*7. Mid Rats: *Formally known as Midnight Rations. It’s one of four meals served on the ship and one of the most popular because the grill is open for orders. If you are a nightly attendee to Mid Rats, you better have a good workout program in place to keep the extra pounds off.






*8. Mr. Hands: *The ship has closed circuit television that is piped through to nearly every space that has a TV. Two of the most watched channels at night are the PLAT camera—(Pilots Landing Aide Television or PLAT), which shows landings from the perspective of looking aft on the ship and the Mr. Hands channel. Mr. Hands is a real time depiction of traffic in the pattern using small pucks symbolizing aircraft that move around a board. It gets its name from the sailor’s hand (sometimes in white gloves) that would pick up the pucks and move them around, placing them at the proper location as aircraft made it around the pattern. Mr. Hands has now been upgraded to a video depiction rather than someone’s actual hand, but old-timers still refer to it as Mr. Hands.






*9. Dog Machine: *If you’ve ever been to a Golden Corral or similar restaurant where they have soft serve ice cream, then you’ve seen a dog machine. Soft serve ice cream is known on the ship as “dog” because when it comes out of the machine it has a strong physical resemblance to dog poop. In the wardroom, pilots always know if there is a good batch of dog. If you hear someone exclaim, “That’s a good dog!” a rush to the dog machine ensues. I guess pilots don’t have much to do.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Transhumanist

*Continued from above

10. The Smoking Lamp is Lit:* This old Navy tradition is slowing fading away as the Navy encourages people to quit using tobacco. While there is no actual lamp, there are announcements made on the 1 MC establishing when folks can go smoke. The smoking lamp is out during refueling, drills, and ordnance loading. Kind of makes sense, I guess.






*11. Six Pack: *With more than six acres of usable space, the flight deck is divided into different sections with nicknames so people can figure out where your aircraft is parked. One of the most well known areas is the “six pack”, which can hold roughly six jets and is located just in front of the island. Tomcats were always parked on the fantail. In the later years of the Tomcat, that area was referred to as “Jurassic Park”.






*12. Covey Launch: *To help two aircraft expeditiously rendezvous sometimes the deck will perform what is called a “covey launch”. This is when two aircraft go down the catapults at the same time, typically catapults #1 and #3. It is a well-timed and coordinated event usually performed by a seasoned air department deck crew. Plus, it looks pretty cool!






*13. Mark Your Father: *This is a term used by aircrew and controllers to identify where an aircraft is in relation to the carrier using a radial and distance from the ship’s TACAN. It is normally an imperative statement and goes something like this:

Controller: “101, mark your Father” (In his best Darth Vader voice)

Pilot: “101, marking mom’s 230 for 25” (i.e. Southeast of the ship at 25 nautical miles)

The verbiage “marking mom’s XXX” is used to clarify the direction as “from the ship to the aircraft” and avoids having the reciprocal direction being interpreted as the position—albeit incorrectly. (The reciprocal would be “Mom bears 050 for 25” but then it just gets confusing and we try to keep directions to one way)






*14. Clara: *One of the first times coming down the chute at the ship, my pilot told me he was “Clara.” I had no idea what he was saying, so I quizzically asked him over the aircraft’s internal intercom system “Clara who?”

Clara is the term pilot’s use to tell the Landing Signal Officers that they cannot see the ball (the Fresnel lens landing aide). Clara is short for “clarification” or more bluntly “tell me where I am on glideslope, I can’t see the ball”. The LSO’s response after Clara is normally a position call. “Roger, you’re high”. In my case, the “Clara who” back to my pilot did not help our situation; he still had no idea where we were on glideslope and the LSO’s had no idea he was “Clara”.






*15. Bolter: *This is one of the most well known naval aviation terms. If a pass is made at the ship and the aircraft’s hook does not engage an arresting wire (typically because of being too high), then it is known a bolter. If the hook touches in the landing area but fails to catch a wire (several things could be a factor for this happening), it is known as a hook skip bolter. A hook skip bolter is shown on the event status board as a “B” with a circle around it, where as a bolter is simply shown as a “B.”






*16. “Bingo on the Ball” aka “Trick or Treat”: *During flying operations when there is a usable divert field within 200 nautical miles, the carrier is under what is called “Bingo Ops.” This means if an aircraft has a problem or is low on gas and cannot make an arrested landing, the pilot can divert—or bingo—to land at the divert field. When a pilot calls “Bingo on the Ball” (or “Trick or Treat”), it means this is his last pass before he has to bingo back to the pre-determined divert field. The aircraft shows up on the event status board as “BOB.” BOB always makes you nervous because you don’t want an aircraft to head back to the beach unintentionally.






*17. Red Light: *Each carrier has a Search and Rescue (SAR) helicopter that launches first before any other aircraft. This is in case an aircraft does go down, a rescue helicopter is in place to pick up the pilot. Before launching, the SAR helo gives a report on how long it can stay airborne and still perform the search and rescue mission. This is known as red light, and is normally given in hours and minutes: “610’s red light, 3+15.” Thus, 610 has 3 hours and 15 minutes where he can be SAR capable. Let’s hope he doesn’t have to use it.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Transhumanist

*Northrop's battle command system brings down ballistic missile target*

Northrop Grumman's new battle management system for ballistic missile defense downs a ballistic missile in its first flight test.





The integrated air and missile defense Battle Command System downed a ballistic missile in its first flight test by Northrop Grumman and the U.S. Army.

The test on Thursday was conducted using the IAMD BCS, a Patriot system radar and two adapted Patriot launchers connected at the component level to the IBCS integrated fire control network, Northrop Grumman said.


Using measurement data from the Patriot radar, the IBCS track manager established a composite track on the ballistic missile, the IBCS mission control software assessed the track as a threat and presented an engagement solution. The engagement operations center operator then used the IBCS mission control software to command the launches of two Patriot PAC-2 interceptor missiles to destroy the target in flight.

"IBCS is crucial to the Army vision for an IAMD C2 [command and control] capability across all echelons and AMD assets, including joint systems," said Brig. Gen. (P) L. Neil Thurgood, Army program executive officer, Missiles and Space. "The success of IBCS allows our ability to acquire needed radars and interceptors to plug into our architecture without having to buy entire systems and to optimize the sensor/shooter relationship to the target.

"Additionally, IBCS allows for a single AMD C2 that is tailorable at every echelon and reduces the training burden while enhancing mission success."

Northrop Grumman's IBCS is to replace seven legacy command-and-control systems to provide a single integrated air picture, reduce single points of failure and offer the flexibility for deployment of smaller force packages. The networking sensors and interceptors – instead of linking them -- provides wider area surveillance and broader protection areas.

IBCS's open systems architecture allows integration of current and future sensors and weapon systems and enables interoperability with joint C2 and the U.S. ballistic missile defense system.

From Battle command system for integrated missile defense successful - UPI.com

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## AMDR

*Advanced Arresting Gear Delays Won’t Stop Ford From Delivering On Time*
PEO Carriers: Advanced Arresting Gear Delays Won't Stop Ford From Delivering On Time - USNI News





_Pre-Commissioning Unit Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) transits the James River during the ship’s launch and transit to Newport News Shipyard pier three for the final stages of construction and testing in November 2013. US Navy photo._

The program executive officer for aircraft carriers told USNI News he is confident the carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) will deliver on time despite delays in the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) program.

Rear Adm. Tom Moore said Thursday that the AAG setbacks created about four to six weeks of schedule pressure to the ship, but he is striving to make up that time. Moore said in March that the General Atomics-built component had a design flaw, but the solution that has been implemented seems to be working well, he told USNI News.

“They put a winch, if you will, at the end of the water twister to rotate the entire assembly so they can wrap the cable around the purchase cable drum. That’s worked fine,” he said.

Most of the arresting system has been installed, and shipbuilders are now adding the final section, the cable shock absorbers – which Moore said are very large and go in a confined space. Newport News Shipbuilding is installing the cable shock absorbers now, at the same time workers put the non-skid coating on the flight deck, which Moore called “a kind of a ballet” to do simultaneously.

Moore said in March that the improved AAG design would have to be tested at Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division Lakehurst, but for scheduling reasons he couldn’t postpone installation while awaiting the test results.

“If Lakehurst uncovers something on the system that has to be fixed, the risk I’m taking is I’m installing it and then I have to go back and fix something that’s all ready installed, it’s more challenging. Really at this point, I don’t have a choice,” he said in March.

Despite that challenge, Moore said today that, “I’m a year out, my goal is to get everything done before we deliver, so that’s what we’re driving for right now.”

“I don’t know that we’ll retire all the risk here over the course of the next year. I will tell you that we will have the entire system installed prior to delivery next March,” he elaborated.
“There may be some testing that has to be completed [after delivery], we’re going to take a look at where it makes sense to do that testing. If the last of the testing on AAG is the only thing keeping us from going to sea – the sea trials on the ship does not, we don’t launch and recover aircraft, we don’t really do that until June. So we’ll take a look at it. And if we’re talking a handful of testers and it makes sense to get out to sea and test the rest of the ship and then maybe complete that [AAG] testing in the period between the end of March and June, which is when we’re supposed to launch and recover aircraft, we’ll take a look at that.”

The other new system on the flight deck, the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) “is probably one of the best news stories in the program,” Moore said. The Navy finished no-load tests on Catapult 2, including 22 shots in one day, and “it worked like a champ.”

Catapult 2 is set for dead-load testing next month, which involves catapulting large, wheeled, steel vessels weighing up to 80,000 pounds off the front of the ship to simulate the weight of an actual aircraft.

Catapult 1 will follow shortly behind, with no-load testing next week. Construction on Catapults 3 and 4 will wrap up soon so testing can begin shortly afterwards, Moore said.

Overall, the ship is 90-percent complete, with 53 percent of the compartments turned over to the ship’s crew – which is “significantly further ahead of where we were on CVN-77,” Moore noted. The crew will move aboard in August.

“We’re certainly not without our challenges,” Moore said, but “we’re in a good position. … We’re in a position we’d like to be [in] with 308 days to go.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Fourth Submarine Forward-Deployed to Guam*
SEAPOWER Magazine Online

ARLINGTON, Va. — The Defense Department’s rebalancing of forces to the Asia-Pacific area of responsibility took another step with the stationing of a fourth nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN) to Naval Station Guam.

The Los Angeles-class SSN USS _Toledo_, formerly based in Groton, Conn., has joined three other SSNs staged to Guam, USS _Oklahoma City_, USS _Chicago_ and USS _Key West_.

SSNs arrived in Guam beginning in October 2002, with the force built up to three by July 2007.

The basing of SSNs in Guam is a force multiplier for the shrinking U.S. submarine force. The submarines have a much shorter transit distance to operating areas than from Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, or San Diego, and can spend more time on patrol in the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean areas.

Based in the Pacific are 30 SSNs, compared with 22 SSNs in the Atlantic bases.

The submarines in Guam are supported by the submarine tender USS _Frank Cable_, which also services visiting SSNs and guided-missile submarines.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## AMDR

*UPDATE: DOD wants to block-buy 450 F-35 jets from Lockheed*
UPDATE: DOD wants to block-buy 450 F-35 jets from Lockheed - 5/29/2015 - Flight Global






The Pentagon says it has enough confidence in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme to start planning for a three-year block buy that would purchase about 450 jets from prime contractor Lockheed Martin.

The block buy would include F-35s for programme partners and foreign military sale (FMS) customers, and would cover aircraft procurement for fiscal years 2018 to 2020. The deal needs the blessing of Congress to proceed, and those discussions will begin soon.

“We’re feeling optimistic enough about the programme that we’re going to proceed with the planning on that, and we’ll be talking to the Congress about it,” DOD acquisition chief Frank Kendall told reporters in a teleconference call from Oslo, Norway.

By bundling the orders into a single, three-year production contact, Kendall says he expects to see “double-digit savings”, with multiyear procurements historically achieving a 5% to 15% cost reduction. The block buy is not covered under the same statute as a multiyear procurement, but has the similar effect of guaranteeing production quantities several years out instead of having to negotiate single-year lots, or exercise options in a base-year agreement.

“It would include our international partners and it could also include FMS customers,” Kendall says. “It allows industry to plan with some confidence in the next few years of production.”

Flightglobal reported in April that the joint programme office intended to block-buy 477 Pratt & Whitney F-35 engines, and there has been general discussion about a multiyear purchase of some kind. But Kendall’s comments confirm that a three-year order is the preferred way ahead as production scales up. His comments come at the end of an annual F-35 Chief Executives Officers Conference in Norway.

Kendall says the block buy will help the programme achieve the “economies of scale” it needs to reduce the aircraft’s unit cost from about $110 million today to about $80 million. He says it would also incentivise international partners stick to their planned F-35 quantities and not cut orders.

“We want to set up an arrangement where there is a premium for people who stay in the program as planned, so people who commit to being in the block buy get a financial benefit from that,” he says. “If they weren’t, obviously they’d experience some cost increases.”

In another development, Kendall confirmed that the programme will shift from contractor logistics support for F-35 sustainment activities to a performance-based arrangement, where Lockheed and Pratt would guarantee a level of aircraft availability and readiness instead of being paid by the hour for support services.

“Our historical analysis shows 10% to 15% reductions roughly for performance-based logistics (PBL) over a transactional way of doing logistics support,” he says. “The idea is to go to a structure where we can do PBL at the system level. It won’t be instantaneous or overnight. We’re trying to do it as we go along as much as we can because it’s a preferred way of doing business when it’s available.”

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Techy

*Boeing's QF-16 Unmanned fighter test flight: *

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Transhumanist

*This Navy Squadron's Cruise Video Includes A Terrifying Carrier Landing*






U.S. Navy F/A-18E Super Hornet Squadron VFA-115 “Eagles” put together a pretty sweet WESTPAC cruise video. One clip in particular reminds us just how challenging landing a 25-ton, $50 million dollar fighter on a chunk of steel floating in the middle of the ocean can be, especially when visibility is near zero!






The Eagle’s legacy dates back to WWII, where the unit flew TBM Avengers. Today, they are forward deployed with the rest of Carrier Air Wing 5’s (CVW-5) elite squadrons to NAF Atsugi, Japan. This summer will be interesting for the Eagles, their Air Wing and their carrier, the USS_George Washington_, which has already left its Japanese home port for the last time.






The _George Washington_ and her Air Wing will cruise around the Pacific along with her Carrier Strike Group escorts till late Summer. The ship will then head to San Diego, where about 2,000 of its sailors will board the USS _Ronald Reagan. _The_ Ronald Reagan_ will sail back to Yokosuka, Japan to take on the role of America’s forward deployed carrier while the _George Washington_ receives a mid-life complex overhaul and nuclear refueling back in Norfolk, Virginia.

It sounds like a lot of uprooting and change, but that is what being the tip of America’s spear overseas is all about: adapting, overcoming and always being ready to fight.

_Bonus! Check out VFA-115’s 2012 cruise video below:_

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## mike2000 is back

Transhumanist said:


> *This Navy Squadron's Cruise Video Includes A Terrifying Carrier Landing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Navy F/A-18E Super Hornet Squadron VFA-115 “Eagles” put together a pretty sweet WESTPAC cruise video. One clip in particular reminds us just how challenging landing a 25-ton, $50 million dollar fighter on a chunk of steel floating in the middle of the ocean can be, especially when visibility is near zero!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Eagle’s legacy dates back to WWII, where the unit flew TBM Avengers. Today, they are forward deployed with the rest of Carrier Air Wing 5’s (CVW-5) elite squadrons to NAF Atsugi, Japan. This summer will be interesting for the Eagles, their Air Wing and their carrier, the USS_George Washington_, which has already left its Japanese home port for the last time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The _George Washington_ and her Air Wing will cruise around the Pacific along with her Carrier Strike Group escorts till late Summer. The ship will then head to San Diego, where about 2,000 of its sailors will board the USS _Ronald Reagan. _The_ Ronald Reagan_ will sail back to Yokosuka, Japan to take on the role of America’s forward deployed carrier while the _George Washington_ receives a mid-life complex overhaul and nuclear refueling back in Norfolk, Virginia.
> 
> It sounds like a lot of uprooting and change, but that is what being the tip of America’s spear overseas is all about: adapting, overcoming and always being ready to fight.
> 
> _Bonus! Check out VFA-115’s 2012 cruise video below:_



Ruling the world baby .

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Transhumanist

*The Blue Angels Roar Over Graduation At The U.S. Naval Academy*






In what has to be one of the best graduation ceremony shots of all time, the Blue Angels are caught above the speaker’s podium, where Vice President Joe Biden and the Navy and Marine Corps Brass welcome the U.S. Naval Academy’s graduating class of 2015. Seconds later the stadium is filled with thunder:











Congrats to all!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

Another round of F35B Sea Trials completed on Wasp

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AMDR

_U.S. Paratroopers from the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, practice urban combat skills during Combined Joint Operational Access Exercise 15-01, at Fort Bragg, N.C._

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Transhumanist

*Watch And Hear The Last Time The Battleship Wisconsin Fired Its Big Guns*






This awesome video, shot on May 16th, 1991, documented the last time the_ Iowa_ Class Battleship USS _Wisconsin_ (BB-64) fired off its main battery. Watching her 16 inch guns going off in a crescendo and then ending in a full broadside is breathtaking, and the sound is ferocious.

Make sure to turn up you volume:






The Iowa Class’s Mark 7 16-inch guns and their huge turrets were like four-story rotating steel fortresses in their own right. Each massive 66-foot, 240k-pound rifled barrel had a life between 250 and 350 rounds before it needed to be replaced. They were capable of flinging shells weighing up to 2,700 pounds almost 25 miles at hunting rifle speeds. Each turret was operated by between 75 and 90 men, and they weren’t even attached to the ship. Their weight alone kept them seated, so if the ship were ever to rolled over, the gun turrets would have slipped out.






Even more impressive than the Iowa Class’s main battery was its fire control system. The Mark 38 Gun Fire Control System was one of the world’s first computers and included a director tower, plotting room, and data transmission system. The Iowa Class had plotting rooms and directors fore and aft for redundancy. The system could utilize optical or radar ranging and was tied to a series of gyros. When combined, the system was highly accurate and could take into account wind, Magnus Effect, gravity, the spin of the shell, the earth’s curvature, and coriolis effect.

Upgrades added during the 1980s Reagan-era refit infused a small portion of modern technology, such as a radar that tracked the prior round’s course, with the seemingly ancient WWII system. This, along with more consistent propellant and a ship-borne UAV to call out targets and asses the gun’s damage after each volley, made the big 16 inch guns nearly surgical weapons.






The Wisconsin, like her sisters, is now a museum. She now rests in Norfolk, Virginia. Although it is extremely unlikely that she will ever sail operationally again, the _Iowa_ and _Wisconsin _have been ordered to be kept under the following conditions under the 2006 Defense Authorization Act, just in case their high-volume shore bombardment capability is ever needed again:


Iowa and Wisconsin must not be altered in any way that would impair their military utility;
The battleships must be preserved in their present condition through the continued use of cathodic protection, dehumidification systems, and any other preservation methods as needed;
Spare parts and unique equipment such as the 16-inch (410 mm) gun barrels and projectiles be preserved in adequate numbers to support Iowa and Wisconsin, if reactivated;
The navy must prepare plans for the rapid reactivation of Iowa and Wisconsin
Still, many_ Iowa _Class components, like spare gun barrels that were destroyed for no reason, have no manufacturer today, so the ship’s antique mechanical and electrical components would be very hard to replace or even service. As a result, actually returning these ships back wartime condition would be a challenging process to say the least. That being said, having even one of these sailing the high-seas as America’s flagship would be a very expensive but awesome display of American power projection.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## F-22Raptor

Army Tests New Missile Defense Brain, IBCS; Navy, MDA Intrigued 

The Army’s missile defense force is getting a new brain. That’s the real meaning of a successful test yesterday of something called the Integrated Air & Missile Defense Battle Command System, or IBCS for (mercifully) short.

IBCS doesn’t blow stuff up. A Patriot missile destroyed the target in last week’s test at White Sands Missile Range. ICBS doesn’t detect the target: A Patriot radar did that. (Even the target was a Patriot, simulating an inbound ballistic missile). So what does ICBS do? It links the radar, the launcher, and the human decision makers — and in more flexible ways that ever before.

“The ultimate long range goal is to be able to engage _any_ target with _any_ weapon with data that comes from _any_ sensor,” said Northrop Grumman vice president Dan Verwiel.

Last week’s test demonstrated that IBCS software, network, and command post function as well as the existing command system. The next IBCS test will attempt something the current systems _cannot_ do, connecting a radar and a launcher that were never designed to work together.

That first test will be a Patriot launcher and a Sentinel air defense radar, Verwiel told me. The ultimate goal is to mix and match freely: not just among Army missile defense systems, but between the four armed services, and not just among existing systems, but with easy plug-and-play for any future system, including exotica such as laser weapons. The program has already gotten IBCS to talk to the Navy’s Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) — albeit in a lab, not in a field test — and it will eventually link up to the Missile Defense Agency’s command network for continental defense, C2BMC (Command & Control, Battle Management, & Communications). Of course, just getting all the Army’s systems to work together will be challenge enough to start with.

That flexibility is what makes IBCS — not new missiles, not new radars, not even lasers — the “Number 1 priority” of the Army’s air and missile defense force, Space and Missile Defense Command’s Gen. David Mann said at a February conference.

“Many folks can just dismiss it as a network,” said Brig. Gen. Christopher Spillman, commander of the Air Defense Artillery School, at the same Association of the US Army conference. “It’s much more than that.”

Currently, each anti-aircraft weapon or missile defense system comes with its own launchers, its own command-and-control, and its own radar. That’s straightforward as long as you only deploy one thing. But each system is best against a different kind of threat — that’s why the military buys more than one thing in the first place — so the best defense is a layered defense. When you try to use more than one system at once, however, some human being has to look back and forth between two screens (or three, or four, or however many systems you’ve deployed) to try to figure out if the threat that (say) the Patriot is seeing is the same incoming missile the THAAD radar has picked up. If the human gets confused, you might take multiple shots at one threat while letting another get through unhindered. Or you might blow a friendly aircraft out of the sky, as happened twice in 2003, killing two British air crew and one American.

To prevent these tragedies, IBCS is designed to create “a single integrated air picture” fusing data from all available sensors into a coherent and consistent whole. All told, IBCS will replace seven separate command-and-control systems currently in service.

That means IBCS has to talk to all the software and hardware those seven systems currently control, software and hardware that was designed at different types to different standards by different companies. Most also predate the current push for open architecture, which means they rely on proprietary technology jealously guarded by the original manufacturers. Just getting everything to work together without violating anyone’s intellectual property was a major effort, Verwiel told me.

The need to plug into all these existing systems also led to a “tremendous number of requirements,” Verwiel said. (Requirements is an acquisition term of art for specific things the government says the product must be able to do).

There were “literally many _thousands_ of requirements,” he said, “which is an order of magnitude greater than anything we’d ever dealt with with this customer before.” Those requirements also grew over time as the military became more conscious and more stringent about protecting its networks from cyber and electronic warfare (i.e. hacking and jamming).

So Verwiel is understandably chuffed that his baby’s first test went off without a hitch. Three more flight tests will follow over the next 12 months — he declined to give details — and the official Limited User Test will begin next spring. Then in comes the big one, the Pentagon’s Milestone C decision in August 2016 about whether the program is ready to move from development into production.

How’s that coming? “The IBCS program [was] identified by OSD as an exemplar program for should-cost and Better Buying Power,” said Barry Pike, the Army’s deputy program executive officer for missiles and space, speaking at the February conference.

In particular, Pike said, IBCS should allow Army missile defense to keep pace with the threat at a price we can afford. Under the old model, if you needed to replace an obsolescent radar (for example), you needed to upgrade — or replace — the weapon and command system that went with that radar as well. Under IBCS, which allows components to plug and play, you just need to replace the obsolescent piece, without having to touch anything else– a major cost savings. That’s the kind of modest, incremental modernization that the cash-strapped and chastened Army sees as its best path forward.

Army Tests New Missile Defense Brain, IBCS; Navy, MDA Intrigued « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Transhumanist

*Navy Responds To Claim Ship Was Scared Off By Russian Jets With Video*






Media outlets in Russia began crowing last week about an incident in the Black Sea, off the coast of the contested Crimean Peninsula. Russian fighters buzzed an American destroyer, sending it running scared after it entered Russian waters, they said. But the US Navy just verbally struck back, with video of the encounter.

The story seemed fairly outlandish when it first came out, with Russia claiming its Su-24 Fencers had actually even come close to making the USS _Ross_, an _Arleigh Burke_-class destroyer, feel threatened. Nor did it sound likely to us that the _Ross_ would act provocatively or enter Russian waters while operating in the Black Sea after leaving the Romanian port of Costanta, something US Navy ships have done for years now.

But today, the US Navy released the video below, which shows a Russian Navy Su-24 Fencer,many of which have been posted on the Crimean Peninsula for decades, making a low pass abreast the USS _Ross_.






This is hardly something that the _Ross_ could not defend against. Quite the contrary actually.

But Russian state media outlet _Sputnik_ quoted an unnamed source in “Crimea’s security forces” saying that really, it was the Americans being the bullies:

_The ship’s crew acted provocatively and aggressively, which caused alarm among operators of monitoring stations and Black Sea Fleet ships carrying out assignments in the Black Sea. Scrambled Su-24 attack jets demonstrated a readiness to forcibly suppress border violations and defend the country’s interest.

It seems that the Americans did not forget the April 2014 incident when one Su-24 actually shut down all equipment on the new USS Donald Cook American destroyer with anti-missile system elements._

The “source” is referencing a highly questionable electronic attack event and flyby that took place against another US Navy surface combatant, the USS _Donald Cook_, that was operating in the Black Sea last year during the opening stages of Russia’s Ukraine campaign.

Is an Su-24 a threat? Sure it is, in that they can carry some fairly wicked anti-ship missiles. But these attacks occur at standoff ranges, not within visual range. If anything, the Russian jet’s offering of free target practice was good training for the _Ross’s _crew, and passes like this one occur in international waters fairly regularly. And many of those, too, can carry anti-ship missiles like the Su-24.

And just as well, no electronic warfare or jamming was reported during the event. The full US Navy statement goes as such:

_USS Ross (DDG 71) observes the flight by a Russian SU 24 aircraft while both were operating in international waters and airspace. Ross continued on her mission after observing the aircraft return to base. At no time did Ross act aggressively nor did she deviate from her planned operations. The conduct of her crew has been and continues to be professional. Ross’ Sailors observed that the SU 24 carried no weapons – wings were “clean.” The U.S. Navy operates ships in the Black Sea on a routine basis, consistent with the Montreux Convention and International Law._

Like everything else involving Russia and the US right now, you have to take these initial reports with the proverbial grain of salt. Russian media is highly inconsistent when it comes to these types of stories and some claims are just not worth re-printing with corroboration or waiting for the other side’s story first.

This is just one of those instances.

Yet when you look at it from a propaganda perspective, considering that throngs of international headlines reposted the initial story blindly, with headlines like “Russia Chases Off US Destroyer” and other variations, the initial story probably did its job as far as Russian interests are concerned.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

A fuel intake that flips 







Transhumanist said:


> It seems that the Americans did not forget the April 2014 incident when one Su-24 actually shut down all equipment on the new USS Donald Cook American destroyer with anti-missile system elements.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*US Navy’s PCU Gerald R.Ford sailors ready to operate EMALS*
US Navy’s PCU Gerald R.Ford sailors ready to operate EMALS - Naval Technology







Sailors from the pre-commissioning unit (PCU) of the US Navy aircraft carrier Gerald R Ford (CVN 78) have completed specialised training and are now ready to operate and maintain the navy's newest aircraft launch system.

With the support of General Atomics (GA), Naval Air and Naval Sea System Commands developed a complete training programme for Ford's PCU Air Department catapult and arresting gear V-2 division leadership, and sailors who with take part in systems testing.

The electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) shipboard testing is expected to begin later this year..

EMALS training manager Terry Hotz said: "EMALS is such a leap in technology, using high voltage electromagnetic power rather than the steam that powers the legacy catapults, and extra caution and respect must be exercised during maintenance operations to ensure the safety of personnel.

"It's essential we provide excellent training to help them thoroughly understand the system."

The first crew graduated from the GA-led course in Rancho Bernardo, California in October last year, while the two additional PCU groups completed training sessions at the full-scale EMALS system functional demonstration site at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey earlier this year.

In addition, CVN 78 will be performing a series of tests launching dead-loads, or weighted sleds representative of aircraft, into Virginia's James River this summer.

Earlier this year, the US Navy carried out the test of EMALS aboard the Gerald R Ford. This development marked the completion of the first-ever, shipboard, full speed catapult test shots using the system.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## AMDR

*F-35s get first role in major military exercise*
Lockheed F-35s get first role in major military exercise - Yahoo News

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 fighter jet will drop weapons and take part in a major U.S. military exercise this week for the first time, another milestone for the Pentagon's largest weapons program, Air Force officials said Monday.

The exercise, called "Green Flag West," tests the U.S. military's ability to engage in air-to-surface conflicts and helps get ground troops who pinpoint potential air strikes ready for combat.

Several F-35 A-model jets, along with a host of other warplanes and other weapons, will participate in the exercises.

General Herbert Carlisle, commander of Air Combat Command, told Reuters that exercises were an important way to expose weapons and pilots to more real-world battle scenarios.

"It's incredibly important that you've got to get past just the theoretical ... to get it into the fog and friction of dynamic environment that is changing rapidly," Carlisle said after an event hosted by the Air Force Association.

The Air Force has used aircraft equipped with F-35 sensors in past exercises, but this will be the first time that more "operationally representative" aircraft take part, he said.

Lockheed is developing three models of the aircraft for the U.S. military, eight countries that help fund its development, and three other nations. U.S. officials say the $391 billion weapons program has been meeting or exceeding its performance and cost targets since a major restructuring in 2011.

Carlisle said the Air Force was still working through some problems with how data from various radars and other sensors are fused and displayed to the pilot, but he expected the aircraft to perform well in the exercise.

"The airplane's pretty impressive," Carlisle said. He said the jet's radar-evading capabilities and large number of sensors would help improve the performance of all other U.S. aircraft in a fight, much like the F-22 does now.

The Marine Corps is expected to declare an initial squadron of 10 F-35B jets ready for initial combat use in July, with the Air Force to follow suit in August 2016.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Transhumanist

*This Awesome Graphic Shows The Coast Guard's Aircraft And Basing*

*_remember, you can resize the images by clicking on them ^_^_






If you want to quantify the fleet size and see all the different bases where the U.S. Coast Guard’s aircraft operate from, this graphic is your awesome go-to guide.






This in another great composite graphic by_ Contemporary Issues and Geography_ that offers a good overview of the makeup of America’s air arms. They recently released a U.S. Navy version, a USMC version, and let’s hope that a USAF and U.S. Army one is coming soon!

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## AMDR

I'm not very knowledgeable in procurement and development contracts, and I'm not sure exactly what this means, but another $100 million towards LRASM development seems like a really good thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense.gov Contracts for Tuesday, June 02, 2015

Lockheed Martin Corp., Orlando, Florida, has been awarded a $104,251,040 modification P00014 to previously awarded contract HR0011-14-C-0079 for the *Long Range Anti-Ship Missile Accelerated Acquisition program*. This modification raises the total cumulative face value of the contract from $202,618,254 to $306,869,294. Work will be performed at Lockheed Martin Corp. (Orlando, Florida; Troy, Alabama, 57.40%); BAE Systems (Nashua, New Hampshire, 35.70%), Harris Corp. (Melbourne, Florida, 3.11%), Northrop Grumman (Linthicum, Maryland, 1.43%), Ball Aerospace (Westminster, Colorado, 1.25%) and Williams Corp. (Walled Lake, Michigan, 1.11%), with an expected completion date of July 6, 2016. Research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $228,432 are being obligated at the time of award. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Arlington, Virginia, is the contracting activity.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Transhumanist

I already posted this, but I'm doing so again here:

*Modern U.S. Destroyer Hangs Out With 235-Year-Old French Frigate Replica*






In what is truly a spectacular sight to behold, the American _Arleigh Burke_ Class Destroyer USS _Mitscher _(DDG-57) welcomed the French _Concorde_ Class Frigate replica _Hermione _off the East Coast of the U.S. yesterday. The _Hermione_ had just completed a cross Atlantic journey as part of her mission of goodwill and historical education.






This amazing encounter between old and new happened right in the vicinity of the Battle of Virginia Capes which occurred 234 years ago, an action that the original _Hermione _did not fight in, although 24 French ships of line did.






The original _Hermione’s _main claim to fame, beyond fighting valiantly in multiple battles, was that she transported French General and key supporter of American independence Marquis de Lafayette to America in 1780. There, Lafayette met with his close friend General George Washington and formally announced that France would massively increase support for the United States which remained mired in an increasingly bloody Revolutionary War with British.

This war pledge included much needed material, soldiers and ships. Thus, the _Hermione _is a gorgeous monument to the Franco-American bond that helped bring victory at the Battle of Yorktown and a symbol of a tight relationship that continues between the two countries to this very day.






The _Hermione, _which began construction in 1997, will visit Yorktown, Virginia this Friday and then will cruise up along the east coast, stopping at many cities along the way to promote the historical significance of the relationship between the French and the U.S. Check out the ship’s website for its schedule as well as how this amazing project came to be.

Now if only the USS_ Constitution_ was available to sail alongside her...

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## AMDR

*Sensor upgrades top USAF wish list for F-35 Block 4*
Sensor upgrades top USAF wish list for F-35 Block 4 - 6/3/2015 - Flight Global

Improving two of the Lockheed Martin F-35’s key sensors should be priorities for a future operational standard called Block 4, says a top US Air Force general.

Upgrading the Lockheed electro-optical targeting system and adding a wide-area high-resolution synthetic aperture radar (SAR) mode – dubbed “– Big SAR” to the Northrop Grumman APG-81 active electronically scanned array (AESA) are must-haves, says Gen Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, chief of Air Combat Command.

“I think as we look to the future, the Big SAR and advanced EOTS are the things we have to have on the sensor side,” says Carlisle, who spoke at an Air Force Association even in Washington, DC, this week. “The Big SAR radar can’t afford to move, and we’ve got to get to that advanced capability on the EOTS. Those are two that are kind of in the lurch right now. I’ll tell you, the advanced capability on the EOTS is one we’re working hard on.”

In 2007, Flight International magazine reported that the Big SAR capability was originally approved to be introduced in Block 3, which enters service next year. But that capability was delayed to at least Block 4.

The Pentagon is deciding what new weapons and capabilities will be integrated with the fifth-generation aircraft beyond those planned for the Block 3F configuration, which represents the “full warfighting capability.”

Those improved capabilities will be rolled out in Block 4, which will be delivered in cycles through the early 2020s.

The air force is also keeping an eye on software issues discovered during testing, namely the fusion of information from the aircraft’s sensor suite. “It’s one of the things we’re working hard on a making some progress, but we’ve got a ways to go,” Carlisle says.

For weapons, he places a premium on the integration of Raytheon’s Small Diameter Bomb II and delivery of more advanced air-to-air combat weapon systems beyond the AIM-120C Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile being integrated in earlier configurations.

Carlisle says improved air-to-air capabilities are vitally important since the air force did not buy enough F-22 Raptor air superiority jets. The air force currently has 180 Raptors, significantly fewer than the original plan calling for buying 750. He says it is simply a capacity issue.

“Probably one of the greatest mistakes made was the lack of more F-22s,” he says of the decision to end Raptor production early.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Techy

_*A nice raw video of some F-22 Raptors.
*_

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Transhumanist

*What Would Happen If All Our Satellites Were Suddenly Destroyed?*






Since their inception 60 years ago, satellites have gone on to become an indispensable component of our modern high-tech civilization. But because they’re reliable and practically invisible, we take their existence for granted. Here’s what would happen if all our satellites suddenly just disappeared.

The idea that all the satellites — or at least good portion of them — could be rendered inoperable is not as outlandish as it might seem at first. There are at least three plausible scenarios in which this could happen.

As portrayed in the soon-to-be-released science fiction thriller _Ghost Fleet: A Novel of the Next World War_, satellites could be deliberately knocked out of action by warring nations. In this book, set in the near future, authors P. W Singer and August Cole describe describe a war in which the Chinese military use anti-satellite satellites to direct high-energy weapons at sensitive U.S. targets. Dozens of satellites are rendered useless before the action on the ground even gets started.






There are other space war scenarios to consider. Jeff Kueter, the President of the George C. Marshall Institute — a Virginia-based think tank focusing on scientific issues and public policy — says that combatants could physically attack satellites from ground stations, jam com links, release pellet cloud attacks, deploy high-altitude weather monitoring rockets, or detonate high-altitude nuclear devices.

Alternately, our satellites could get wiped out by a massive solar storm. A so-called Carrington Event — like the one that happened in 1859 — would wreak tremendous havoc to a modern civilization like ours. As _Universe Today_’s Fraser Cain explains, a sufficiently powerful geomagnetic storm would overload power grids on Earth and fry all of our devices in orbit.

“When a blast of particles sweeps past the Earth, it carries an enormous electric charge,” Cain tells io9. “When satellites are close to the Earth, they’re mostly protected by the planet’s geomagnetic field, but the satellites in higher orbits, especially geosynchronous orbit aren’t so lucky. The entire satellite can get charged during the storm, and then the excess electrical charge can go into satellite components and burn them out.”

Cain says the several hundred geosynchronous satellites orbiting the Earth right now are vulnerable, including the GPS network that orbits at about 20,000 km (12,430 miles).






Lastly, there’s the Kessler Syndrome to consider. This scenario was portrayed in the 2013 film_Gravity_. In the movie, a Russian missile strike on a defunct satellite inadvertently causes a cascading chain reaction that formed an ever-growing cloud of orbiting space debris. Anything in the cloud’s wake — including satellites, space stations, and astronauts — gets annihilated. Disturbingly, the Kessler Syndrome is a very real possibility, and the likelihood of it happening is steadily increasing as more stuff gets thrown into space.

Given these grim prospects, it’s fair to ask what might happen to our civilization if any of these things happened. At the risk of gross understatement, the complete loss of our satellite fleet would instigate a tremendous disruption to our current mode of technological existence — disruptions that would be experienced in the short, medium, and long term, and across multiple domains.

*Compromised Communications*

Almost immediately we’d notice a dramatic reduction in our ability to communicate, share information, and conduct transactions.






“If our communications satellites are lost, then bandwidth is also lost,” Jonathan McDowell tells io9. He’s an astrophysicists and Chandra Observatory scientist who works out of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

McDowell says that, with telecommunication satellites wiped out, the burden of telecommunications would fall upon undersea cables and ground-based communication systems. But while many forms of communication would disappear in an instant, others would remain.

All international calls and data traffic would have to be re-routed, placing tremendous pressure on terrestrial and undersea lines. Oversaturation would stretch the capacity of these systems to the limit, preventing many calls from going through. Hundreds of millions of Internet connections would vanish, or be severely overloaded. A similar number of cell phones would be rendered useless. In remote areas, people dependent on satellite for television, Internet, and radio would practically lose all service.






“Indeed, a lot of television would suddenly disappear,” says McDowell. “A sizable portion of TV comes from cable whose companies relay programming from satellites to their hubs.”

It’s important to note that we actually have a precedent for a dramatic — albeit brief — disruption in com-sat capability. Back in 1998, there was a day in which a single satellite failed and all the world’s pagers stopped working.

*Get Out Your Paper Maps*

We would also lose the Global Positioning System. In the years since its inception, GPS has become ubiquitous, and a surprising number of systems have become reliant on it.






“Apart from the fact that everyone has forgotten to navigate without GPS in their cars, many airplanes use GPS as well,” says McDowell.

Though backup systems exist, airlines use GPS to chart the most fuel-efficient and expeditious routes. Without GPS and telecomm-sats, aircraft controllers would have tremendous difficulty communicating with and routing airplanes. Airlines would have to fall back to legacy systems and procedures. Given the sheer volume of airline traffic today, accidents would be all but guaranteed.

Other affected navigation systems would include those aboard cargo vessels, supply-chain management systems, and transportation hubs driven by GPS.

But GPS does more than just provide positioning — it also provides for timing. Ground-based atomic clocks can perform the same function, but GPS is increasingly being used to distribute the universal time standard via satellites. Within hours of a terminated service, any distributing networks requiring tight synchronization would start to suffer from “clock drift,” leading to serious performance issues and outright service outages. Such disruptions could affect everything from the power grid through to the financial sector.






In the report, “A Day Without Space: Economic and National Security Ramifications,” Ed Morris, the Executive Director of the Office of Space Commerce at the Department of Commerce, writes:

_If you think it is hard to get work done when your internet connection goes out at the office, imagine losing that plus your cell phone, TV, radio, ATM access, credit cards, and possibly even your electricity. [...]

Wireless services, especially those built to CDMA standard, would fail to hand off calls from one cell to the next, leading to dropped connections. Computer networks would experience slowdowns as data is pushed through finite pipelines at reduced bit rates. The same would be true for major networks for communication and entertainment, since they are all IP-based today and require ultra-precise timing to ensure digital traffic reaches its destination.
The lack of effective synch would hit especially hard in banking, where the timing of transactions needs to be recorded. Credit card payments and bank accounts would likely freeze, as billions of dollars could be sucked away from businesses. A financial crash is not out of the question._

*The Loss of Military Capability*

The sudden loss of satellite capability would have a profound effect on the military.

The Marshall Institute puts it this way: “Space is a critical enabler to all U.S. warfare domains,” including intelligence, navigation, communications, weather prediction, and warfare. McDowell describes satellite capability as as the “backbone” of the U.S. military.

And as 21st century warfare expert Peter W. Singer from New America Foundation tells io9, “He who controls the heavens will control what happens in the battles of Earth.” Singer summarized the military consequences of losing satellites in an email to us:

_Today there are some 1,100 active satellites which act as the nervous system of not just our economy, but also our military. Everything from communications to GPS to intelligence all depend on it. Potential foes have noticed, which is why Russia and China have recently begun testing a new generation of anti-satellite weapons, which in turn has sparked the U.S. military to recently budget $5 billion for various space warfare systems._

_What would happen if we lost access to space? Well, the battles would, as one U.S. military officer put it, take us back to the “pre digital age.” Our drones, our missiles, even our ground units wouldn’t be able to operate the way we plan. It would force a rewrite of all our assumptions of 21st century high tech war. We might have a new generation of stealthy battleships...but the loss of space would mean naval battles would in many ways be like the game of Battleship, where the two sides would struggle to even find each other._

Moreover, and as McDowell explains to io9, the loss of satellite capability would have a profound effect on arms control capabilities. Space systems can monitor compliance; without them, we’d be running blind.

“The overarching consideration is that you wouldn’t really know what’s going on,” says McDowell. “Satellites provide for both global and local views of what’s happening. We would be less connected, less informed — and with considerably degraded situational awareness.”

*Compromised Weather Prediction and Climate Science*

One great thing satellites have done for us is improve our ability to forecast weather. Predicting a slight chance of cloudiness is all well and good, but some areas, like India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, are dependent on such systems to predict potentially hazardous monsoons. And in the U.S., the NOAA has estimated that, during a typical hurricane season, weather satellites save as much as $3 billion in lives and property damage.






There’s also the effect on science to consider. Much of what we know about climate change comes from satellites.

As McDowell explains, the first couple of weeks without satellites wouldn’t make much of a difference. But over a ten-year span, the lack of satellites would preclude our ability to understand and monitor such things as the ozone layer, carbon dioxide levels, and the distribution of polar ice. Ground-based and balloon-driven systems would help, but much of the data we’re currently tracking would suddenly become much spottier.

“We’re quite dependent on satellites for a global view of what’s happening on our planet — and at a time when we really, _really_ need to know what’s happening,” says McDowell.

It’s also worth pointing out that, without satellites, we also wouldn’t be able to monitor space weather, such as incoming space storms.

*Time to Recover*
With all the satellites gone, both governmental and private interests would work feverishly to restore space-based capabilities. Depending on the nature of the satellite-destroying event, it could take decades or more to get ourselves back to current operational standards. It would take a particularly long time to recover from a Carrington Event, which would zap many ground-based electronic systems as well.

The U.S. military is already thinking along these lines, which is why it’s working on the ability to quickly send up emergency assets, such as small satellites parked in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Cube satellites are increasingly favored, as an easy-to-launch, affordable, and effective solution — albeit a short-term one. The U.S. Operationally Responsive State Office is currently working on the concept of emergency replenishment and the ability to “rapidly deploy capabilities that are good enough to satisfy warfighter needs across the entire spectrum of operations, from peacetime through conflict.”






As for getting full-sized, geostationary satellites back into orbit, that would prove to be a greater challenge. It can take years to built a new satellite, which typically requires a big, costly rocket to get it into space.

Lastly, if a Kessler Syndrome wipes out the satellites, that would present an entirely different recovery scenario. According to McDowell, it would take a minimum of 11 years for LEO to clear itself of the debris cloud; any objects below 500 km (310 miles) would eventually fall back to Earth. Thus, we would only be able to start re-seeding LEO in a little over a decade following a Kessler event.

Unfortunately, the area above 600 km (372 miles) — the band known as Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO) — would remain out of touch for a practically indefinite period of time; objects locked in GEO tend to stay there for a long, long time. We’d probably lose GEO for good — unless we manually removed the debris field, using clean-up satellites or other techniques.

Suffice to say, we should probably take the prospect of a Kessler Syndrome more seriously, and be aware of what could happen if we’re no longer able to use this space.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Transhumanist

*Watch This Dutch F-16 Pilot Try To Kill An American F-15 In Mock Combat*






Dutch F-16AMs and American F-15Cs had at it last April during the Florida and Oregon Air National Guard’s composite deployment to the region as part of Operation Atlantic Resolve. The awesome video below gives us an in-the-cockpit look at what it is like to spar with an Eagles high over the North Sea.






The F-16’s bubble canopy gives its pilot a spectacular view of the world around them and the 30 degree incline of the ejection seat allows for enhanced sustained G tolerance. The F-15 and F-16 are fantastic Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT) partners, especially in the 1 vs 1 environment depicted in the video above. You can learn all about how the nimble and tight turning F-16 fares against its much larger and heavier Air Force cousin during such fights in this past Foxtrot Alpha feature.

Interoperational training between US and its NATO allies has exploded in volume and magnitude since Russia seized Crimea early last year. Case in point, a detachment of Florida and Oregon Air Guard Eagles remain in Europe today as part of ‘theater security package’ whose presence appears to be indefinite going forward. Today these Eagles are flying sorties in Eastern Europe, near embattled Ukraine and the Black Sea.

Although training, a show of solidarity, and let’s be honest, optics, are the primary missions of this ongoing deployment, these aircraft can be flexed into a hard deterrent or even combat role should Russia begin to act further on their still ambiguous extra-territorial ambitions. But make no mistake, a couple dozen extra USAF fighters and attack aircraft forward deployed to the European theater may be a good start, it is a far cry from an actual force that would be needed to rebuff a Russian land-grab say in the Baltic region.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Indus Falcon

*US Army To Expand Prepositioned Stocks*
By Joe Gould 
June 3, 2015

WASHINGTON — The US Army plans to expand prepositioned equipment next year for Africa, Asia, the Pacific and Latin America, as it has in Europe — including gear for disaster relief and the special operations community, officials said.

The Army, which sees itself as stretched to respond to unforeseen global crises on a tight budget, would use the equipment to save the time and cost of shipping materiel when it deploys to hot spots.

"Prepositioning stocks is extending our capability to potential areas where they would be required for use, so the closer we can extend it to the tip of the spear, the easier it is for us to react as the president directs," said Lt. Gen. Gustave Perna, the Army's deputy chief of staff for logistics. "The whole globe is our responsibility, frankly, and we have to be globally responsive."

The plan began with the Army's ongoing placement of a full brigade's worth of heavy equipment, including tanks and other armored vehicles, in Germany. This European "activity set" is meant to be used by troops rotating into the region from the US, part of US efforts to reassure European allies with a series of exercises in the wake of Russian aggression

The president's proposed 2016 budget includes $51 million for the vehicle maintenance facility at Grafenwoehr Training Area.

The Army's prepositioned stocks are not new. Army Materiel Command (AMC) manages sites around the globe — in the US, Europe, Southwest Asia, Northeast Asia, and afloat in the Indian and Pacific oceans — with a coming addition in the US Southern Command area of operations.

Activity sets are generally smaller, scalable, unit-sized caches supporting theater-shaping and deterrence activities, operations, exercises, and regionally aligned forces. Draft plans have called for equipment to support humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations, as well as heavy armored vehicles.

To move a heavy force by air can take more than 20 days, but prepositioning sets of equipment can significantly reduce that time, said Maj. Gen. Steve Lyons, commander of Army Combined Arms Support Command and the sustainment school at Fort Lee, Virginia. The concept also acknowledges that geopolitics may not always support the kind of access it takes to move such a force.

"If I have to move the equipment, obviously, it's going to take a lot longer to generate combat capacity," Lyons said. "And if you're already there, you don't have to work through so many anti-access/area-denial issues. That's the whole purpose of positioning."

Army officials at a sustainment conference hosted by the Association of the US Army on Wednesday provided few specifics of the plan, as exact locations and timelines are still in talks, but confirmed Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno had recently approved the expansion in concept. In the process, the Defense Department's geographic combatant commands and Joint Staffs will have discretion over final plans.

AMC's deputy commanding general, Lt. Gen. Larry Wyche presented some details of the plan. Activity sets are being considered for Vietnam, Malaysia, Cambodia and Bangladesh. South Korea would receive a route clearance package of equipment, US Southern Command will get humanitarian assistance and disaster relief sets, and additional resources would go to US Central Command, where Army logistics officials say they found Iraqi sustainment capacity much diminished since the 2007 US withdrawal.

For Pacific Command, an area of operations that covers half the globe, locations, costs and contents have been proposed, with a timeline of 2016 for the first fielding and 2017 for the second, according to Maj. Gen. Edward Dorman, commander of the 8th Theater Sustainment Command, based at Fort Shafter, Hawaii. Part of the effort involves carving out access agreements with host nations.

"[Odierno] has recognized that the types of capabilities we're looking at, for humanitarian assistance, disaster relief or port opening, are capabilities that can help in any kind of response, whether a natural disaster or contingency operations," Dorman said. "Now it's just a question of where we source it from, line it up with the money.

US Army To Expand Prepositioned Stocks

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

*Navy Accepts Third Next Generation MUOS Communications Satellite*
Navy Accepts Third Next Generation MUOS Communications Satellite - USNI News






The third Mobile User Objective System (MUOS-3) — launched in January — completed its on orbit testing and will now be relocated to its operational orbit.

“This latest satellite will expand the MUOS network’s coverage over more than three-quarters of the globe, including significantly more coverage north and south than the current legacy voice-only system,” Iris Bombelyn, Lockheed Martin’s vice president for narrowband communications, said in a statement from the company.

The planned $7.3 billion five satellite constellation plans to supersede the 1990s era Ultra High Frequency Follow-On (UFO) constellation. The new satellites promise ten times the transfer rates of the UFO net with speeds of up to 384 kbs.






The five MUOS satellites will plan to be used in conjunction with ground stations Hawaii, Italy, Western Australia and Chesapeake, Va.

The fourth satellite is set to launch later this year.

While the MUOS constellation is on its way to completion, the radios the U.S. military will use is still being developed.

The 2011 cancelation of the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) has left only the General Dynamics AN/PRC-155 manpack radio as the program of record for regular troops.

In April, radio maker Harris Corporation announced it sold $27 million in Falcon III wideband AN/PRC-117G manpack and AN/PRC-152A handheld radios to U.S. Special Operations Command.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Transhumanist

*Watch The USS Carl Vinson Arrive Home In This Excellent Time Lapse Video*






After nearly ten months, the USS _Carl Vinson_ (CVN-70) and her Strike Group arrived home back in San Diego yesterday. The historic deployment, which was the longest since Vietnam, saw the _Nimitz _Class super carrier’s Air Wing flying nearly six continuous months of missions over Iraq and Syria against ISIS targets.

In total, the Carl Vincent Carrier Strike Group flew a whopping 12,300 sorties, which includedalmost 2,400 combat missions, during which aircraft dropped over half a million pounds of weaponry onto ISIS positions.

On April 15th, the _Carl Vincent_ and her escorts were finally relieved off station in the Persian Gulf by the USS _Theodore Roosevelt_ Carrier Strike Group. As the flotilla made its way home, it steamed through the tense South China Sea and partook in combat exercises with allies in the region.

Once the ship arrived in Hawaii, family and friends were embarked for a rare Tiger Cruise for the final leg home. You can see a similar time lapse video of the big carrier pulling into and out of beautiful Pearl Harbor below:






A huge congrats for a job well done and a heartfelt welcome home to the “The Gold Eagle” and her dedicated crew!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Oldman1

USS Carl Vinson launching most of its aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Transhumanist

A moment of silence for our fallen friend.

*We Finally Get Our First Look At The Barbecued F-35 Nearly A Year Later*






These are the first photos of the F-35A that caught fire on Eglin AFB’s main runway almost a year ago. As you can see, not only is the jet’s stealthy skin badly charred, but its spine was perforated by its Pratt & Whitney F135 engine that tore itself apart from within.






During the nearly year-long investigation, the Air Education Training Command board found:

_The cause of the mishap was catastrophic engine failure. The engine failed when the third-stage forward integral arm of a rotor fractured and liberated during takeoff... Pieces of the failed rotor arm cut through the engine’s fan case, the engine bay, an internal fuel tank and hydraulic and fuel lines before exiting through the aircraft’s upper fuselage._

As expected, friction caused the failure of the third-stage rotor and its integral arm. Because the brand new jet was flying outside of the test program, it was put through a normal flight regime right after being delivered.

As a result, the engine’s liner wasn’t ready for prime time and operational g loads only exacerbated the problem. The resulting fix from Pratt and Whitney is basically a process where it breaks-in the engine’s foam liner in advance. It is called “pre-trenching,” and so far it seems to have worked although it’s a crude fix for such an advanced piece of machinery.

The whole affair was and continues to be a stark reminder of just how dumb it was for the Pentagon to give up its General Electric F136 alternative engine program, especially considering it was so far along in its development.

As for the barbecued F-35 and its mangled engine? The estimated damage is an eye-popping $50,000,000. As such, the aircraft will most likely not be repaired. Instead, the components that weren’t effected by the catastrophic engine failure and the resulting fire will be parted out and returned to the supply chain and its carcass might be used for training purposes or put into backup inventory storage.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*Russia Threat Boosts Stryker Upgrade Budget To $371 Million*

@Transhumanist - 1:03 





WASHINGTON: Between fear of Russia, urgency from the Army, and lobbying from General Dynamics, funding to upgun the Army’s GD-built Stryker armored vehicle has grown 350 percent in three weeks.

In mid-May, the House approved a $79.5 million addition to the administration’s budget request. Yesterday, the Senate, not to be outdone, voted $371 million — four and a half times more. The House Appropriations Committee has actually approved $411 million on Tuesday, but that hasn’t passed the full chamber yet.

Why does Stryker have such momentum? Some of our sources cynically pointed to General Dynamics’ lobbying operation, which is one of the defense industry’s most aggressive, even ruthless. GD publicly took on the Army over the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) contract when it felt the terms of competition were unfair, and it stealthily tried to get competitor Harris excluded from a critical radio competition.

But in this case the Army itself was leading the charge, with General Dynamics scrambling to keep up. It was the Army that asked the House to add the $80 million in the first place, and it was the Army that then revised its requested figure upwards to $411 million, forcing GD to hastily revise its briefing slides to catch up.

“Unlike in the case of AMPV, General Dynamics is basically doing the Army’s bidding on Stryker,” said Loren Thompson, a well-connected consultant and analyst at the Lexington Institute. “Its numbers match what the service thinks needs to be spent to improve Stryker firepower in Europe.”

That the often-lumbering Army is moving out fast indicates its whole-hearted commitment. “If the Army is ambivalent about something, it can take a _long_ time,” Thompson told me. But when the Europe-based 2nd Cavalry Brigade submitted the original Operational Needs Statement for heavier weapons, he said, “Army headquarters turned the approval around quickly” — in about a month.

So what does the Army want so urgently?

*What The Army Wants*

In fact, the Army’s interest in an upgunned Stryker predates the war in Ukraine. An earlier attempt to equip a Stryker with a 105 mm tank cannon, the Mobile Gun System, crammed too much weapon in too little vehicle and was only purchased in small quantities. Many Stryker relatives in foreign armies have unmanned turrets with medium-caliber weapons, and General Dynamics had shown the Army a prototype of such an upgunned Stryker back in 2010.

But the service wasn’t really receptive until the hard-charging H.R. McMaster took over the Maneuver Center at Fort Benning and asked for a live-fire demonstration.GD was already test-firing a prototype in February 2014 — just _before_ Putin’s “Little Green Men” took overCrimea at the end of that month — and had it shooting at Fort Benning in March. The 2nd Cavalry submitted its Operational Needs Statement a year later, this past March, and now the project is enshrined in the 2016 budget.

So what are we paying for, precisely? It’s a 30 mm quick-firing cannon, significantly heavier than even the famous 25 mm chaingun on the M2 Bradley, let alone the 12.7 mm machinegun most Strykers currently carry, but far short of a traditional tank main gun. (The prototype weapon was built by ATK and integrated by Kongsberg, but GD emphasizes it could install other vendors’ hardware just as easily). That’s enough to ravage troops in cover, buildings, and light vehicles, but not heavy tanks.

General Dynamics calls the gun mount a Medium Caliber Remote Weapons Station (MCRWS) — GD dislikes the term “turret” because it implies there are crewmen inside, which there aren’t: It’s remotely controlled from inside the vehicle. Containing only the gun and ammo, the system takes up less room than a manned turret, so the Stryker can still carry the same number of troops, which was a critical consideration for the Army, said Tim Reese, a GD spokesman (and a retired Army tanker himself).

Other than the not-technically-a-turret itself, the only necessary modification is to the top of the Stryker’s hull, though GD and the Army want to upgrade the vehicle’s suspension to better handle the additional weight. The upgunning should add about two tons to the basic 19-ton Stryker, Reese said. (The heaviest Stryker variants, with extensive uparmor kits and v-shaped hulls to resist roadside bombs, weigh 27.5 tons). The exact weight depends on how heavily armored the Army wants the gun mount to be: True, there are no humans inside to protect, but it’s still inconvenient to get your main gun shot off.

All told, it’s a modest modification, one that can be done to surplus Stryker vehicles current sitting partially disassembled at Anniston Army Depot in Alabama.

“Where the Army tends to go wrong is when it starts from scratch,” Thompson told me. Part of the problem, especially in times like these, is fiscal: New start programs cost much more than off-the-shelf technology. But another part of the problem is institutional indecision, he told me: “New starts take a long time and the Army tends to change its mind.” By contrast, when the Army goes for an incremental upgrade, like adding a 30 mm gun to the Stryker or modifying the M2 Bradley into an Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, he said, it tends to get good (if not revolutionary) results on a timeline and at a price it can afford.

But why bother upgunning the lightly armored Stryker when the Army already has much heavier war machines, the M1 Abrams tank and the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle? Indeed, until recent years the Army had heavy brigades permanently based in Europe. Since the Crimean crisis, the Army has sent heavy units into Europe, but only on temporary “rotations.” Restoring the permanently based brigades would send a major signal that the Cold War was back — without necessarily being enough to shift the balance of forces against the heavily armored Red Army.

Let’s face facts, Thompson told me: “The Russians are the dominant military power in the theater.” For any move we make in Europe, they can easily make a counter-move: After all, their entire army is already there. So any steps we take have to tread a fine line, he said: “What we want to do is send a signal that we’re going to protect our allies but not provoke the Russians” — for example, by upgunning a Stryker unit already in Europe. Then the next step is deciding whether to invest in upgunning Strykers worldwide.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Transhumanist

AMDR said:


> @Transhumanist - 1:03





I work for that company. I can't divulge my division though.







I've seen a 30mm turret on the Bradley too:






Increasing lethality for the Bradley | Defense Update:

Sounds like a well deserved upgrade for the Strykers!!! Thanks Russia.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Gabriel92

Oldman1 said:


> USS Carl Vinson launching most of its aircraft.



Some years ago our Navy thought about buying some F18s before the Rafale M entered in service.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

This is probably one of the coolest photos I've ever seen

USS Mustin (DDG-89) live-fire phalanx exercise at night

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Oldman1



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Gabriel92

*HII Awarded Contract for Detail Design & Construction of Aircraft Carrier John F. Kennedy (CVN 79)*

Huntington Ingalls Industries received a $3.35 billion contract award for the detail design and construction of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy (CVN 79), the second ship in the Gerald R. Ford class of carriers. The work will be performed at the company's Newport News Shipbuilding division. The company also received a $941 million modification to an existing construction preparation contract to continue material procurement and manufacturing in support of the ship.






*A photo illustration of the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy (CVN 79). *



Contract work includes ship construction, ship design activities, engineering services, procurement of materials and hardware to support construction and logistics activities.

"These awards are important, not only for the shipbuilders at Newport News Shipbuilding, but for the thousands of suppliers nationwide who provide the steel, pipe, cable, paint and equipment that goes into this cutting-edge defense platform—and for the sailors who will sail her," said Mike Shawcross, Newport News Shipbuilding's vice president, John F. Kennedy carrier construction. "We look forward to continuing to implement lessons learned from the first-of-the-class ship, Gerald R. Ford, in the construction of Kennedy and delivering the next great carrier to the Navy."

John F. Kennedy's first steel was cut in December 2010. Since then, more than 450 of the ship's 1,100 structural units have been constructed under a construction preparation contract that will be used to start erecting the ship's hull. The ship's keel-laying ceremony is scheduled for Aug. 22.

John F. Kennedy will continue the legacy of highly capable U.S. Navy nuclear-powered aircraft carrier platforms. Ford-class enhancements incorporated into the design include flight deck changes, improved weapons handling systems and a redesigned island, all resulting in increased aircraft sortie-generation rates. The Ford class also features new nuclear power plants, increased electrical power-generation capacity, allowance for future technologies, and reduced workload for sailors, translating to a smaller crew size and reduced operating costs for the Navy.

HII Awarded Contract for Detail Design & Construction of Aircraft Carrier John F. Kennedy (CVN 79)

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

Watch the US Navy test its electromagnetic jet fighter catapult





The US Navy's next-gen electromagnetic catapult for aircraft carriers works! Well, OK, the military hasn't exactly used it to launch an actual fighter jet yet, but a recent test has proven that it can handle 80,000 pounds of steel. The Navy has been testing the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System or EMALS for months aboard the Gerald R. Ford carrier, but this is the first time a "dead-load" (or a wheeled steel sled that weighs as much as a jet) is involved. Its advantages over traditional catapults that use steam instead of electromagnetic energy include smoother acceleration and its ability to place less stress on the aircraft -- plus, it was designed to work even with more advanced carriers that the military will surely use in the future. It will take a long time before any plane goes near the system, though: the Navy has already retrieved the sled above from the depths of the James River to conduct more dead-load launches.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*B-2 Stealth Bombers Appear In Europe As Tensions Rise With Russia*






A pair of B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, callsign DEATH 11 and 12, have joined a trio of B-52s at Royal Air Force Base Fairford, a long-time forward staging base for USAF strategic assets in the UK. The presence of US nuclear bombers, the B-2 in particular, along with the massive allied training war game known as BALTOPS ‘15, of which B-52s are playing a role, and the myriad of fighters, tanks and ships already operating on Russia’s doorstep, is the largest flashing of sword yet for U.S. and its allies in the region.






The Pentagon says that the B-2s conducted hot-pit refueling and engine-running crew change tests during their time on the ground in the UK, but this is only a small portion of the story. The bat-winged super-bombers went out on a mission and are now heading back to the base as this is being written. It would appear that they are now officially forward staged, at least for the time being, out of the United Kingdom.






Meanwhile, the three B-52Hs that forward deployed days earlier to RAF Fairford look like they are going to take on a larger role in region’s numerous training exercises. Originally, the USAF had stated that they would be used as naval mine layers for the large BALTOPS ‘15 exercise that in underway on the Baltic Sea. This was a fairly limited mission, but one pointed directly at Russia whose ports on the Baltic could be temporarily closed due to such a mining operation.

Now it looks like the B-52s may provide other capabilities to BALTOPS as well as supporting theU.S. Army’s annual European exercise known as Saber Strike, much of which will be occurring near the Russian border. The B-52s have been warming up their European and Arctic flying capabilities over the last few months, so it is no surprise that they would be forward deployed at some point to the European theater, but the inclusion of their B-2 counterparts is.






This all comes as President Obama and other world leaders engaged in dialogue at the G7 summit in Germany, of which Russian President Vladimir Putin as not invited. President Obama did address the Russian issue and Putin’s recent choices at the summit by stating:

“The G7 is making it clear that if necessary we stand ready to impose additional significant sanctions against Russia.” Along with that strong economic statement, President went on to make comments directed at the Russian leader himself, stating that Putin needs to decide whether he wants to destroy Russia’s economy in pursuit of “recreating the glories of the Soviet Empire.”

All this occurred as a mass of surveillance planes were orbiting over the Baltic Sea. Aviation radio and transponder trackers had US, NATO, Swedish and Russian signals intelligence aircraft operating in the same general vicinity. Considering BALTOPS includes a huge array of NATO and Scandinavian warships and aircraft, there is little puzzlement why Russian surveillance aircraft would have great interest in monitoring the exercise. Then someone has to monitor the monitors I guess. There is also a need to support certain ‘contingency’ operations should an issue arise during the G-7 summit.






The fact of the matter is that deploying the B-2, not to mention a handful of B-52s, to the region has greatly upped the saber rattling equation between the U.S, its allies and Russia. There is not an airborne weapon system that poses a greater threat to Russian interests than the B-2, and the aircraft’s very presence in a geographical region is known to vastly increase tensions.

Such a training event by the Air Force’s Global Strike Command does clearly show that American can forward deploy its hardest hitting air power anywhere in the world, but that is not a lesson that needs to be taught to anyone anymore. The presence of the most powerful air combat capability the world has ever seen near Russia maybe is.






The big question is what don’t we know? Obviously these movements, which some would call provocative, are approved from the top down. Why send this message now? It surely is not a random escalation in deterrence. Maybe it is in response to what many see as a looming wide-spread invasion of Ukraine by regular Russian forces? Maybe it is a reaction to something else? But if we are increasing the cadence of our march into another all-out Cold War, these details would sure be nice to know.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SvenSvensonov

A handy guide to the U-2 spy plane - for info on U-2 variants

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Falcon

* US continues with UAV operations in Djibouti *


Written by Eamon McCarthy Earls, Wednesday, 10 June 2015

Despite reportedly considering operations elsewhere, the US military continues to focus on one site for launching drones in Djibouti, maintaining a squadron of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) from its unacknowledged air base at Chabelley Airport, 12 kilometres southwest of the capital Djibouti City.

A French CNES satellite shows the remote desert airstrip in March 2015 with six UAVs on the tarmac. In 2010, the US first positioned eight General Atomics MQ-1B Predators at Camp Lemmonier, a few kilometres southeast of Djibouti City at Djibouti-Ambouli International Airport. Djibouti has become a centre for UAV reconnaissance and strike missions over Somalia and Yemen.

Camp Lemmonier hosted close to 3 000 US troops in 2013 and remains a major hub for manned transport and strike aircraft. However, a series of UAV crashes halted operations out of the airport in August 2013. At the time, the Washington Post reported that Chabelley Airport would receive up to $13 million of upgrades from the US military. Satellite imagery confirms that these upgrades have taken place. During the summer of 2013, a tarmac extension adjacent to the runway, to the north, with seven hangars and service buildings, was added.

Recent images show that the base may now host a compound with up to 32 buildings, likely housing mechanics and maintenance personnel for the aircraft. Four tanker trucks also appear to be visible in satellite imagery.

At least three of the UAVs are likely to be MQ-1B Predators from the first group of aircraft dispatched to Djibouti. However, three other aircraft are suspected to be MQ-9 Reapers, based on their 20 meter wingspan, greater than the wingspan of a standard Predator. Although Reapers and Predators have comparable range, the Reaper is capable of transporting a larger weapons payload.
Although reports in 2013 suggested that UAVs would also operate out of Niamey airport in Niger and Arba Minch in Kenya, satellite images collected in 2015 by CNES have not shown UAVs visible outside of hangars. The status of these possible additional sites is unclear, but the availability of Reapers in Africa seems to indicate a move toward heavily armed, high-altitude missions. Although Reapers have only about half the endurance of Predators, they are capable of operating at double the altitude of a Predator—up to 15 000 meters—and can carry weapons on seven hardpoints instead of the two typical of Predators.

US continues with UAV operations in Djibouti | defenceWeb

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

*Raytheon Officials Outline Standard Missile, AMDR Progress*
SEAPOWER Magazine Online
By OTTO KREISHER, Special Correspondent

ARLINGTON, Va. — Raytheon officials June 10 reported significant progress on their improved Standard Missiles (SMs) and new radar system that will enhance the Navy’s air and missile defense capabilities at sea and ashore.

Standard Missiles program official Bill Blair cited the successful first flight test of the SM-3 Block IIA missile, which has a larger, more powerful 21-inch-diameter first-stage rocket for extended intercept range, and an improved kill vehicle.

The test missile was launched June 6 from a MK 41 vertical launch system at the Navy’s Point Mugu, Calif., Sea Range and successfully demonstrated nose cone and steering functions and separation of the three rocket stages. It also tested the missile’s ability to integrate with the SPY-1 radar, Blair said.

Target intercept was not planned as part of this test, he said.

The SM-3 Block IIA is being co-developed by Japan, which uses the same Aegis/SM-3 anti-air and anti-missile systems as the U.S. Navy. The more capable missile is “on track” for deployment at sea by 2018 and for the second Aegis-ashore missile defense system being built in Poland, Blair said.

SM-3 Block IB interceptors currently are operational on U.S. and Japanese destroyers and will be installed at the Aegis-ashore site in Romania later this year as part of the U.S.-NATO European Phased Adaptive Approach missile defense system.

Blair also noted the successful testing earlier this year of an improved version of Raytheon’s SM-6, which provides enhanced capabilities against aircraft and anti-ship cruise missiles.

In the same briefing at Raytheon’s Rosslyn offices, Larry Tindal said the engineering development of the company’s new Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) is 40 percent complete and “has met all milestones so far.”

AMDR passed its critical design review in April that validated the system’s hardware and software, putting the radar, labeled AN/SPY-6, on track for delivery of the first shipset in 2018, Tindal said.

The new radar, which combines S-band frequency for long-range, high-definition detection and tracking of air and missile threats and X-band to provide horizon search, precision tracking, missile communication and terminal illumination of targets.

SPY-6 “provides the Navy the first truly integrated air and missile defense,” Tindal said. The active electronically scanned array system “is fully modular and scalable,” he said. A customer can stack the modules into various size arrays with an associated range of electrical power and cooling requirements.

The system software works for any size array, he said.

The SPY-6 will be “30 times more sensitive” than the SPY-1 radar now used on the DDG 51Arleigh Burke destroyers, he said.

The Navy has planned to install AMDR on the Tier III models of the DDG 51s. But there have been questions over whether the Burke superstructure, as currently planned, can handle arrays as big as may be required for the greater missile defense capability being sought.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

SvenSvensonov said:


> DARPA's robot Challenge 2015 - I was at the event
> 
> *Prelude to a Robot Uprising*.








South Korean robot in action (winner)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

*Navy Declares IOC On Rolling Airframe Missile Block 2*
Navy Declares IOC On Rolling Airframe Missile Block 2 - USNI News






The Navy declared initial operational capability (IOC) on Raytheon’s Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) Block 2, which brings greater accuracy and maneuverability to the self-defense system, the company announced.

Block 2 has an increased range due to a four-axis independent control actuator system and an increase in rocket motor capability, according to a June 1 statement. Its improved passive radio frequency seeker and upgrades to some components of the infrared seeker, along with advanced kinematics, help the newest block go after more complex maneuvering targets.

“RAM Block 2 provides the accuracy and lethality our sailors need to combat growing regional threats,” Capt. Craig Bowden, the Navy’s major program manager for Rolling Airframe Missile at the Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems, said in the statement. “IOC signals that the U.S. Navy is pacing the threat and ensuring the safety and security of our sailors and ships so they can operate wherever required.”

RAM Block 2, a cooperation between the United States and Germany, was designed to protect against the newest generation of anti-ship cruise missiles. It also defends against helicopter and airborne threats and hostile surface craft, and its dual-mode guidance design allows it to engage multiple threats simultaneously.

“RAM has been protecting naval ships for three decades, and the enhanced Block 2 variant enables vital defense of our warfighters far into the future,” said Rick Nelson, vice president of Naval Area and Mission Defense for Raytheon Missile Systems. “The U.S. Navy’s declaration of IOC is an important accomplishment that shows RAM Block 2 is ideally suited to protect against the full range of threats on a variety of platforms.”

Block 2 delivered to the Navy in July 2014 and has since undergone testing. In one test event, the system went two for two against a supersonic maneuvering raid, which Raytheon says is the first time a ship-based firing system has accomplished that.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SvenSvensonov

*Watch The Razorbacks And Their Apaches Tear Up The Sky Around Hawaii *






Last year, the U.S. Army’s Razorbacks were the first AH-64 Apache unit to participate in the Pentagon’s gigantic Rim of the Pacific exercise (RIMPAC) on and around the Hawaiian Islands. This included embarking aboard USS _Peleliu _(LHA-5) along with their USMC counterparts. The Razorbacks arrival also marked the first time an Apache had been to Hawaii.






First Battalion, 25th Aviation Regiment, 25th Combat Aviation Brigade out of Fort Carson, Colorado took part in the expansion the Army’s AH-64E Apache Guardian’s capability by integrating them into a joint-force maritime environment.

Chief Warrant Officer 3 Matthew Gottschling, a company instructor pilot, was quoted describing this relatively new (for U.S. Army Apaches at least) operating environment:

_“With all the deck training, the reason it’s interesting and different is because the Apache is a land-based piece of equipment... By training us how to do the ship landings on a larger ship, it enables us to forward project our force by doing the cross training with the Navy and the Marines... It allows us to land on their ships, refuel, rearm and project power further forward as opposed to just being a land-based unit...It just gives us additional capabilities and additional experience. In the event of conflict, we would be able to deploy our aircraft via a ship to land and be able to operate in a maritime environment.”_






Embarking Apaches aboard naval assets is nothing new. Britain’s WAH-64Ds have been operating aboard the HMS _Ocean_ for many years and U.S. Army Apaches have also worked off the decks of the Navy’s sea base, the USS Ponce, in the Persian Gulf.

The Apache was actually designed with maritime use in mind, although the Army’s variant is not nearly as adapted to it as it could be. Various navalized proposals for sea-going Apaches have come and gonethroughout the attack chopper’s development and operational history. Some are more radical than others, with relatively simple avionics, minor structural and corrosion resistance changes being made to the lightest concepts, and a whole new fuselage and the inclusion of the F/A-18’s radar in the most elaborate concepts.

The last time Boeing pushed for a navalized Apache was in their proposal to replace the USMC’s AH-1W Cobras, with a sea-going version of the AH-64D Apache Longbow. This ended up being passed over for the more familiar and less complex Bell AH-1Z Viper.

Integrating the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Army into the maritime combat environment as a composite fighting force is the centerpiece of America’s pivot toward the Pacific and the evolving Air-Sea Battle concept that will supposedly support such a strategy during a time of conflict. If anything else, this increased ‘jointness’ among the services for expeditionary operations at sea will help overcome the massive reduction in the Pentagon’s fleet sizes over the last decade and a half and will help offset current cuts in end strength. It will also allow for increase flexibility and basing options during a conflict in the vastness of the Pacific, which is a very good thing.

Aside from the strategy and tactics debate, it sure looks like the Razorbacks had a good time during their adventure in paradise.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*Afloat Forward Staging Base Lewis B. Puller Delivers to Navy*
SEAPOWER Magazine Online
_




The mobile landing platform Lewis B. Puller (T-MLP-3/T-AFSB-1) successfully completed launch and float-off at the General Dynamics National Steel and Shipbuilding Co. (NASSCO) shipyard on Nov. 6, 2014. US Navy Photo_

The first General Dynamics NASSCO built Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB) delivered to the U.S. Navy on Friday, Naval Sea Systems Command said.

USNS _Lewis B. Puller_ (MLP-3/AFSB) — based on an Alaska-class commercial crude carrier — is designed to host special operations forces (SOF) and mine countermeasure (MCM) helicopters as part of the Navy, U.S. Military Sea Lift Command and the Marines push to more capability for amphibious forces and capacity for seabasing with less expensive ships.

“This ship represents a leap forward in flexible capability for the U.S. Navy,” said Capt. Henry Stevens, Strategic and Theater Sealift program manager in Program Executive Office, Ships said in a statement.
“NASSCO was able to leverage a mature design and hot production line to meet the Navy’s requirements for an AFSB platform while minimizing program cost and risk.”

The ship is the third based on the Alaska-class following two MSC Mobile Landing Platforms — USNS _Montford Point_ and USNS _John Glenn_ — built to act as an interface between military cargo ships and Navy Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) hovercraft.

In December, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) awarded NASSCO $498 million to start construction on the second AFSB.

The service is planning to fund a third AFSB as part of the Fiscal Year 2017 budget.

The two ships in the class are planned to be forward deployed assets for the Navy – one to the U.S. 5th Fleet in the Middle East and one to the U.S. 7th Fleet in the Pacific.

The Navy currently employs the Austin-class LPD, USS _Ponce_ (AFSB-(I)-15), as a temporary Middle East AFSB.

_The following is the June 12, 2015 statement from Naval Sea Systems Command._

SAN DIEGO – The Navy’s first Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB) variant of the Mobile Landing Platform, USNS Lewis B. Puller, delivered to the Navy today. Built by General Dynamics NASSCO, delivery of the ship follows a series of at-sea tests and trials in San Diego.

The Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) AFSB variant is optimized to support a variety of maritime based missions with an added flight deck, berthing, fuel storage, equipment storage, and repair spaces.

“This ship represents a leap forward in flexible capability for the U.S. Navy,” said Capt. Henry Stevens, Strategic and Theater Sealift program manager in Program Executive Office, Ships. “NASSCO was able to leverage a mature design and hot production line to meet the Navy’s requirements for an AFSB platform while minimizing program cost and risk.”

The MLP program is comprised of five ships across two variants in support of the Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF) and an AFSB initiative. USNS Montford Point (MLP 1) and USNS John Glenn (MLP 2) have delivered and are in service. MLP 4, also an AFSB variant, is under construction and a fifth AFSB ship is planned for procurement in fiscal year 2017.

MLPs are highly flexible platforms that provide logistics movement from sea to shore supporting a broad range of military operations. The AFSB variant is designed around four core capabilities: aviation, berthing, equipment staging area, and command and control.

The MLP AFSB will primarily support Aviation Mine Countermeasure and Special Operations missions. Additional features include a large flight deck and hangar with two aviation operating spots capable of handling MH-53E equivalent helicopters; berthing and messing accommodations; work spaces, and ordnance storage for embarked force; enhanced command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence (C4I) to support embarked force mission planning; and execution and reconfigurable mission deck area to store embarked force equipment to include mine sleds and rigid hull inflatable boats (RHIBs).

As one of the Defense Department’s largest acquisition organizations, PEO Ships is responsible for executing the development and procurement of all destroyers, amphibious ships, special mission and support ships, and special warfare craft. Delivering high-quality war fighting assets – while balancing affordability and capability – is key to supporting the Navy’s Maritime Strategy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

*Navy Orders 53 Raytheon Radars for P-8A Aircraft*
By RICHARD R. BURGESS, Managing Editor

ARLINGTON, Va. —Raytheon Co. has been awarded Navy contract to build and deliver 53 APY-10 radar kits for the P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft.

Naval Air Systems Command awarded Raytheon a $152.9 million contract on June 11 for 46 radar kits for the U.S. Navy and seven for the Royal Australian Air Force. The radars will be installed on P-8As built by Boeing in full-rate production lots 2 through 6.

The APY-10 is a multi-mode imaging maritime, littoral and overland surveillance radar evolved from the Raytheon APS-137B(V)5 radar used on the P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft being replaced by the P-8A. A version of the APY-10 also is installed on the Indian Navy’s P-8I aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Indus Falcon

*Officials: Second Hack Exposed Military and Intel Data*
Associated Press | Jun 13, 2015 | by Ken Dilanian and Ted Bridis

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hackers linked to China have gained access to the sensitive background information submitted by intelligence and military personnel for security clearances, U.S. officials said Friday, describing a cyberbreach of federal records dramatically worse than first acknowledged.

The forms authorities believed may have been stolen en masse, known as Standard Form 86, require applicants to fill out deeply personal information about mental illnesses, drug and alcohol use, past arrests and bankruptcies. They also require the listing of contacts and relatives, potentially exposing any foreign relatives of U.S. intelligence employees to coercion. Both the applicant's Social Security number and that of his or her cohabitant is required.

In a statement, the White House said that on June 8, investigators concluded there was "a high degree of confidence that ... systems containing information related to the background investigations of current, former and prospective federal government employees, and those for whom a federal background investigation was conducted, may have been exfiltrated."

"This tells the Chinese the identities of almost everybody who has got a United States security clearance," said Joel Brenner, a former top U.S. counterintelligence official. "That makes it very hard for any of those people to function as an intelligence officer. The database also tells the Chinese an enormous amount of information about almost everyone with a security clearance. That's a gold mine. It helps you approach and recruit spies."

The Office of Personnel Management, which was the target of the hack, did not respond to requests for comment. OPM spokesman Samuel Schumach and Jackie Koszczuk, the director of communications, have consistently said there was no evidence that security clearance information had been compromised.

The White House statement said the hack into the security clearance database was separate from the breach of federal personnel data announced last week — a breach that is itself appearing far worse than first believed. It could not be learned whether the security database breach happened when an OPM contractor was hacked in 2013, an attack that was discovered last year. Members of Congress received classified briefings about that breach in September, but there was no public mention of security clearance information being exposed.

Nearly all of the millions of security clearance holders, including some CIA, National Security Agency and military special operations personnel, are potentially exposed in the security clearance breach, the officials said. More than 4 million people had been investigated for a security clearance as of October 2014, according to government records.

Regarding the hack of standard personnel records announced last week, two people briefed on the investigation disclosed Friday that as many as 14 million current and former civilian U.S. government employees have had their information exposed to hackers, a far higher figure than the 4 million the Obama administration initially disclosed.

American officials have said that cybertheft originated in China and that they suspect espionage by the Chinese government, which has denied any involvement.

The newer estimate puts the number of compromised records between 9 million and 14 million going back to the 1980s, said one congressional official and one former U.S. official, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because information disclosed in the confidential briefings includes classified details of the investigation.

There are about 2.6 million executive branch civilians, so the majority of the records exposed relate to former employees. Contractor information also has been stolen, officials said. The data in the hack revealed last week include the records of most federal civilian employees, though not members of Congress and their staffs, members of the military or staff of the intelligence agencies.

On Thursday, a major union said it believes the hackers stole Social Security numbers, military records and veterans' status information, addresses, birth dates, job and pay histories; health insurance, life insurance and pension information; and age, gender and race data.

The personnel records would provide a foreign government an extraordinary roadmap to blackmail, impersonate or otherwise exploit federal employees in an effort to gain access to U.S. secrets —or entry into government computer networks.

Outside experts were pointing to the breaches as a blistering indictment of the U.S. government's ability to secure its own data two years after a National Security Agency contractor, Edward Snowden, was able to steal tens of thousands of the agency's most sensitive documents.

After the Snowden revelations about government surveillance, it became more difficult for the federal government to hire talented younger people into sensitive jobs, particularly at intelligence agencies, said Evan Lesser, managing director of ClearanceJobs.com, a website that matches security-clearance holders to available slots.

"Now, if you get a job with the government, your own personal information may not be secure," he said. "This is going to multiply the government's hiring problems many times."

The Social Security numbers were not encrypted, the American Federation of Government Employees said, calling that "an abysmal failure on the part of the agency to guard data that has been entrusted to it by the federal workforce."

"Unencrypted information of this kind this is disgraceful — it really is disgraceful," Brenner said. "We've had wakeup calls now for 20 years or more, and we keep hitting the snooze button."

The OPM's Schumach would not address how the data was protected or specifics of the information that might have been compromised, but said, "Today's adversaries are sophisticated enough that encryption alone does not guarantee protection." OPM is nonetheless increasing its use of encryption, he said.

The Obama administration had acknowledged that up to 4.2 million current and former employees whose information resides in the Office of Personnel Management server are affected by the December cyberbreach, but it had been vague about exactly what was taken.

J. David Cox, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said in a letter Thursday to OPM director Katherine Archuleta that based on incomplete information OPM provided to the union, "the hackers are now in possession of all personnel data for every federal employee, every federal retiree and up to 1 million former federal employees."

Another federal employee group, the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, said Friday that "at this point, we believe AFGE's assessment of the breach is overstated." It called on the OPM to provide more information.

Former Rep. Mike Rogers, one-time chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said last week that he believes China will use the recently stolen information for "the mother of all spear-phishing attacks."

Spear-phishing is a technique under which hackers send emails designed to appear legitimate so that users open them and load spyware onto their networks.

Officials: Second Hack Exposed Military and Intel Data | Military.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

*Admirals: New Carrier Launch, Recovery Systems Will Expand Aircraft Design Options, Reduce Stress*
By RICHARD R .BURGESS, Managing Editor
SEAPOWER Magazine Online
ARLINGTON, Va. — The new aircraft launch and recovery equipment being installed on the Navy’s new class of aircraft carrier will expand the design options for future aircraft and reduce the structural stress on aircraft, thereby increasing aircraft service life and reducing total ownership cost.

Speaking to reporters June 15 at the Pentagon, RADM Michael C. Manazir, director for air warfare for the chief of naval operations, and RADM Thomas J. Moore, program executive officer for aircraft carriers, said the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG), both built by General Atomics, not only will provide advantages for the aircraft carrier but will be gentler on the aircraft that operate from its flight deck.

“The EMALS and AAG are both going to be designed so that we can recover and launch aircraft that are outside the normal envelope of our current manned aircraft,” Manazir said. “That facilitates our investment in the future.

The EMALS replaces steam catapults in the design for the Gerald R. Ford-class nuclear-powered carrier, eliminating the need for an extensive infrastructure of steam lines and accumulators. The EMALS has more accurate end-speed control than a steam catapult and smoother acceleration at both high and low speeds. The linear acceleration over time, rather than the more sudden acceleration of a steam catapult, places less stress on the aircraft structure, including the nose strut to which the catapult sled is placed for launch.

Moore explained that the AAG replaces a complex hydraulic system with motors and water twisters — one on each side of the cross-deck pendant for each wire — that are adjusted for each landing aircraft according to type and weight, and allow for a smoother landing and less stress on the aircraft as it traps the wire. The AAG is more flexible and easier to precisely tune to the characteristics of the landing aircraft. This feature will reduce stress on the airframes of the aircraft and thus reduce total ownership cost.

Together the two systems are both controlled by software. The AAG spaces below the flight deck also are unmanned, unlike the older Mk7 Mod4 arresting gear. 

Manazir said the EMALS and AAG will enable the Navy to “start to do things with aircraft design you couldn’t do before … [allowing] us to open the envelope in aircraft design.”

On June 12, the Navy awarded to General Atomics a $737 million contract for the EMALS and AAG shipsets for the second Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier, CVN 79, the future USS _John F. Kennedy_. That week, the Newport News Shipbuilding shipyard conducted the first dead-load tests on _Gerald R. Ford_’s EMALS catapults. A dead-load is a large wheeled vehicle than can weigh up to 80,000 pounds and is launched to simulate an aircraft during catapult tests.

*Admiral: CVN 79 ‘Probably Best Ever CVN Fixed-Price Contract’*
By RICHARD R. BURGESS, Managing Editor
SEAPOWER Magazine Online
ARLINGTON, Va. — The Navy’s admiral in charge of aircraft carrier construction said the contract for the second Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier will represent a cost reduction of the ship by $1 billion.

On June 5, the Navy announced the award of a $3.35 billion Detail Design and Construction (DD&C) contract for the future USS _John F. Kennedy_ (CVN 79) to Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), parent company for Newport News Shipbuilding, the builder of the carriers, and a $941 million modification to a previously awarded contract.

RADM Tom Moore, program executive officer for aircraft carriers, speaking to reporters June 15 at the Pentagon along with RADM Mike Manazir, director for air warfare for the chief of naval operations, said, “We were able to get Newport News under contract for what is probably the best CVN fixed-price contract we’ve ever had in terms of the target fee in the contract, the steepness of the share lines, the ceiling price of the contract, all reflective of the fact that the shipbuilder and us have a very solid understanding of where we are in the ship and the cost we are able to take out.”

“This DD&C contract is the result of a dedicated effort over the past three years by our government-industry team to drive affordability into CVN 79,” said Moore, quoted in a June 5 HII release. “With a stable design, mature requirements and an improved build process we will reduce construction hours by 18 percent, lower the cost to build the ship by almost $1 billion in real terms compared to CVN 78 and meet the cost cap. Importantly, this contract also represents the first step in an ongoing process that will continue to reduce the cost of future ships of the class starting with CVN 80.”

The contract “is the lowest ceiling price we’ve ever had,” Moore said June 15. “Newport News recognized they’ve got to get cost out of the ship.”

Newport News is investing in new construction sheds in which more carrier sections will be built away from weather and will feature equipment to simplify construction.

“We build the CVN 78 class to be of less cost than the Nimitz,” Manazir said. “I expect that when we operate the Ford-class carrier over its 50-year service life it will cost $4 billion less than the Nimitz class. That’s primarily due to a reduction in manpower. We will have a synergistic capability between the Ford class and the future air wing.”

Moore said the CVN 79 contract was “just Step 1” in the effort to reduce carrier costs. He wants to further reduce cost in the CVN 80 and 81 carriers by investing if a Design for Affordability (DFA) initiative modelled on the successful DFA of the Virginia-class attack submarine.

Moore is going to request $25 million in research and development funds in the 2017 budget for the DFA initiative, saying that it will accrue a 2 to 1 return in investment in driving down the cost of CVNs 80 and 81.
One cost-reduction feature planned for CVN 80 is the replacement of hydraulics for the aircraft elevators with electrical systems. 

Manazir said that in addition to the $25 million in R&D DFA funds, he is going to look for alternate R&D funds to explore warfighting technology improvements. The Ford class generates three times the electrical power of a Nimitz-class ship.

The CVN is “a wonderful platform for the integration of directed energy weapons,” he said.

Moore said the _Gerald R. Ford_’s crew will move aboard the ship in August. The carrier is scheduled for commissioning in March 2016 and to begin operating aircraft in June 2016.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

Dug this up while researching the SM-6. Basically the Block IA variant will include GPS guidance so it can also attack land targets.
*-----------------------------------
Navy, Raytheon Ready New Satellite-Guided SM-6 Variant *

Posted: Jul. 01, 2014 

The Navy is preparing to pack more punch into the Standard Missile-6, giving it an offensive capability by equipping the weapon to utilize satellite-provided location information and providing the Raytheon built-system the ability to strike targets ashore.
The Navy said the proposed new variant, designated the SM-6 Block IA, is scheduled to be flight-tested this summer and -- if successful -- would become the new baseline version of the missile, originally fielded to provide ship terminal defense against enemy aircraft and anti-ship cruise missiles. The previously unreported upgrade would be accomplished by "cutting in" the SM-6 production line and incorporating the new capabilities as part of an engineering change proposal.

"Production cut-in decision is anticipated summer 2014 following successful development and flight test," Colleen O'Rourke, a spokeswoman for the Navy program office manages SM-6 development and acquisition, told InsideDefense.com in a June 20 statement.

The current SM-6 is a surface-to-air supersonic missile that utilizes an active seeker to find its targets, incorporating the capabilities of two established Raytheon products: the Standard Missile-2 and the Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile. In May 2013 -- after two years of delays and technical challenges -- the Navy received the green light to proceed with full-rate production; in November, the service declared initial operational capability for the SM-6.

While deploying the weapon on Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers equipped with the Aegis air defense system to help defend the fleet, the Navy plans to improve the weapon through spiral development, with follow-on block upgrades to address threats as they arise.

"SM-6 Block IA is an enhanced version of SM-6 Block I with guidance section hardware and software modifications, and [Global Positioning System] added to achieve common coordinate reference to enable SM-6 to continue to pace the threat," O'Rourke said.

The SM-6 Block IA "is a way of increasing the fleet's offensive striking power at a relatively low cost," said a former senior Pentagon official.

In April, the Navy reported to Congress that plans to begin cutting in SM-6 Block IA production in FY-18 would add $195 million to the program's cost, which would be almost entirely offset by unit cost efficiencies realized during fiscal year 2013 contract negotiations, according to a 33-page SM-6 Selection Acquisition Report sent to Congress on April 16.

The upgraded SM-6 would give commanders another option for striking targets at sea or on land, augmenting current inventories of Tomahawk cruise missiles as well as the planned Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile, said the former official.

Navy leaders last year directed a major expansion of the SM-6 program, adding 600 missiles to the total planned acquisition (DefenseAlert, Sept. 6, 2013). The new $3.3 billion commitment raised total planned spending on the program through 2026 to an estimated $10 billion.

In 2013, the deputy defense secretary directed an SM-6 "future capability demonstration," which is expected to involve an at-sea demonstration in FY-16 and operational deployment by FY-18, according to Navy budget documents.

Capt. Michael Ladner, the SM-6 program manager, confirmed the future capability demonstration through a Navy spokesman on May 1, noting "plans are still being finalized within the department of the Navy." However, he declined to elaborate, citing "pending classification guidance."

Congress allocated $25 million for the future capability demonstration project in FY-14 and the Navy is seeking $36 million for it in FY-15. In total, the Navy plans to spend $167.5 million for SM-6 development through FY-19, according to service budget documents.

Congress appropriated $367 million for SM-6 procurement in FY-14, allowing the Navy to purchase 93 missiles, according to O'Rourke.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

*USAF contracts Raytheon to start SDB II low-rate initial production*
USAF contracts Raytheon to start SDB II low-rate initial production - Airforce Technology

Raytheon has received a $30.94m fixed-price incentive firm contract from the US Air Force (USAF) for the small diameter bomb II (SDB II), following its achievement of Milestone C.

Under the contract, the company will deliver low-rate initial production for 144 SDB II Lot 1 munitions, 156 SDB II Lot 1 single weapon containers, eight SDB II weapon load crew trainers and conventional munitions maintenance trainers.

In addition, the firm will supply four SDB II Lot 1 practical explosive ordnance disposal system trainers, and data.

Work under this contract will be conducted in Tucson, Arizona, US, and is scheduled for completion by May 2017.

SDB II is an air-launched precision-strike weapon designed to destroy armoured targets from a range of more than 40NM from in adverse weather conditions, with minimal collateral damage.

The bomb is equipped with a dynamic warhead that can destroy both soft and armoured targets. It employees a tri-mode seeker, which operates in three modes, namely millimetre-wave radar, uncooled imaging infrared, as well as a semi-active laser.

The missile is developed under a five-year engineering and manufacturing development phase contract awarded by the USAF in August 2010. It can peer through storm clouds or battlefield dust and debris for engagement with fixed or moving targets.

Having validated SDB II as a weapon that address a critical warfighter need, the US Department of Defense has invested more than $700m in the SDB II programme.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Major U.S. Army Network Modernization Program moves to full-rate production*
Major U.S. Army Network Modernization Program moves to full-rate production | Article | The United States Army

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, Md. (June 8, 2015) -- The Army has received approval to proceed to full-rate production, or FRP, and fielding of its mobile tactical communications network backbone, Warfighter Information Network-Tactical, or WIN-T, Increment 2. 

The approval was the result of a Defense Acquisition Board, or DAB, review of the program conducted in May.

Obtaining the FRP decision means that the program has been deemed mature, has met all its basic requirements and reduced its risk to the point, where the program can proceed with fielding for the duration of the program lifecycle. The FRP decision enables the program office to procure and field the capability to all remaining Army units, which are projected to receive WIN-T Increment 2 through FY2028. 

"In support of Operation Enduring Freedom [OEF], divisions and brigade combat teams, deploying to Afghanistan, have utilized WIN-T Increment 2 capabilities to provide connectivity while on the move in remote areas, support regional advise and assist missions and to provide vital network reach back connectivity in a variety of missions," said Col. Ed Swanson, project manager WIN-T. "With this Defense Department decision, we can proceed into full-rate production, fielding WIN-T Increment 2 in accordance with Army staff prioritization." 

WIN-T Increment 2 is a critical part of the Army's tactical network modernization strategy and the backbone of its network capability sets. Combat vehicles integrated with WIN-T Increment 2 provide the on-the-move communications, mission command and situational awareness, which commanders need to lead from anywhere on the battlefield.

WIN-T Increment 2 enables deployed Soldiers, down to the company level operating in remote and challenging terrain, to maintain voice, video and data communications while on patrol, with connectivity rivaling, which is found in a stationary command post. 

To best support unique operational requirements, WIN-T Increment 2 has been integrated onto different platforms including mine-resistant, ambush-protected, or MRAPs, high-mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle, or HMMWVs, and Stryker platforms.

To date, the Army has fielded WIN-T Increment 2 capability to 12 brigade combat teams and four division headquarters, from the 10th Mountain Division, 82nd Airborne Division, 101st Airborne Division, 2nd Infantry Division, and the 1st Armored Division.

U.S. Soldiers have already deployed with and utilized the system in Afghanistan, where commanders referred to it as their "digital guardian angel." As fixed network infrastructure was dismantled and forward operating bases closed down during retrograde operations, security force assistance brigades were still able to conduct their missions and effectively communicate by employing the satellite and terrestrial communication and mission command capabilities of WIN-T Increment 2. 

The program will continue to improve, enhance and simplify WIN-T Increment 2 capability through technical refreshment and engineering change proposals.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*Navy Wants To Work With Air Force On New Nukes: VADM Benedict*

CAPITOL HILL: As the Air Force train pulls out of the station, the Navy’s running alongside asking to be pulled aboard. Both services will need to replace aging nuclear missilessometime ca. 2030. They could save money by coordinating their modernization programs — but the Air Force is on a tighter schedule and the window of opportunity is starting to close.

“Commonality [is] a topic that I’ve been pretty aggressively shopping around town to anyone who will listen to me,” said Vice Adm. Terry Benedict, the Navy’s director of Strategic Systems Programs. But while the Navy’s not officially launched an effort to replace itsTrident submarined-launched ballistic missile, the Air Force’s Minuteman ICBM replacement, the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, already issued a Request For Information back in January. “Because of the urgency of the GBSD effort,” Benedict said, “we need to begin this assessment now.”

“There’s absolute consensus at the leadership level to begin that work,” Benedict said at Peter Huessy breakfast hosted by the Air Force Association’s Mitchell Institute. “I think the direction to formally proceed on that work is imminent.”

In the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon’s top buyer, Undersecretary Frank Kendall himself, is conducting a Strategic Posture Review that addresses the commonality question. Benedict has also spoken to the Air Force’s top buyer, Assistant Sec. Bill LaPlante, and to the service’s program executive officer for weapons, Maj. Gen. Scott Jansson. Strategic Command chief Adm. Cecil Haneyeven got Benedict to address a meeting of “basically every flag officer in the United States Air Force associated with ICBMs.”

“It’s hard to argue with [commonality]: I mean, who doesn’t want to save money?” Benedict said. “But, rightfully, they have a requirement that they have to meet to replace the Minuteman III, and so there are concerns that this does not distract them or derail them from meeting that requirement, and I respect that.”

The Air Force and the Navy also need their missiles to do different things. At the most basic level, launching from a silo underground is very different from launching from a submarine underwater. A component that works for both may not be optimal for either.

Reconciling those requirements will require extensive study: Where can the Air Force and the Navy do things the same way to save money without compromising eithers’ mission, and where do they still need distinct approaches? Then, once that difficult technical and tactical analysis is done, the often balky Pentagon acquisition processes actually has to do something with it.

To do this right, “you ensure that this is not just a Navy or an Air Force initiative,” Benedict said. “That’s the reason whySTRATCOM has to be intimately involved with this as well as OSD [the Office of the Secretary Defense] and the Joint Staff… As we look at potential requirements impacts, then those who own those requirements are going need to [say whether] they can still meet their mission with a compromise in the requirement.”

There’s a wide range of options for just how intimately intertwined the Navy and Air Force programs need to be, Benedict said. At the low end would be “resource commonality,” such as the two services jointly buying rocket fuel constituents but then mixing them in different formulas for different engines. They could coordinate manufacturing, because even if they don’t buy the same parts, they’re buying them from the same small set of specialized companies. Or they could design their missiles to use some common components or even entire subassemblies.

At the far end is a single common missile procured for both services by a joint program office, though Benedict downplayed that possibility: “I’m not going there,” he said. “[That’s] the far end of the spectrum.” The admiral’s preferred examples of commonality were a little less dramatic.

“I would say that the common fuse effort that’s ongoing, that’s on schedule and on cost for a ’19 IOC [Initial Operating Capability], is a perfect example of how…the two services were able to sit down and work through these technical issues and find the acquisition strategy,” Benedict said. “We compromised requirements to get that out of design and into development and into production.”

That fuse is specifically for the Trident and the current Minuteman III. Benedict’s drive for greater commonality presumes the Minuteman replacement goes ahead, but that’s not guaranteed.

The Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent is under fire on grounds of both cost and necessity. Arms control advocates say a ground-based deterrent of any kind is no longer necessary. ARAND report — one the Air Force itself commissioned — recommended further extending the life of the Minuteman III rather than replacing it.

“Organizational inertia is going to push us back to the status quo, and in my opinion, that’s not going to be affordable in the long term,” said Benedict. Trying to extend the service life of the Navy’s Trident until 2084, when the planned Ohio Replacement Program sub goes out of service, would require an ever-more expensive series of expedients.

It would also allow the highly skilled and highly specialized industrial base to decay, he said, to the point where we couldn’t later change our minds and decide we wanted a new missile after all. “We simply do not produce enough ICBMs, SLBMs [submarine-launched ballistic missiles] to keep the industrial base viable with these long stretches in between [programs],” Benedict said. “With a reduced industrial capability…we place ourselves at risk.”

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AMDR

*US Marines resurrect historic Raiders name for Special Ops*
US Marines resurrect historic Raiders name for Special Ops - CSMonitor.com

The Raiders are back. After years of controversy and dispute, an elite branch of the US Marine Corps will officially be known as Raiders.

The Marines will rename Marine special operations battalions as Marine Raiders at a ceremony on Friday, in honor of World War II units that were engaged in special operations.

The name will be given to eight branches of Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command, known as MARSOC. Active since 2006, the command is part of the global fight against terrorism and has more than 2,700 Marines.

Ben Connable, a military and intelligence analyst at the nonprofit research agency RAND Corporation told The Associated Press that while most people in the US would not know what MARSOC stands for, “Raider will jump off the page.”

World War II Raiders were organized in response to President Franklin Roosevelt’s desire to have a commando-style force to conduct special amphibious light infantry warfare.

In April 1942, 80 raiders flew 16 bombers over Tokyo to conduct America's first retaliatory air strike against Japan after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Raiders also participated in some key battles during World War II, including Guadalcanal and Bougainville.

They were disbanded toward the end of the war and so was the Raider name, but since the Iraq war some Marines have worn the Raider emblems unofficially.

In 2011, Marine Commandant Gen. James Amos rejected a proposal to rename Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command for the Raiders. David Berger, director of operations at Marine Corps headquarters, said at the time that General Amos denied the proposal because “your allegiance, your loyalty … is to the Marine Corps, based on the title you have on your uniform.”

However, three years later in August 2014, after being heavily lobbied by the Marine Raider association to make the change, Amos agreed to rename MARSOC units to the Marine Raiders.

Members of the original World War II Raider companies will be present at Friday's ceremony, according to Marine Corps Times.

MARSOC spokesman Barry Morris says by June 22, all eight units’ web pages will reflect the name change.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

Simultaneous intercept of a SRBM and 2 cruise missiles

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*USAF wants improved day-night F-22 Raptor helmet by 2020*
USAF wants improved day-night F-22 Raptor helmet by 2020 - 6/23/2015 - Flight Global

A long-running effort to provide F-22 Raptor pilots with a day and night helmet-mounted display and cuing system has taken a significant step forward, with the US Air Force publishing a draft programme schedule and requirements list that would “deliver a HMD system by 2020”.

Once installed, a Raptor pilot can visually control sensors and weapons at high off-boresight angles, particularly the latest version of the Raytheon AIM-9X dogfighting missile.

The helmet mounted display and cueing system has been a validated requirement of the F-22 programme as far back as 2007, and is a capability that is already inherent in some older fighters. But cost pressures and sequestration have set the acquisition back time and again.







US Air Force

A set of documents published this month say the F-22 programme office wants a mature helmet system that would be ready to enter a four-year development and test period starting in 2017. Laboratory and simulator testing would take place in 2018 ahead of flight trials in 2019, according to the draft programme plan.

An earlier demonstration of the Visionix-Gentex Scorpion helmet-mounting cueing system was terminated in 2013 due to automatic government spending cuts known as sequestration.

According to the 1June draft requirements document, the air force will accept an F-22 helmet assembly that uses the existing Gentex HGU-55/P helmet – either modified or in its current form – or a new design. However, the programme won’t accept a reduced field of view or any degradation in performance across the Raptor flight envelope, to include high-G manoeuvres, crash, ejection, bailout or water entry.






US Air Force

Key functions include day and night cueing of weapons and sensors at high angles off the nose of the aircraft (high off-boresight), as well as the ability to process and display data and videos feeds from those devices. “It will also be able to receive and display target, weapon and flight data for aircraft state, navigation and air-to-air/air-to-ground weapon delivery while maintaining visual contact with the target,” the document says.

The latest versions of the Raytheon AIM-9X Block II and AIM-120D AMRAAM will be fully available on the F-22 by 2017 as part of the Increment 3.2B upgrade. In February, an F-22 test fired two AIM-9X weapons for the first time against a BQM-34 Firebee drone.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*Report Urges Pentagon To Arm F-35Cs With Tactical Nuclear Weapons*







A report from Center for Strategic and International Studies called “Project Atom” urges the Department of Defense to make the Navy’s F-35Cs “dual role capable.” In other words, they want to make sure the jet can drop conventional munitions _and_ nuclear ones, all in an effort to surround potential enemies with a more “neighborly” nuclear deterrent.

According to our friends over at Flightglobal, the Pentagon has only committed to making theUSAF’s F-35As nuclear capable. The CSIS’s report claims that adding a carrier-based nuclear deterrent would be a “visible manifestation” of the U.S. honoring its commitment to defend its allies around the globe. Such a strategy emanates from the idea that a deterrent is more effective when it’s forward deployed to positions in and around an ally’s geographical area. Basically, a much closer proximity manifestation of the U.S. nuclear umbrella.

The U.S. has relied more and more on long-range nuclear deterrents, include land-based ICBMs, submarine launched SLBMs and heavy bomber delivered nuclear bombs and cruise missiles, with only a small fraction of the American nuclear arsenal being tactical in nature and deliverable via fighter aircraft.





The nuclear weapon of choice for the F-35 will be the upgraded “smart” B61-12 thermonuclear guided bomb, a program that has had to struggle for funding, but is seen as essential for maintaining an air-dropped tactical nuclear capability. 

Currently, only the USAF’s F-35A is due to become nuclear capable, with the fully developed B61-12 around 2024 if everything goes as planned.

Clark Murdock, a key player behind the report, told Flightglobal:

_We had 7,000 nuclear weapons forward-deployed in Europe at the pinnacle of the Cold War... In Asia, we had almost 1,000 deployed on the Korean Peninsula. About 3,000 total were in the Asia Pacific theatre.

When the Soviets looked out at their borders, they didn’t just see a ring of American men and women in uniform, they saw a ring of nuclear weapons. They knew that any major, conventional aggression on their part would go nuclear because all the weapons were there._

The report also adds that scaled response options need to be made available by fielding smaller yield, highly targeted nuclear weapons. Currently, the U.S. nuclear force is organized around a massive nuclear response, which limits flexibility to certain lower-level scenarios where tactical nuclear weapons or even exotic versions of tactical nukes built for hitting deep buried bunkers or to cause maximum electromagnetic pule destruction could be used instead of high-yield strategic nuclear weapons as a way to limit escalation.

You can read the entire report here.

The CSIS report and Mr. Murdock’s suggestions are an eye-opening reminder of the times we are now living in. Although they seem quite extreme, and even mimic America’s nuclear posture during the the Cold War, they do have some merit.

The sad truth is that there seems to be a heavy amount of denial out there as to just how precarious things have become geopolitically around the globe in over the last 15 months. Nobody wants to admit that a new Cold War has sprung, especially considering all the other problems that need fixing, including a rising and more stubborn China and their extra-territorial ambitions and the spread of Islamic Extremism that features a whole new level of brutality in the Middle East. This is not to mention a cascade of failed states that have occurred since the once naively hopeful Arab Spring began. A potential nuclear arms race around the Persian Gulf, increasing tensions between India and Pakistan, a psychopathic kid running a nuclear armed North Korea, massive cyber vulnerabilities and global warming can all be added to that list.

All this has been factored into the Bulletin Of American Scientists historic Doomsday Clockrecently, which has been pushed forward from its 2012 index of five minutes to midnight, to three minutes to midnight as of last January. This is the closest it has been to the Armageddon mark since 1984. The only other time it has been three minutes to midnight or less was in 1953.

The Bulletin’s justification for the move is as such:

_Unchecked climate change, global nuclear weapons modernizations, and outsized nuclear weapons arsenals pose extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity, and world leaders have failed to act with the speed or on the scale required to protect citizens from potential catastrophe. These failures of political leadership endanger every person on Earth. Despite some modestly positive developments in the climate change arena, current efforts are entirely insufficient to prevent a catastrophic warming of Earth. Meanwhile, the United States and Russia have embarked on massive programs to modernize their nuclear triads—thereby undermining existing nuclear weapons treaties. The clock ticks now at just three minutes to midnight because international leaders are failing to perform their most important duty—ensuring and preserving the health and vitality of human civilization._

Will we see the widespread deployment of tactical nuclear weapons as an attempt to limit the possibility of a mutually assured destruction (MAD) strategic nuclear weapons exchange in the coming years? It is quite possible. The new military reality for the U.S. will be one of wars not of choice but of necessity, ones we do not start, but are obligated to end. Should such conflicts occur, they will not be limited to small-time rogue regimes and third world failed states, but could very well include nuclear capable near peer-state actors. These wars will most likely be characterized by limited but rapid and violent exchanges as the result of territorial disputes. Although these exchanges will begin conventional in nature, escalation is a squirmy thing to predict, and there is no telling if, or when, a nuclear option could be introduced by either party.

As such, introducing throngs of tactical nukes into such a mix may also be a form of introducing what could end up being a rapidly escalating nuclear exchange just as much as they could represent an option for a limited nuclear response.




This perilous nuclear tightrope was walked throughout the Cold War, at least before MAD became the unofficially agreed upon policy of the USSR and USA, and it is very sad, if not terrifying, seeing that metaphorical tightrope being strung up once again.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

*Navy boosts Raytheon's contract for Next Generation Jammer*
Navy boosts Raytheon's contract for Next Generation Growler -- Defense Systems


The Navy has added $13 million to the pot for developing the Next Generation Jammer, a which will boost aircraft’s electronic warfare capabilities while replacing an outdated, nearly 50-year old radar and jamming system.

The Naval Air Systems Command awarded the contract modification to Raytheon, which had been awarded the initial $279 million contract in July 2013, then survived a protest by bidder BAE Systems and some budget reductions expected to delay its initial operating capability from 2020 to 2021.

The Next Generation Jammer will replace the ALQ-99 Tactical Jamming System, which dates to the late 1960s, on EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft. The NGJ, which integrates electronic countermeasures, cyber operations and signals intelligence, reportedly performed well in its first airborne tests in October 2014. The tests, held at the China lake test range in California, were conducted against advanced radars similar to those operated by China and Russia.

Despite its promising tests, the Chief of Naval Operations’ 2014 Position Report said reduced funding would slow down NGJ’s development a bit.

The contract modification covers work through February 2016.


----------



## Faizan Qadeer

What if US Military is just concentrated on only US Problem what ?


----------



## AMDR

*New Fuel Cell Technology Shows Safety, Endurance Potential for UUVs*
SEAPOWER Magazine Online
By RICHARD R. Burgess, Managing Editor

ARLINGTON, Va. — A new battery fuel cell technology shows promise in providing more power and endurance to unmanned undersea vehicles (UUVs) and other platforms as well as less potential for fire.

An aluminum-seawater fuel cell technology, being developed by Open Water Power of Somerville, Mass., is able to “safely store about 10 times as much energy as lithium-ion batteries,” said Dr. Tom Milnes, president and chief executive officer of Open Water Power.

Milnes’ company is developing the technology for a variety of uses for defense and commercial applications, such as UUVs and the oil and gas industry. Exploration of the technology was conducted by a joint team, of which Milnes was a member, at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lincoln Laboratory and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. Open Water Power has taken the technology further from “beaker-level science,” in Milnes’ characterization, with a $450,000 in funds of from the Rapid Response Technology Office of the Defense Department, the Office of Naval Research, and the Naval Air Systems Command, delivering a developmental model of an aluminum-seawater cell to the Office of Naval Research in December.

The Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division in Maryland put the first cell in an inactive state through pressure, temperature and fire testing this spring and released a report on its performance in June. The testers concluded that “early tests indicate that a reactor [battery] — when in an inactive state — does not generate hazards when exposed to extreme storage temperatures, low pressures, or fires,” according to a Navy briefing.

Open Water Power will be delivering two more cells to the Navy for testing. The next steps for testing by the Navy include a short-circuit test, a water-exposure test and performance tests “to determine energy density and characterize operational behavior,” the briefing said.

Milnes said the aluminum-seawater concept is an old idea but only recently have the barriers to making it operational been overcome. The technology was explored for primarily for its energy density but the safety of the technology also has become evident.

The Navy has had a need to develop a safer battery technology for undersea vehicles since the 2008 fire on the Advanced SEAL Delivery System submersible.

*Military Tests New Comsat With 300 Times The Bandwidth*
By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on June 30, 2015 at 4:00 AM






The military has tested a new commercial communications satellite system by that potentially offers 300 times the bandwidth of current satellites. O3b Networks has demonstrated the technology both at sea, aboard the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship _Fort Worth_ in the Pacific, and and on land, for unspecified “members of the armed forces” at MacDill Air Force Base, which just happens to be the headquarters of the publicity-shySpecial Operations Command.

How does this work? It’s all about the altitude. The higher the satellite, the larger the area it covers and the slower it orbits. At 22,000 miles up, geostationary (GEO) satellites effectively stand still over a single point on the earth’s surface and can cover a whole continent, making them the standard for communications. But altitude comes at a cost. There’s a literal financial cost, because a rocket powerful enough to get you there is expensive. There’s also a cost in time, because even at the speed of light it takes your message half a second to get to GEO and back.






That’s a long enough lag that even a human brain can notice it. For high-bandwidth applications like streaming video — say, from military drones — the delay makes for major slowdowns. For high-speed software like cloud computing, it’s a dealbreaker.

So O3b puts its satellites only 5,000 milesup. That’s considered MEO, Medium Earth Orbit. (Protip: Never say “Middle Earth Orbit” unless you’re talking about Tolkien). 2,000 miles and below are Low Earth Orbit (LEO), favored by commercial imagery satellites and spysats, but at those altitudes satellites whip around the planet and can cover very little area at a time, making them impractical for most communications. MEO is a happy medium.

Since a 5,000-mile MEO orbit is a quarter of a 22,000-mile GEO orbit, the lag is likewise only a quarter as much: about 150 milliseconds, instead of 500. That shorter lag combined with a high-throughput Ka-band signal allows bandwidth that’s _300_ times higher, 1.6 gigabits per second instead of the current standard of five megabits.

Meanwhile, each satellite is still high enough to cover a decent swath of the planet. (See the video above for how they hand off to one another). O3b has 12 in orbit currently and plans to launch at least another four. But eight birds were enough for continuous coverage of everything between 45 degrees north and south — roughly from Minneapolis to southern New Zealand. Some equatorial areas could get by with just four, such as the Cook Islands, home to some of O3b’s first customers.

In fact, O3b originally created its year-old network with the developing world in mind. The company’s name is an acronym for the “other three billion,” the estimated portion of the world’s population that lacks access to landline Internet. But it also has a contract with Royal Caribbean, since cruise ships have lots of Internet-hungry passengers and no way to reach a fiber optic cable. Navy warships are in the same boat, as it were, although they want bandwidth for intelligence and targeting data rather than Facebook. Special Operations teams, meanwhile, are often in the same position as O3b’s original target audience: scattered in remote places where poverty, geography, or both make fiber unavailable.

Neither SOCOM nor the Navy has gone beyond demos to a permanent contract with O3b, yet. But with budgets tightening while bandwidth demands increase, the company has some cause for optimism.

*Austal USA Lays Keel for Littoral Combat Ship Manchester*
Austal USA Lays Keel for Littoral Combat Ship Manchester - USNI News

Shipbuilder Austal USA laid the keel of the seventh Independence-class Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) at its Mobile, Ala. yard, the company announced on Monday.

The initials of sponsor Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) were welded into the aluminum keel of _Manchester_ (LCS-14) in the ceremony at the yard.

According to the company, 36 of the 37 modules that make up the 3,100-ton ship have already started construction.

“For Austal, keel laying marks the beginning of final assembly. Nineteen modules have been moved from Austal’s module manufacturing facility and erected in the final assembly bay in their pre-launch position, read a statement from the company.
“The remaining 18 modules will follow over the coming months.”

The ship is the fifth ship of a ten-ship multiyear $3.5 billion contract with Austal USA issued by the Navy 2010 as part of a larger $7 billion block buy for — including ten Lockheed Martin Freedom-class LCS — for 20-ship total.

The first four Independence-class LCS were built under a contract to General Dynamics in which Austal USA was a subcontractor before GD elected not to compete for the multiyear.

Work in the yard is proceeding on other ships.

“Modules for the future USS _Tulsa_ (LCS-16) and the future USS _Charleston_ (LCS-18) are in the early phases of construction,” read the Austal statement.

Earlier this month, LCS _Gabrielle Giffords _(LCS-10) was christened at the Mobile yard.

In addition to the Independence-class ships, Austal is building ten Joint High Speed Vessels (JHSV) for the Navy.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*MUOS-4 Satellite Shipped For August Launch*
SEAPOWER Magazine Online

CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION, Fla. — Delivered by the U.S. Navy and Lockheed Martin, the fourth Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) satellite arrived at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station June 28 prior to its expected August launch aboard a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket, Lockheed Martin said in a June 29 release. 






MUOS-4 is the latest addition to a network of orbiting satellites and relay ground stations that is revolutionizing secure communications for mobile military forces. Users with operational MUOS terminals can seamlessly connect beyond line-of-sight around the globe. MUOS’ new smart phone-like capabilities include simultaneous crystal-clear voice, and video and mission data, on a high-speed Internet Protocol-based system. 

Traditional UHF satellite communication systems allow users to “talk” as long as they are geographically close enough to be under the coverage footprint of the same satellite.

“MUOS allows troops all over the world to talk, text and share mission data seamlessly, while traveling, like a cellular network, without having to worry about where they are in relation to a satellite,” said Iris Bombelyn, Lockheed Martin’s vice president for narrowband communications. “MUOS-4 will complete our near global coverage, reaching further north and south toward the poles than ever before.”

Manufactured at Lockheed Martin’s Sunnyvale, Calif., facility, MUOS-4 was shipped from nearby Moffett Federal Airfield, where the 60th Air Mobility Wing of Travis Air Force Base loaded the satellite aboard a C-5 Galaxy aircraft for delivery. In Florida, Astrotech Space Operations, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin, will complete MUOS-4’s pre-launch processing.

The MUOS network is expected to be operational by year-end. MUOS-1, MUOS-2 and MUOS-3 launched respectively in 2012, 2013 and last January. All four required MUOS ground stations are complete. More than 55,000 currently fielded radio terminals can be upgraded to be MUOS-compatible, with many of them requiring just a software upgrade.

*HX-21 Completes First Flight with Developmental Electronic Warfare Pod*
SEAPOWER Magazine Online

PATUXENT RIVER Md. — A UH-1Y from Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (HX) 21 completed the first test flight with a developmental electronic warfare (EW) pod on June 8, Naval Air Systems Command said in a June 29 release. 

The EW pod will represent a new tactical capability for U.S. Marine Corps rotary wing aircraft, and allow for changing mission requirements mid-flight. 

HX-21 conducts developmental flight test and evaluation of rotary-wing and tiltrotor aircraft and airborne systems in support of all Navy and Marine Corps training, operational combat and combat support missions. HX-21 is headquartered at Naval Air Station Patuxent River.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*Stennis, SPAWAR Prepare for First Carrier Deployment with Next Generation CANES Network*
Stennis, SPAWAR Prepare for First Carrier Deployment with Next Generation CANES Network - USNI News




_As USS John C. Stennis has gone through its pre-deployment certifications and workups, it is the first carrier to do so using the CANES network environment. USNI News photo._

Navy communications at sea will take a big leap forward in capability and capacity later this year. The service’s next-generation IT infrastructure, which promises faster connections and greater cyber security protections, will be tested and deployed for the first time on an aircraft carrier, USS _John C. Stennis_ (CVN-74).

_Stennis_ is preparing for both a deployment in the fall and its five-year Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV) examination in late July, and it will be the first aircraft carrier to do either with the Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services (CANES).

Sailors aboard _Stennis_ may notice faster and more reliable connections, but the real advantages of CANES are behind the scenes. It combines five legacy networks into a single environment that the Navy says is easier to defend from cyber attacks. It will eventually be put on surface combatants, amphibious ships and submarines, standardizing the computing environment across platforms to make upgrades easier and ownership costs lower. 

The new IT backbone has been installed on 24 ships, with another eight in progress now, but _Stennis_ – being the first aircraft carrier – was orders of magnitude more complex and challenging than the guided missile cruisers and destroyers that came before it, officials said.

_Stennis_ began the CANES installation process in late 2013, when crews started ripping out the old network hardware. In February 2014 they began installing new firmware and servers, along with more than 30,000 feet of fiber optic cable and 100 miles of shielded Category 5 network cable, _Stennis_ commanding officer Capt. Mike Wettlaufer told USNI News on June 18. In October, the installation was certified complete.

Wettlaufer said being the first carrier to go through the installation process has both perks and challenges. On the one hand, shore-based technical support and the training pipeline are still not fully developed, he said. But his crew has been part of the feedback loop meant to mature and improve those services, and therefore his crew has a more intimate knowledge of CANES than a typical crew might otherwise have.

“Our sailors are part of the development and the certification – it’s still ongoing – of the maintenance procedures for CANES. This is really unique in that our folks onboard are working very closely with the CANES support entities… to develop the preventative maintenance processes and the ongoing health-checking processes for CANES onboard the ship,” he said.
“They have been absolutely, totally involved in that. Our ITs, they know the system really very, very well. And we’re in the process, we just completed the maintenance evaluation by the program office, and with some other Department of Defense support, to evaluate our ability to maintain the system at the first basic level.”

In August, the ship will undergo an operational evaluation – conducted during the carrier strike group’s pre-deployment Composite Training Unit Exercise (COMPTUEX) – as a final and more robust test of their ability to operate, maintain and defend CANES.

Despite the challenges associated with being the first carrier to deploy with CANES, Wettlaufer said the ship was at-sea from March to early May and conducted a group sail with its strike group, part of which involved helping USS _Freedom_ (LCS-1) and USS_Higgins_ (DDG-76) certify for upcoming independent deployments.

“Based upon that, I think you could probably say we’re well on the way to getting ourselves certified to deploy with the first operational CANES installation,” he said.

*Installation challenges*



_Cmdr. Steve Shedd, then-commanding officer of the guided-missile destroyer USS Milius (DDG 69), discusses blueprints for the Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services (CANES) program with Space and Naval Warfare Systems (SPAWAR) engineers in January 2013. US Navy photo._

Whereas installing CANES on a destroyer averages about 158 days, Wettlaufer said the first carrier installation took “the better part of that whole 16 months” _Stennis_ was in the shipyard for a maintenance availability. Some of the testing had to be completed after the ship left the yard, he added.

He noted that the aircraft carrier, which hosts the carrier strike group staff, the destroyer squadron staff and other organizations, requires a significantly larger infrastructure than any of the other ships.

Wettlaufer called his ship a communication hub “for both the goes-ins and goes-outs – the stuff we need to operate, information-wise, communication-wise, and the stuff we have to distribute from us to the rest of our strike group assets as well as to the fleet commanders and beyond.”

“There’s a significant scale difference between the two types of installs,” he added.

Rear Adm. John Neagley, Fleet Readiness Director at the Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR), said the _Stennis_ installation took the longest so far but also taught his staff numerous lessons learned to apply to the next carriers. The second carrier installation, on USS _Ronald Reagan_ (CVN-76), took only eight months. The fourth carrier installation, on USS _Carl Vinson_ (CVN-70), begins this week and is expected to take just seven months.

“You always learn a lot after the first one, and I think _Reagan_ was a good example of really bringing a lot of the lessons learned from _Stennis_ down to _Reagan_,” said Neagley, who oversees both installation and in-service support for CANES.

A successful installation starts with good planning, he said. The workers doing the installation need accurate drawings and other documentation, he said, and “once you do that once, you have the opportunity to refine the documentation based on those lessons learned from the first ship, make it easier for the second ship. So in the planning phase we were able to capture a lot of those kinds of lessons learned. There may have been something in the drawing where we got to the ship and it was a little bit different, so we changed the drawing to reflect the actual configuration. So all of those changes got captured for the next ship.”

Neagley’s team also learned that a lot of work could be done before getting to the ship – where there are lots of confined spaces, as well as numerous other teams trying to do other maintenance and modernization work in those same confined spaces. The more components that can be pre-fabricated on land, the better, he said.

“For example, some of the ventilation systems – we had the drawings, we could go pre-fab those in the shop, have them all ready to go, not have to do that work on the ship. So after we did the rip-out we could bring that pre-fabbed ventilation and ducting and just tack it up and be ready to go,” Neagley said.

The installation crew also learned how to more efficiently sequence the work, as well as when it was okay to have other crews working nearby and when they needed the space to themselves.

“On _Reagan_ in particular, we added an extra planner down there to help us coordinate the schedule with all the other work that was going on onboard, and that was pretty beneficial for us so we could keep track of the overall ship schedule and where we fit in the overall ship schedule to make sure that we deconflicted anytime – if two or three entities had to be in one space, that was coordinated ahead of time,” Neagley said.

*Testing lessons*



_AMSEC contractors remove ventilation in the radio room onboard the Navy guided missile destroyer USS Milius (DDG 69) in March 2013. US Navy photo._

Neagley said the biggest time-savers came on the software loading and testing side of the effort.

“Probably one of the most significant differences between _Stennis_ and _Reagan_ was our ability to do more of the software loading inside the lab here at SPAWAR,” he said.
“So we were able to load more of the software in-house and do some more of that testing in-house before we got to the ship, and so that allowed our software team to work in this environment and make sure they got out all the bugs in the environment here before we loaded it up on the ship.”

Additionally, the team learned how to sequence the software uploads and tests more efficiently, too.

“As you can imagine, when you have all these systems that are connected to CANES, the order that you bring them up in and the order that you test them [matters]. We kind of optimized that on the second ship I think a little bit better,” Neagley said.
“That bought us probably the most time out of everything we’ve done.”

He added that sailors from _Reagan _were brought to the SPAWAR lab to watch and learn during the test phase. Getting their hands on CANES early helped, and he said he hopes to do that going forward when the ship’s crew is available.

*Future opportunities*



_CANES units bound for installation aboard the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) are loaded and tested in the SPAWAR Network Integration and Engineering Facility prior to fleet delivery in June 2014. US Navy photo._

Wettlaufer, the _Stennis_ commanding officer, said the CANES infrastructure – the training pipeline, the technical support ashore and even the logistics – won’t be fully ready when he deploys this fall, but he’s confident his sailors will be ready to go.

“Before we left the shipyard, we turned on the system I guess a little over a year ago. And from turning on the system and powering it up to operating at sea, we’ve certainly found areas where things didn’t work exactly right, but we’ve had very good support from SPAWAR and all the supporting organizations,” he said.
“When you’re the first one …. there’s going to be challenges in the supply system, whether or not it’s up to speed to support everything you need and all the other installations that are going on. Certainly that’s always a challenge. There’s going to be something we’re going to find – like, hey, we never interacted these two things together, oh my gosh there’s going to be a hiccup there.”

But Wettlaufer said that’s all okay. He said the training and shore support would get better as his crew helped inform them, and the installations would continue to get easier – and despite being the first, he wouldn’t have asked the Navy to do it any other way. Ramping up too quickly to try to have everything in place for the first ship is fiscally irresponsible, Wettlaufer said, since lessons learned still would have dictated changes.

Wettlaufer said CANES hosts more than 120 different systems that perform functions from warfighting to supplies and maintenance records management to pay and administrative functions. From a user perspective, he said the CANES environment would feel the same as any other information technology set-up when connecting to outside entities via the Internet, but the CANES intranet capability is vastly improved compared to the legacy network. Going forward, he said he looked forward to his crew and others learning how to “[use] the system to its utmost to internally communicate.”

These kinds of advancements – both finding new capabilities and addressing any newly discovered flaws – will be addressed in CANES’ “built-in tech refresh and obsolescence cycle,” Neagley said. The software will be updated every two years and the hardware every four years to keep up with new cyber threats and new capabilities that come along.

*F-35 Training, Logistic Systems Ready for Operations*
SEAPOWER Magazine Online

YUMA, Ariz. — The U.S. Marine Corps’ F-35 program took another step forward as two key capabilities were delivered to support the service’s first operational squadron, a Marine Corps spokeswoman said in a June 30 release.

Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 121, also known as the “Green Knights”, received the latest version of support software for the F-35 and all four of their Full Mission Simulator trainers became ready for operational use with Block 2B Initial Warfighting software, June 22.

The Autonomic Logistics Information System also called ALIS, functions as the primary nerve center for F-35 fleet management, according to James Sprang, ALIS field lead for Lockheed Martin.

“ALIS is absolutely integral to maintaining and operating F-35s,” said Sprang. “[It] turns a vast amount of data into actionable information that enables pilots, maintainers and military leaders to make proactive decisions and keep jets flying.”

The F-35 Lightning II Training System consists of academic, live-flight and simulation training. Now, pilots aboard the air station can train together in the same virtual environment with four simulators linked together and running the latest aircraft software, Block 2B. The simulators constantly receive updates to further enhance the training experience for pilots and maintainers. 

“The biggest change to the simulator relative to us is the software in the simulator matches what’s in the plane,” said Maj John Price, an F-35B pilot and executive officer of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 121. “The capabilities I see in the jet every day are the same things I see when I go over to the simulator.”

Both systems increase Marines’ proficiency with the F-35B, according to Price.

ALIS 2.0.1 is the latest release of the software and has been released to the USMC on new mobile equipment. Aircraft maintenance, mission planning and debrief capabilities continue to be enhanced under an incremental development approach

“[Pilots] create missions that go on hard drives that plug into the jets,” said GySgt Brian Erline, VMFA-121 aviation logistic information management specialist. “Once it’s plugged in, they conduct their missions. That same hard drive that had the mission is capturing required maintenance actions for that jet. This tells the maintainers which parts are reaching their life limit and which [parts] require attention.”

According to Sprang, the latest modular hardware provides rugged durability and mobility. The system is disassembled, transported and re-assembled at the deployed site. Prior to the introduction of this hardware, ALIS consisted of typical stationary ‘server’ racks kept in the computer room.

“With more than two years left to go in the development phase of the program, capabilities continue to be added to ALIS,” said Erline. “However, the Marine Corps has everything it needs today in terms of functionality to have an initial operating capability.”

Similarly, the F-35 Training System’s simulator holds truer to its real-life counterpart, thanks to the latest Block 2B software. The software is used in the actual jets and in the simulators, providing the most accurate information possible. 

“It’s very accurate in regards to the visuals and the types of simulations that can be done,” said Capt John Stuart, an F-35B pilot with VMFA-121. “Getting training in division and sections is something that is a very high value with regards to saving money and getting good, real-time debriefing capabilities from a pilot at the console who is monitoring the simulator.” 

ALIS and the F-35 Lightning II Training System will continue to advance over time, improving the capabilities of the F-35 series as a whole, from the mission capabilities of the aircraft and the pilots to the maintainers on the ground. 

The systems will help the Marines of VMFA-121 declare Initial Operating Capability (IOC) in July. The aircraft will be ready for future deployments aboard U.S. Navy amphibious carriers following the declaration of IOC.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fenrir

*This ICBM Test Video Shows How Gorgeous The Beginning Of The End Will Be*







These breathtaking nighttime launches of the LGM-30G Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile out of Vandenberg AFB give you an idea of how the beginning of the end of the world would look if mankind decided to call it a day.






The Minutemen III is the backbone of America’s land-based portion of its Nuclear Triad. Some 450 LGM-30Gs are stationed in their hardened underground silos in Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming, each capable of carrying up to three Multiple Independently Targeted Reentry Vehicles (MIRVS) and can also carry a series of decoys and radar reflective chaff to confuse enemy radars and anti-ballistic missile systems. The missile’s stated range is just over 8,000 miles, but its exact range remains classified.

Currently, the Minuteman III force “only” holds a single reentry vehicle, a result of the now defunct START II treaty. There are currently two thermonuclear warheads used with the Minuteman III inventory, the newer W87 and the older W78. These warheads have an output range of 335 to 475 kilotons of TNT equivalent.






The missile is capable of changing its trajectory during its later boost and mid-course stages of flight to further confuse anti-ballistic missile systems and compensate for the release its MIRVS or decoys. This is not the same as being equipped with hard turning maneuvering reentry vehicles like some of the world’s other nuclear powers are currently fielding.






The Minuteman III has been in service for 45 years, and while it ha received many upgrades over the years, it’s still based upon a design from the 1960s. It will remain in service until at least 2030, after which it will have to go thorough a deep upgrade, be replaced in full or the land-based contingent of America’s Nuclear Triad will have to be eliminated. This would leave air-launched and air-dropped nuclear weapons and America’s Trident ballistic missile carrying nuclear submarine force as America’s nuclear deterrent.

Considering the bad press, questionable readiness and antiquated technology that has plagued the reputation of America’s land-based nuclear missile force in recent years, and seeing how we can barely upgrade other key parts of the nuclear triad, elimination of the entire ground-based strategic missile capability is a real possibility.






You can get an idea of how the Minuteman III goes about it apocalyptic job in the video below, minus the decoys and chaff that is:






So sleep well and night knowing that 450 (soon to be 400 after the current draw-down finishes) of these chariots of destruction are sitting cocked and locked across America’s northern border, just waiting for the “red phone” to ring.

*Pro tip: resize this image to read it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fenrir

*The Navy's Little Missiles Could Be Popping Up In Many More Places*






This image shows the _Cyclone _Class coastal patrol boat USS _Firebolt _shooting off a $100,000 Griffin surface-to-surface missile during a training exercise in the Arabian Gulf. Different variants of the Griffin have been put to use aboard everything from ships to unmanned aircraft to Ospreys to AC-130 Gunships in recent years, and many more platforms are like to come.

The so called Mark 60 version of the Griffin was designed for littoral combat operations. Theclose in defense system consists of two four cell launch canisters, with eight missiles total. The package also included a infrared targeting system with a laser designator and a command and battle management system. When fitted in the Mark 60 canisters, the Griffin is given the designation BGM-176B.






The whole idea of outfitting the Navy’s hard-working _Cyclone _Class (and possibly other) patrol boats with the Griffin is to give them an extra layer of defenses against swarming boats, a tactic Iran would surely employ during combat with its neighbors and the U.S. should hostilities ever break out. It is also a very effective and quickly employed weapon against potential ship-borne suicide bombers that may attempt to make a run at a patrol vessel ship or a ship it is protecting.






The Griffin Missile also extends the range and expands the engagement zone for the _Cyclone_Class. In the past, these ships had to rely on their twin 25mm bushmaster cannons to engage targets that were not within small-arms fire, but still they are limited to a range of about a mile and a half. Now, with Griffin Missiles, the _Cyclones _can pummel targets at close to three miles away and at any angle from the ship. They can also do so more rapidly than using just the 25mm chain guns alone.

The Griffin was passed over for the AGM-114 Hellfire when it comes to equipping America’s troubled Littoral Combat Ships with an anti-swarm missile system. This decision was partially because the millimeter-wave seeker version of the Hellfire, the same that can be used by the Longbow Apache attack helicopter, could use the LCS’s radar system to attack multiple boats in a single salvo. In other words, it would not have to be relegated to “painting” each target with a laser designator in order to attack. This is especially useful under poor visibility conditions or when being raided by a large swarm of boats.

A similar system as the sea-borne Hellfire is being adapted from the UK’s capable Brimstone missile for at-sea applications, known as “Sea Spear.” Both missile systems are a far cry from innovative and much longer ranged XM501 Non-Line-Of-Sight missile system originally envisioned for the LCS but cancelled due to technical difficulties and budgetary constraints.






In response to the seemingly chaotic changes to the small-yield naval missile marketplace, Raytheon, who makes the Griffin, is going another route for their next generation Griffin Missile.

Instead of tying the missile to one targeting source, whether that be radar or laser designation, they are diffusing the targeting options by including a data-link on the Griffin Missile. This can be adapted to take into account different sensors targeting information, such as feeding the missile live coordinates from a radar system in real-time, thus making it a “fire and forget” weapon. They are also adding an imaging infrared seeker to the missile that will allow users to no longer rely on hard-mounted targeting system at all. Instead the missile can be launched to an area and it will select targets on its own using image matching and onboard artificial intelligence, while at the same time sending live video of the target back to the user. The user can then give the missile the OK to engage the target it has spotted or tell it to go to the next target, or another area entirely to search for new targets. 






Not only will this approach be good for engaging targets in densely populated maritime environments, where visual identification of an enemy target is key, but it will also mean that installing Griffin onto a vessel (or even a basic ground vehicle) could be as simple as bolting on the launch canisters and putting up an antenna tied to a notebook computer. Once set up, the user could immediately begin receiving and ok’ing targeting imagery generated from launched Griffins. This means any boat or even a commercial truck could be turned into a precision guided boat or tank buster with almost no modification. The next-gen Griffin will also feature a new rocket motor that will allow it to travel out to over 9 miles from its launch point and will allow it to be able to loiter over the battlefield searching for targets to plink.

The inclusion of a “plug and play” Griffin onto ships that feature minimal defenses today means that these vessels could be cheaply equipped with a devastating self defense weapon system that can create a sphere of defense from water-borne threats around the vessel at any given time. Such a capability could also round out the ‘low end’ of a potential U.S. Navy initiative to make many ships that are currently unarmed, such as many USNS supply ships, offensive shooters via installing bolt-on cruise missiles.






It is clear that the defense industry is taking a clear sign from the consumer electronics marketplace and moving away from expensive, hard-installed proprietary hardware and going for more of a ‘plug and play’ and application approach to lower-end weapons systems. Instead of creating a combat vehicle to launch missiles, just create a missile that can be easily launched from any vehicle with a flatbed and operated by anyone with a laptop computer.

With a range of almost 10 miles, the next-gen Griffin can give a Toyota truck or a HUMVEE as much killing power, and at greater range, than an M-1 Abrams main battle tank. Even more exciting, once the weapon is ‘networked’ it can use its data-link to proliferate targeting opportunities from a whole slew of assets, including both manned and unmanned aircraft. As such, an operator could just pick a target being tracked by an aircraft’s radar and send a Griffin its way, with the missile sending live video of the target back to the operator to ok a terminal attack.






This concept could also work in reverse, where s centralized command center that has access to data from all the sensor platforms in the battle-space spot a target of opportunity and immediately send a command to fire a Griffin-like missile nearest to that target without the onsite operator interacting with the system at all. If left in ‘remote standby mode’ a HUMVEE with a package of Griffin or similar missiles attached would simply sound an alarm that a launch has been commanded remotely and the missile would be on its way to its target seconds later.

So basically, by diffusing not just shooters but also the targeting sources, a commander even thousands of miles away, or a forward air controller in the field, can simply select the best weapon nearby and command its launch and guidance remotely. This creates a more survivable and unpredictable proposition for the enemy to compete with and makes serving up precision fire support truly a point and click affair.






Small missiles, distributed across the battlefield, both on the water, on land and in the air, will most likely become a staple of modern warfare. We have already seen their rapid growth from a low-collateral damage air-launched weapons, to one used for fighting off swarms of fast boats, and now to ones that could make virtually any vehicle in a war zone a ‘shooter.’

They may not be glamorous and they may not cause massive explosions, but combined together, these little missiles could change the way we fight future wars just as much astheir bigger and much more expensive cousins.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fenrir

U.S. Air Power In South Korea

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fenrir



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Fenrir

*The Ohio-Class Guided Missile Nuclear Submarine Is One Dangerous Beast*






Four of the U.S. Navy’s gargantuan _Ohio-c_lass ballistic missile nuclear submarines, otherwise known as ‘Boomers,’ were converted into multi-role platforms capable of deploying throngs of special forces, spying, sinking ships and other subs and and putting any enemy within 1,000 miles of coast at risk of their arsenal of 154 cruise missiles.

As you can see in the rare photo above of the USS _Michigan _(SSGN-727), the re-branded SSGNs are of grand scale, measuring 560 feet long and displacing almost 19,000 tons while submerged. Behind the _Michigan’s s_ail is a modular Dry Dock Shelter, which is about 38 feet long and 9 feet tall. It is used to house SEAL Delivery Vehicles and other transportation devices used by special forces personnel. The SSGNs can be fitted with two of these systems if need be.






Four of the oldest Ohio-class SSBNs were converted to SSGNs over the last decade. The process takes between two and three years to complete, where the submarines have their reactors refueled and extensive modifications are made to their interiors to support their new conventional mission. This includes modifications to accommodate 66 Navy SEALs and their gear, as well as mission planning, command, control, communications and prep areas. Some sources say the the SSGN’s embarked commando manifest can swell to over 100 SEALs for surge operations.






The ability to launch small unmanned aircraft has been added to the SSGNs. These can provide overwatch and beyond line of sight communications relay with forward deployed special operations forces. An upgraded command and control suite was also added to facilitate these clandestine commando operations. As such, an entire special operations campaign can be ran from the bowels of an SSGN.

The boat’s 24 Trident nuclear ballistic missiles are removed and in their place are 154 BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles, with seven missile per tube. This turns the once doomsday capability of the _Ohio-_class into the a ‘air war in a box’ capable of sneaking into an enemy’s inner sanctum and letting loose a barrage of cruise missiles targeting command and control, air defense and high-value targets. Basically, the SSGNs have the ability to bypass an enemy’s anti-access/area denial capability and kick down a metaphorical door for follow-on attacks by manned aircraft and other assets.






Seeing that these were once the holder’s of a large portion of America’s nuclear ‘second strike deterrent,’ the now multi-role boats remain some of the quietest submarines in the world, and as such they can also accommodate some of the roles of a fast attack submarine. These include surveillance, electronic eavesdropping and even anti-surface, anti-submarine and anti-mine warfare, as they retain their forward torpedo tubes. Even a automated launch and recovery system has been designed to fit in one of the SSGN’s missile tubes that it can launch and recover heavy-weight autonomous unmanned vehicles. A capability that opens up a whole new world of possibilities for underseas warfare.






The _Ohio-_class SSGNs are possibly America’s most powerful “all in one” conventional weapon systems, packing many times the firepower of the _Virginia-_class fast attack submarine and capable of supporting sustained special operations campaigns in some of the most inhospitable territory in the world. They put literally any target within 1000 miles of the coastline at risk of a surprise attack and their versatility is amazing. With four boats now in the water, at least two can be on patrol at any given time, with a third being common, and their patrols are only limited to the food stores onboard, allowing them to lie in wait for weeks or even months at a time off hostile shores.

These boats have also been battle tested. The USS _Florida _in particular launched at total of 93 Tomahawks during Operation Odyssey Dawn (the campaign to take down Qaddafi in Libya),with 90 of the missiles being successful against their intended targets. Other SSGNs and their crews have received high honors, including the Battle Efficiency Award and the Meritorious Unit Commendation, since being converted over from Boomers.






Currently, the SSGNs are slated to serve into the next decade, at which time they will be retired in the order in which they were added to the fleet originally. By that time, The USS _Ohio _will be over 40 years old.

There is no replacement in sight for these awesome machines as the Navy struggles to even replace its 14 newer _Ohio-c_lass boats that continue to act in the nuclear attack role. The solution for replacing the SSGNs as it sits now will be for an enlarged _Virginia-_class, each packing 40 cruise missiles and far less SEALs then their _Ohio-_class counterparts. Although this may help diffuse some of the Navy’s conventional sub-launched cruise missiles to more boats that can be in more places at any given time, it does not replace the incredible striking or special operations power of the an _Ohio-_class SSGN.






There is always the chance that the current SSGN fleet will have their lives prolonged again, or that newer _Ohio-_class boats will be similarly converted when their SSBN replacements are finally available, but this remains highly doubtful. The last boat of the class, The USS _Louisiana_(SSBN-743) was commissioned in 1997, and by the time it has a replacement it may also be over 40 years old.

Until the last of its kind is de-fueled and scrapped, the ‘second chance’ _Ohio-_class SSGNs will remain the most flexible, sneaky, survivable and hard hitting conventional weapons and special operations platforms on the planet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

*Marines Begin Final Checks For F-35B IOC; ‘On Track’ For End Of July*

WASHINGTON: A select group of 12 Marines in Yuma, Ariz. began testing the first squadron of F-35B pilots, inspecting their aircraft and checking maintenance procedures and personnel yesterday as the end game for declaring Initial Operating Capability for the aircraft before the end of July.

“Initial operating capability (IOC) for the Marine Corps F-35B is still on track to take place by the end of July,” Marine spokesman Maj. Paul Greenberg said in an email. The experts at Yuma “will determine if the squadron and their aircraft are ready for contingency deployment use at IOC. We expect this inspection to take about one week,” Greenberg said.

The squadron survey will include operational flights with weapons in each of the five required mission areas, as well as a capstone surge day at the end of the process during which every pilot will either fly an F-35B or fly a simulator.






As a reminder, here is the official standard for declaring Marine IOC:

“Marine Corps F-35B IOC shall be declared when the first operational squadron is equipped with 10-16 aircraft, and US Marines are trained, manned, and equipped to conduct CAS, Offensive and Defensive Counter Air, Air Interdiction, Assault Support Escort, and Armed Reconnaissance in concert with Marine Air Ground Task Force resources and capabilities.”

It’s worth remembering — note to Sen. Kelly Ayotte and friends — that Close Air Support is the primary mission for the Marine F-35 and that the Marines must demonstrate it meets that requirement.

Once the inspections and tests are done, Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, head of Marine aviation, will make his recommendation about whether to declare IOC to outgoing Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford, who will make the final decision.

Davis told USNI News his greatest concern right now is whether the squadron will have enough spare parts on hand. This is part of a general problem the Marines have. In May, Davis told reporters that some 158 Marine aircraft — 19 percent — were not ready for operations at any given time. “It’s way too high. It’s way too high,” Davis said then. Here’s a rough breakdown for the 158 aircraft: most are CH-53E helicopters; 20 F-18s; 22 Harriers; and the rest are V-22s and H-1s. And now he’s adding F-35Bs to the fleet.

Given the enormous angst over the last five years about whether the F-35B would meet its basic operational requirements — let alone possess enough reliability and capability to go to war, which is the IOC standard — being able to worry about mundane matters like having enough spare parts on hand is a fairly remarkable turnaround.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*JAGM Goes Two for Two in Latest Flight Tests*
SEAPOWER Magazine Online

ORLANDO, Fla. — Lockheed Martin has demonstrated its multi-mode Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM), engaging two laser-designated stationary targets during recent government-led flight tests at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., the company announced in a July 13 release.

In the first test, the missile flew 4 kilometers, engaged its precision-strike, semi-active laser and hit the stationary target. During the second flight, the missile flew 4 kilometers, acquired the target using its precision strike, semi-active laser while simultaneously tracking the target with its millimeter wave radar, and hit the stationary target.

“These flight tests demonstrate the maturity of Lockheed Martin’s JAGM design and prove our risk-mitigation success and readiness for production,” said Frank St. John, vice president of Tactical Missiles and Combat Maneuver Systems at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. “Our innovative, affordable JAGM solution will provide operational flexibility and combat effectiveness, keeping the warfighter ahead of the threat.”

The risk-reduction flight tests are critical to Lockheed Martin’s performance on the U.S. Army’s Continued Technology Development program in providing warfighters with enhanced accuracy and increased survivability against stationary and moving targets in all weather conditions.

Lockheed Martin recently submitted its JAGM Engineering and Manufacturing Development and Low-Rate Initial Production proposal to the U.S. Army. Contract award is expected later this year.

Lockheed Martin’s JAGM will be manufactured on existing production lines. The modularity and open architecture of the company’s JAGM design readily support a low-risk path to a tri-mode seeker, should the Army’s Incremental Acquisition Strategy require it in the future.

*NATO Wargame Proves Better Networks Needed To Deter Russia*





_A Croatian soldier and a Minnesota National Guardsman train together for Afghanistan in Hohenfels, Germany._

WASHINGTON: At a recent wargame in Germany, slow communications between the US and an allied unit meant we would have killed our own allies.

We saw “what happens when we don’t get it right” the Army Vice-Chief of Staff said last week. When an allied unit called for artillery support, Gen. Daniel Allyn said that “by the time that call made it through the system, [it] took 30 minutes, because we did _not_ have interoperability right.” When the artillery finally opened fire on the enemy position, he went on, the allied troops had already assaulted it — which meant the barrage came down on _them_. “We had a fratricide scenario,” said Allyn.

“So am I satisfied with where we are on interoperability?” Allyn said. “I am not, and I will tell you our allies and partners aren’t either.”

Russia’s potent electronic warfare capability to “jam or disrupt or intercept” communications makes it especially critical that those networks be secure and resilient, Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges told reporters yesterday.”If there is a crisis anywhere in Europe,” the commander of US Army Europe said, “American soldiers will be fighting alongside allies. We’ll be mixed together” — with small US units under allied command and vice versa — “so you’ve got to be able speak _securely_ on FM [radio], you’ve got to have digital communications that are interoperable.”

This is not a new problem for the allies. In the 2011 air war over Libya, French pilots gave up on getting targeting data from American Predators, because the American systems took too long to clear that intelligence for its release to the allies and to get it to them. In Afghanistan, the US and NATO eventually built a compatible system — the Afghanistan Mission Network — that all the nations participating could use. But that took years.

The goal, said Lt. Gen. Hodges, is to get Afghanistan-level interoperability without Afghanistan-level prep time. Nations need to be able to connect to the network “on much shorter notice,” he said, “plug and play.”

Both US Army Europe and US Army Pacific have pushed hard to get interoperability. But it’s the European front that is most active. As part of the Operation Atlantic Resolve effort to reassure allies and partners in the face of Russian aggression, a single US unit, the 173rd Airborne Brigade, has conducted operations in 22 countries with 30 different partner nations.

“It’s happening everywhere, but to me the bright spots are the work that’s being done in Hohenfels,” said Brig. Gen. Willard Burleson, who heads the Army’s Mission Command Center of Excellence. “They may have 16 countries in there for a training rotation [at the same time],” Burleson told me and my colleague Joe Gould. “They do it day in and day out, [and] they’ve been able to take that intellectual heavy lifting and then proliferate it” across Europe.

The long-term solution is supposed to be something called the Mission Partner Environment. MPE, in turn, will build on JIE, the Joint Information Environment. JIE is the US military’s internal effort to connect, rationalize, and protect its many disparate networks, and MPE will play a vital role in bringing that network to the battlefield.

“We don’t need to get it perfect, we need to get it good enough and keep [improving],” saidLt. Gen. Mark Bowman, the Chief Information Officer (J-6) for the Joint Staff, at the AUSA conference. “People will say that the reason the Joint Information Environment isn’t good for us is because it doesn’t go to the tactical edge. Well, in fact, the Mission Partner Environment _is_ the tactical extension of the Joint Information Environment.”

MPE will get its workout in this year’s Network Integration Evaluation/Army Warfighting Assessment exercises, Bowman said, with 14 non-US partners involved.

The interim fix is BICES, the Battlefield Information Collection and Exploitation Systems. BICES is currently used by European Command, Africa Command (most of whose forces are based in Europe), and Central Command. (CENTCOM specifically uses it to help coordinate the Operation Inherent Resolve airstrikes in Syria and Iraq). Originally invented for NATO intelligence sharing, BICES now incorporates seven nations outside the alliance as well. For prospective partners who can’t afford BICES-compatible hardware, the US runs a “loan-lease” program that provides the necessary equipment.

But interoperable equipment is just part of the solution, Brig. Gen. Burleson emphasized. The human beings involved have to think in compatible ways as well. That includes both detailed procedures like calling for artillery fire and fundamental concepts of operation.

“It’s more than material,” Burleson said. “There’re cognitive, procedural, and then technical aspects. We’ve got to all be on the same cognitive framework, we’ve got to have procedures on how to do things, and _then_ there’s a technical solution.”

Above all, responding to unexpected crises around the world requires greater flexibility than Afghanistan or Iraq, let alone the Cold War. It requires a network that can connect NATO and non-NATO nations, Lt. Gen. Bowman said, in “a coalition that ebbs and flows, grows and shrinks, adding partners as we need to.” Instead of a lengthy set-up process like that required of partners in Afghanistan, he added, “we need them to be able to show up with their own kit and plug in.”

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fenrir

*Here's A Rare Glimpse Of The F-35A's Internal 25mm Cannon Firing*






This is not a view you get very often. It’s the F-35A’s GAU-22/A 25mm internal cannon opened up for the world to see its mechanical firing process, including the barrels hydraulically spinning up, the low-observable gun door and the vent door popping open. And of course lots of smoke and flames.






You can see a naked test of the F-35’s cannon below, along with all the bits and pieces that go with it, dated back to 2007. Based on the proven GAU-12/A 25mm cannon, used by the AV-8B Harrier, the LAV-AD amphibious vehicle and AC-130U Gunship, the F-35’s GAU-22/A has one less barrel than its predecessor. This saves weight and space so that the cannon could fit into the F-35A’s left shoulder and into a streamlined external gun pod destined for the F-35B and F-35C.






The choice of a 25mm cannon is a departure from America’s traditional use of the 20mm M61 Vulcan cannon in its fighters dating back to the F-104 Starfighter. The 25mm round hits much harder than the 20mm round, but it also fires at a slower rate (about half as slow at 3,000 rounds per minute) and because the 25mm round is larger, less rounds can be carried in a set volume.






For the F-35A, 180 rounds can be housed in the gun’s linkless ammunition handling system. For the F-35B and F-35C, they both rely on an external gun pod carrying the GAU-22. The gun pod can hold 220 rounds in a helical magazine that wraps around the gun’s barrels within the pod.






The F-35’s gun is not without some controversy as no version of the F-35 will not be able to employ any gun, podded or internal, until 2017. This is not due to the gun itself but is instead due to the lack of software, and its integration into the the jet’s hardware, such as the pilot’sHelmet Mounted Display, needed for aiming the gun precisely at its target.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

Technogaianist said:


> *Here's A Rare Glimpse Of The F-35A's Internal 25mm Cannon Firing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a view you get very often. It’s the F-35A’s GAU-22/A 25mm internal cannon opened up for the world to see its mechanical firing process, including the barrels hydraulically spinning up, the low-observable gun door and the vent door popping open. And of course lots of smoke and flames.
> 
> 
> 
> You can see a naked test of the F-35’s cannon below, along with all the bits and pieces that go with it, dated back to 2007. Based on the proven GAU-12/A 25mm cannon, used by the AV-8B Harrier, the LAV-AD amphibious vehicle and AC-130U Gunship, the F-35’s GAU-22/A has one less barrel than its predecessor. This saves weight and space so that the cannon could fit into the F-35A’s left shoulder and into a streamlined external gun pod destined for the F-35B and F-35C.
> 
> 
> 
> The choice of a 25mm cannon is a departure from America’s traditional use of the 20mm M61 Vulcan cannon in its fighters dating back to the F-104 Starfighter. The 25mm round hits much harder than the 20mm round, but it also fires at a slower rate (about half as slow at 3,000 rounds per minute) and because the 25mm round is larger, less rounds can be carried in a set volume.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the F-35A, 180 rounds can be housed in the gun’s linkless ammunition handling system. For the F-35B and F-35C, they both rely on an external gun pod carrying the GAU-22. The gun pod can hold 220 rounds in a helical magazine that wraps around the gun’s barrels within the pod.
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35’s gun is not without some controversy as no version of the F-35 will not be able to employ any gun, podded or internal, until 2017. This is not due to the gun itself but is instead due to the lack of software, and its integration into the the jet’s hardware, such as the pilot’sHelmet Mounted Display, needed for aiming the gun precisely at its target.



The APEX ammunition makes this even better

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2014armaments/Wed15439Sande.pdf

"Can't do CAS"


----------



## Fenrir



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fenrir



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fenrir




----------



## Fenrir



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fenrir



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fenrir

*Thar be wolves in them there waters


































*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Fenrir



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Fenrir

*Blue Angel #5's Near-Supersonic Sneak Pass Sent Beach Umbrellas Flying*






A beloved part of any Blue Angel’s demonstration is #5’s sneak pass at near supersonic speeds. Because Blue Angel #6 is distracting you, you don’t see it coming, and you definitely don’t hear it... Until it’s too late!

Here you can see the Hornet’s wing vortices at work as it creates a mini tornado that kicks up sand and lifts all types of beach gear into the air above Pensacola Beach.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fenrir




----------



## Fenrir

*



*Norge beste måten

*America's Capitol Is Guarded By Norwegian Surface-To-Air Missiles*






Every few years the Kremlin pounds their chest about their latest and greatest in surface to air missile (SAM) system, and how it's ready to protect Moscow. Yet even after the terrible events of 9/11 we really don't hear much about America's domestic surface to air missile-based air defense capabilities. That's because we mostly don't have any. But what about in Washington DC? Well, that's another story…

Over the last decade, a Hummer-mounted point air defense system that uses FIM-92 Stinger missiles and a 50 caliber machine gun, known as the Army's "Avenger" system, has become a common place fixture in and around Washington DC. This is true especially during times when the country is on high alert and they're hard to miss.






Look a little closer and you'll see the Avenger system is actually hard-mounted to the tops of buildings in key strategic areas around the city. This includes at least one Avenger turret overlooking the White House at a nearby building. Still, these are infrared guided, short range, "last line of defense" systems that pack fairly light warheads. What is there to counter heavier threats and those that are identified further out from Capitol Hill?






The Flight Restricted Zone, extending some 15 miles out from the center of Washington DC, along with Area51, are probably the two most famous airspace restrictions in the entire US, and maybe even the world. Multiple assets are used to monitor and enforce this sanitized bubble around the Capitol, from Quick Reaction Alert F-16s sitting "cocked and locked" at Andrews AFB, to Homeland Security helicopters with digital reader boards hanging out of their cabin doors (along with 50 caliber rifles for good measure).

This dynamic air interception capability has been tested many times, and it seems to be incredibly effective in almost all regards. Still, air defense systems are usually built in layers, from the outer rung, usually consisting of airborne intercept capable assets, to the final last ditch defense, such as the mobile and fixed Stinger positions around the Mall and the Pentagon.

To most people, these are the full extent of America's air defenses around Washington DC, but this leaves out a key middle layer in air defense capability that covers the vast majority of the restricted zone regardless of the vector of the target, its physical size or its force in numbers. This layer is quietly provided for by the National Advanced Surface To Air Missile System, or NASAMS for short, a product produced by Kongsberg Defense & Aerospace of Norway.






NASAMS is a very scaleable and capable intermediate range air defense system, developed directly from the AIM-120 AMRAAM series of radar guided air to air missiles. The missiles themselves are called SLAMRAAMS (Surface Launched Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile), or at least they were when the program was in active development in the US before it was cancelled. Although the SLAMRAAM is based directly on the hugely successful AIM-120 medium range air to air missile, it loses an incredible amount of range via its potential energy disadvantage in comparison with its fighter jet launched cousin. Range estimates are anywhere from 8-20 miles depending on what direction, speed and altitude the target is at in relation to the missile's launch location. Additionally, these figures are usually downgraded publicly to protect the missile's true range capabilities.

Although the SLAMRAAM did not find a customer for widespread US military use, it did find customers in Europe. Following the attacks of September 11th, 2001, the once passed over weapon system became the perfect solution to persistently "patrol" the skies (from the ground) around the FRZ. The NASAMS "sixpack" SLAMRRAAM box-launchers, and their semi-permanent surrounding infrastructure. began to pop up around the Washington DC area 2005. These systems were in no way hidden from view, with multiple sites being located in suburban areas or directly off major roadways, and always close to major targets that the terror-lunatics would love to hit.






NASAMS is actually built as its own modular integrated air defense system (IADS), with multiple sensors, including radar and electro-optical, placed in multiple locations around a region. These sensors feed a command and control suite via data link with a high-fidelity overall picture of the airspace around the NASAMS network. From here the launchers, also distributed around a region, can be activated against enemy targets. Additionally, being modular by design, NASAMS can also integrate itself seamlessly into a larger integrated air defense system, of which Washington DC has one of the best in the world. In other words, NASAMS does not just rely on its own radar system or electro-optical targeting capabilities, it can also use external "feeds" from other radar and electronic service measure type systems to target and engage hostile aircraft, including accessing a MIDS/Link16 data link environment. NASAMS' ability to integrate itself info a common "fused" multiple sensor "picture" of the airspace around it also allows for a more redundant and higher resolution capability to detect and engage targets under even the most challenging of circumstances.

The Norwegian version of NASAMS has been widely deployed with great success, and the system is already in its second generational iteration, with a third, based on the Navy's very deadly and compact Evolved Sea Sparrow, right around the corner. NASAMS brings a radar guided weapon system to the menu of air defense options ringing our capitol, which could be highly beneficial when defending it against advanced enemy trespassers, or a possible (but hopefully unlikely) scenario where multiple aircraft of various flight profiles are involved in a single attack.

These missiles have caused some concern in the neighborhoods where they are installed, yet even in a country where "not in my backyard" is increasingly becoming a national slogan, it seems that most of the people living and working around these suburban guardians understand that although having armed rockets in your area may be unsettling, their obvious utility seems to outweigh most people's superficial concerns. Still, it is hard for some people to really accept the fact that their own government may have to choose to shoot down an airliner full of their own countrymen in the interest of the greater good.






Often times we read stories about Noble Eagle pilots, those who fly air sovereignty missions in defense of our air space after 9/11, and how they deal with the possibility of having to one day use their potent weapon system to do the unthinkable. Yet, it is a good thing for Americans to understand that this daunting task is not just in the hands of our "flying knights" of modern day, but it also sits in the hands of those who operate the NASAMS surface to air missile systems, and the integrated air defense system that supports its targeting.

These silent warriors have a huge and necessary responsibility, from protecting Air Force 1 on the ground to our major intelligence installations, and they could get called upon in an instant to "neutralize" an incoming threat, at which point the grim task of firing would be clear. If an airplane, possibly filled with Americans, was on a hijacked route heading directly to CIA headquarters, or any other strategic installation, the choice to fire is obvious as either way the plane will most likely end up destroyed, while NASAMS could potentially save the lives of many living and working in and around the targeted facility.






It is encouraging to see NASAMS on American soil, as it shows that the DoD is making sure that an attack like what happened to the Pentagon well over a decade ago never happens again. Such a system deters our would-be enemies from attempting to use an airliner full of innocent Americans as means of attacking our most sacred and important facilities, and it also shows residents around Washington DC that the DoD are ready and waiting should a real aerial threat rear its ugly head again.

Although the NASAMS may have a very limited place in America's vast military inventory, it is clearly a relevant, flexible, affordable and capable system for the incredibly high stakes job of protecting our most sensitive and cherished installations, landmarks and personnel.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

Excellent lecture about the Ford-class CVN design


----------



## AMDR

*Navy adds $155M contract for electronic warfare systems*
Navy adds $155M contract for electronic warfare systems -- Defense Systems

The Navy is continuing to expand its upgrades of electronic warfare systems aboard the fleet’s ships, most recently with a $154.9 millioncontract modification awarded to Lockheed Martin.

The modification, announced July 10, is to a maximum $158.8 million contract awarded in September 2014 to Lockheed for low-rate initial production of Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program Block 2 systems. The award follows another contract given in late June to Lockheed under the SEWIP program, that one for $8 million, with options that could take its value to $59 million.

SEWIP was started in 2002 to provide a series of refreshes to upgrade and replace the Navy’s AN/SLQ-32 electronic warfare systems, which date to the 1970s and currently are out of production. The upgrades come in blocks that, in addition to replacing the AN/SQL-32, add capabilities. Each block has different designations within it, depending on its capabilities.

SEWIP Block 2, for example, provides improved electronic support receivers and combat system interface and upgrades the systems’ receiver/antenna group. The contract awarded in June was for systems under Block 1—developed by General Dynamics, which also produced the AN/SQ-32—which boosts anti-ship missile defense, counter targeting and counter surveillance, and is in full-rate production.

Block 3, being developed jointly by Lockheed and Raytheon, will add an electronic attack capability and ensure that all ships have the same attack capability. Eventually Block 4 will add advanced electro-optical and infrared capabilities.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fenrir

*Think An Osprey Is A Transformer In The Air? Check It Out On The Ground!*






The Osprey really is a transformer in more ways than one. It may dazzle at air shows by being able to land and take off like a helicopter and cruise like a turboprop fixed wing plane, but folding and unfolding for storage is the real show stopper.






Seeing an aircraft’s entire wing, engine nacelles, flaps and even the propellers swivel and fold may seem insane in its complexity, but it really it’s not. The V-22 was built for the USMC primarily and as such it has to be easily stored in a similar footprint as its tandem-rotor predecessor, the CH-46 Phrog. As such, the half plane, half helicopter has to turn into a very tight package at the push of a button.






The truth is, the MV-22 is a more inefficient and complex machine than it would need to be if it didn’t have to operate off of amphibious assault ships.

Even the aircraft’s propellers are not nearly as efficient as the could be because of the space limitations associated with operating aboard an Landing Helicopter Dock or other class of amphibious assault ship. This is something Bell wants to make right with its V-280 Valor envisioned for the U.S. Army.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## F-22Raptor

Technogaianist said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> *Norge beste måten
> 
> *America's Capitol Is Guarded By Norwegian Surface-To-Air Missiles*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every few years the Kremlin pounds their chest about their latest and greatest in surface to air missile (SAM) system, and how it's ready to protect Moscow. Yet even after the terrible events of 9/11 we really don't hear much about America's domestic surface to air missile-based air defense capabilities. That's because we mostly don't have any. But what about in Washington DC? Well, that's another story…
> 
> Over the last decade, a Hummer-mounted point air defense system that uses FIM-92 Stinger missiles and a 50 caliber machine gun, known as the Army's "Avenger" system, has become a common place fixture in and around Washington DC. This is true especially during times when the country is on high alert and they're hard to miss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look a little closer and you'll see the Avenger system is actually hard-mounted to the tops of buildings in key strategic areas around the city. This includes at least one Avenger turret overlooking the White House at a nearby building. Still, these are infrared guided, short range, "last line of defense" systems that pack fairly light warheads. What is there to counter heavier threats and those that are identified further out from Capitol Hill?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Flight Restricted Zone, extending some 15 miles out from the center of Washington DC, along with Area51, are probably the two most famous airspace restrictions in the entire US, and maybe even the world. Multiple assets are used to monitor and enforce this sanitized bubble around the Capitol, from Quick Reaction Alert F-16s sitting "cocked and locked" at Andrews AFB, to Homeland Security helicopters with digital reader boards hanging out of their cabin doors (along with 50 caliber rifles for good measure).
> 
> This dynamic air interception capability has been tested many times, and it seems to be incredibly effective in almost all regards. Still, air defense systems are usually built in layers, from the outer rung, usually consisting of airborne intercept capable assets, to the final last ditch defense, such as the mobile and fixed Stinger positions around the Mall and the Pentagon.
> 
> To most people, these are the full extent of America's air defenses around Washington DC, but this leaves out a key middle layer in air defense capability that covers the vast majority of the restricted zone regardless of the vector of the target, its physical size or its force in numbers. This layer is quietly provided for by the National Advanced Surface To Air Missile System, or NASAMS for short, a product produced by Kongsberg Defense & Aerospace of Norway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NASAMS is a very scaleable and capable intermediate range air defense system, developed directly from the AIM-120 AMRAAM series of radar guided air to air missiles. The missiles themselves are called SLAMRAAMS (Surface Launched Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile), or at least they were when the program was in active development in the US before it was cancelled. Although the SLAMRAAM is based directly on the hugely successful AIM-120 medium range air to air missile, it loses an incredible amount of range via its potential energy disadvantage in comparison with its fighter jet launched cousin. Range estimates are anywhere from 8-20 miles depending on what direction, speed and altitude the target is at in relation to the missile's launch location. Additionally, these figures are usually downgraded publicly to protect the missile's true range capabilities.
> 
> Although the SLAMRAAM did not find a customer for widespread US military use, it did find customers in Europe. Following the attacks of September 11th, 2001, the once passed over weapon system became the perfect solution to persistently "patrol" the skies (from the ground) around the FRZ. The NASAMS "sixpack" SLAMRRAAM box-launchers, and their semi-permanent surrounding infrastructure. began to pop up around the Washington DC area 2005. These systems were in no way hidden from view, with multiple sites being located in suburban areas or directly off major roadways, and always close to major targets that the terror-lunatics would love to hit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NASAMS is actually built as its own modular integrated air defense system (IADS), with multiple sensors, including radar and electro-optical, placed in multiple locations around a region. These sensors feed a command and control suite via data link with a high-fidelity overall picture of the airspace around the NASAMS network. From here the launchers, also distributed around a region, can be activated against enemy targets. Additionally, being modular by design, NASAMS can also integrate itself seamlessly into a larger integrated air defense system, of which Washington DC has one of the best in the world. In other words, NASAMS does not just rely on its own radar system or electro-optical targeting capabilities, it can also use external "feeds" from other radar and electronic service measure type systems to target and engage hostile aircraft, including accessing a MIDS/Link16 data link environment. NASAMS' ability to integrate itself info a common "fused" multiple sensor "picture" of the airspace around it also allows for a more redundant and higher resolution capability to detect and engage targets under even the most challenging of circumstances.
> 
> The Norwegian version of NASAMS has been widely deployed with great success, and the system is already in its second generational iteration, with a third, based on the Navy's very deadly and compact Evolved Sea Sparrow, right around the corner. NASAMS brings a radar guided weapon system to the menu of air defense options ringing our capitol, which could be highly beneficial when defending it against advanced enemy trespassers, or a possible (but hopefully unlikely) scenario where multiple aircraft of various flight profiles are involved in a single attack.
> 
> These missiles have caused some concern in the neighborhoods where they are installed, yet even in a country where "not in my backyard" is increasingly becoming a national slogan, it seems that most of the people living and working around these suburban guardians understand that although having armed rockets in your area may be unsettling, their obvious utility seems to outweigh most people's superficial concerns. Still, it is hard for some people to really accept the fact that their own government may have to choose to shoot down an airliner full of their own countrymen in the interest of the greater good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Often times we read stories about Noble Eagle pilots, those who fly air sovereignty missions in defense of our air space after 9/11, and how they deal with the possibility of having to one day use their potent weapon system to do the unthinkable. Yet, it is a good thing for Americans to understand that this daunting task is not just in the hands of our "flying knights" of modern day, but it also sits in the hands of those who operate the NASAMS surface to air missile systems, and the integrated air defense system that supports its targeting.
> 
> These silent warriors have a huge and necessary responsibility, from protecting Air Force 1 on the ground to our major intelligence installations, and they could get called upon in an instant to "neutralize" an incoming threat, at which point the grim task of firing would be clear. If an airplane, possibly filled with Americans, was on a hijacked route heading directly to CIA headquarters, or any other strategic installation, the choice to fire is obvious as either way the plane will most likely end up destroyed, while NASAMS could potentially save the lives of many living and working in and around the targeted facility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is encouraging to see NASAMS on American soil, as it shows that the DoD is making sure that an attack like what happened to the Pentagon well over a decade ago never happens again. Such a system deters our would-be enemies from attempting to use an airliner full of innocent Americans as means of attacking our most sacred and important facilities, and it also shows residents around Washington DC that the DoD are ready and waiting should a real aerial threat rear its ugly head again.
> 
> Although the NASAMS may have a very limited place in America's vast military inventory, it is clearly a relevant, flexible, affordable and capable system for the incredibly high stakes job of protecting our most sensitive and cherished installations, landmarks and personnel.



Excellent article! Welcome back BTW!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

*LCS: Production Surges, Price Drops*






_LCS-9, the future USS Little Rock, awaits launch._

Once, the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship was a nightmare of cost overruns, schedule slips, and design flaws. That was especially true of Lockheed Martin’s LCS-1, the _Freedom_, with its hull cracks and electrical failures. Eight ships later, the design is fixed and the price has dropped by a third .

Production is moving at such a pace and has become so routine that Lockheed’s vice-president for LCS, Joe North, sometimes forgets which ship comes next.

“We’re up here this week [for] the launch of LCS-11, which is the future USS _Sioux City_ — I’m sorry, LCS-9, which is the USS _Little Rock_,” North said, chagrined, in a conference call from Marinette. “_Later_ this year, we will be launching LCS-11, which is _Sioux City_.”

Losing track is understandable. “We currently have seven ships in production up here,” North told reporters. LCS-9 will launch this Saturday and LCS-11 later this year. Work is well underway on LCS-13 and -15, while it has just started on LCS-17 is under production. LCS-19 and -21 are under contract, and Lockheed expects a contract for LCS-23 soon. (Even-numbered LCS are built by Austal in Alabama, which uses a completely different design).

The cost is currently about $358 million for the _Freedom_ version and headed down to a low of $348.5 million. (Note these figures are for the ship itself and don’t include military equipment, such as weapons, that the government purchases separately, which can add over $100 million). The price has dropped steeply since the mismanaged early days of the program, when the Navy changed the design of LCS-1 and -2 midway through construction. Now the price is starting to level out. Costs will eventually climb back up slightly: After years of making LCS manufacture more efficient, the shipyard is reaching diminishing returns, while inflation in labor and materials is beginning to catch up.






So what’s unique about LCS-9? The future _Little Rock _is the first Lockheed LCS to be built entirely in Marinette’s revamped facilities. When Marinette was bought in 2008 by Fincantieri — on whose civilian designs the Lockheed LCS is based — the Italian company committed to a $73.5 million investment in the shipyard, parts of which dated to World War II. The more streamlined manufactured process reduces the distance ship components travel through the yard by eight miles, North said.

LCS-5 and LCS-7 were built as the yard was renovated around them, which some work done in the old facilities and some in the new. LCS-9 was built entirely in the new.

“The one thing we will not to do is…break production,” said North, “because we’ve already bid these ships and we already have contracts in place for them.” That means keeping the design the same — and resisting any urges to “improve” it that might increase cost or impose delay.

That said, the Navy is looking at an upgunned, upgraded, and more expensive variant of the LCS, designated a frigate. The current plan is for 32 of the existing LCS designs and 20 LCS frigates, but there’s considerable interest in cherry-picking some of the frigate’s improvements and adding them to the original-model LCS.

North made clear, however, that such upgrades would not be allowed to interfere with ongoing production: They “would probably be [done] in a backfit mode once we’re done and delivered here,” he said.

Lockheed is already looking at how to modify its LCS into the frigate design — but the details of what weapons and other equipment it has to carry are still being decided by the Navy. “We’re working…on cost and weight reductions to account for the fact that you’re going to get rid of large open module areas and fill them in” with new systems, North said. “They’re supposed to have final definition later this year [and] tell us what their final selection of systems is.”

*US Army is Considering Hollow-Point Bullets to Go with New Pistol*
US Army is Considering Hollow-Point Bullets to Go with New Pistol | Military.com

The U.S. Army's plan to replace the M9 9mm pistol could result in the large-scale adoption of hollow-point pistol ammunition -- a move the U.S. military has refused to even consider for more than 100 years.

The Pentagon's devotion to full-metal jacket, or ball ammunition, is the result of a 116-year-old guideline in the 1899 Hague Convention that prohibits combat units from using bullets that "expand or flatten easily" inside the human body.

The declaration was ratified by all major powers, except the United States, but the Pentagon has used it as the legal standard to rule out any ammunition other than ball for use in sidearms.

This mindset is changing, however, since the recent release of the Army's draft solicitation for the Modular Handgun System cites a new Defense Department policy that allows for the use of "special purpose ammunition."

"Federal, state, local and military law enforcement elements routinely use expanding and fragmenting ammunition in their handguns due to the increased capability it provides against threats," Program Executive Office Soldier spokeswoman Debi Dawson told Military.com.

The policy was discussed at the fourth MHS industry day held recently at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J., according to Dawson in a news release.

"Expanding the XM-17 Modular Handgun competition to include special purpose ammunition will provide the warfighter with a more accurate and lethal handgun," Richard Jackson, Special Assistant to the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General for Law of War, told attendees according to the release.

In the past, specialized ammunition approval has been granted only if the requirement passes a legal review. This means that the military has had to get creative at times when it describes what it needs.

Tier-1, special-mission units under U.S. Special Operations Command are authorized to use jacketed hollow-point bullets instead of standard ball. To do this, these elite units had to be classified as counterterrorism forces, a legal distinction that allows them to use the same hollow-point ammo used by all law enforcement agencies.

Army weapons officials plan to open the official competition next year with the goal of awarding a contract to a single gun maker for nearly 300,000 new pistols by 2018.

One of the major goals of the MHS effort is to adopt a pistol chambered for a more potent round than the current 9mm, weapons officials said. The U.S. military replaced the .45 caliber 1911 pistol with the M9 in 1985 and began using the 9mm NATO round at that time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fenrir

*The Navy's P-8 Poseidon Spotted Packing Mysterious New Pod*






The P-8 Poseidon is quickly becoming the Pentagon’s super-adaptable multi-role surveillance platform of choice. We know it can pack one of the most advanced radar systems in the world, slung under its belly in a huge canoe-like enclosure. Now, another previously unknown external ‘plug and play’ capability for the P-8 appears to be in testing.

This new pod was photographed during a P-8 test flight out of Boeing Field in Seattle by aviation photographer Josh Kaiser. As you can see, it is made up of an antenna farm and housing that can be attached and detached from the P-8’s forward underbelly.






It is unclear what this pod’s exact purpose is, but it is worth a guess . It could very well be a modular communications intelligence gathering package that will allow the P-8 to pick up some of the slack for the USAF’s RC-135 and U-2 (in Senior Spear configuration) fleets, as well as the Navy’s own secretive EP-3 Aries cadre among other smaller platforms. Such a capability will allow the P-8 to eavesdrop on potential foes communications in a way in which linguists can translate those intercepts in real-time or in near real-time. Using satellite communications, there is a possibility that those linguists may not be on the jet at all, and could even be halfway around the globe.

Another possibility is that this system is the P-8’s version of a “network gateway” system that will give it similar bolt-on capabilities as other aircraft equipped with Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) suites. BACN is flying on the EQ-4, E-11A and NASA’s WB-57s, even the KC-135 can deploy simpler and less capable ‘roll-on, roll-off’ unit that accomplishes some of BACN’s basic mission. BACN is one of America’s most powerful force multipliers. It creates an active net over the entire battlefield, far over the horizon, and even at ground level. It also allows different weapon systems that carry various types of data-links, which transmit on their own waveform, to have their situational awareness “pictures” fused into one single common shared picture of battlespace. This single, fused picture is then rebroadcast by BACN on all those same waveforms.






BACN can also facilitate satellite communications, even between units on the ground and command and control centers halfway around the globe. Think of it as a universal translator, data-fusion center and broadcasting facilitator that flies high up in the sky. You can read more about BACN here and in relation to the F-22 Raptor here.

Whatever this new pod is or is not, it’s just another example of how adaptable a modern maritime patrol aircraft can be, although it does bring up the question of how crews can be trained to accomplish so many missions with limited flight time.

Performing the majority of the permissive airspace rainbow of reconnaissance missions and having to be well versed in chasing enemy submarines, monitoring sea traffic and attacking ships seems like a lot to put on one crew. In addition, the P-8 may find itself loitering high over the dry battlefield collecting intelligence and providing close air support one day in the future.Hopefully the Navy will provide separate “back-end” crews for these more exotic missions so that maritime patrol crews don’t become so overwhelmed with so many missions that their proficiency in any one of them drops well below optimal.






The P-8 is turning into a very useful tool, one that has just begun its career at that. It has made constant news, from going where others couldn’t in the search for MH370, to challenging the Chinese and their ambiguous air space restrictions. But we have to remember, it is replacing America’s sub-hunting and sea control staple, the P-3 Orion, not augmenting it. Considering the threat from enemy submarines is only growing, as well as the complexity of maritime military affairs abroad, we can’t take our eye off the basic mission set that the aircraft was originally bought for.

The truth of the matter is, you can have the most flexible aerial asset of all time, able to do highly different missions on a whim, but it can only be in one place at a time, and that is usually sitting on the ground. As such, force structure needs to expanded to accomplish all these missions with a common platform, or something will have to give, and that something will be the P-8 community’s bread and butter missions of sea control, anti-surface warfare and anti-submarine warfare.

Regardless of these issues, it is still awesome to wonder what Boeing and the Navy will bolt onto the their beloved weaponized 737 next.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*US Army wants to send small, cheap satellites to space*
US Army wants to send small, cheap satellites to space






The military has been conjuring up one idea after another in an effort to improve its personnel's ability to communicate, such as putting LTE on a ship and launching a WiFi router to space. This time, the US Army is in the midst of testing nanosatellites that will provide coverage for soldiers' radios wherever they are. The Army's having trouble providing a means of communication between soldiers in rural areas, and these small satellites called SMDC-ONE (ONE stands for Orbital Nanosatellite Effect) can solve that issue. "It's basically a cellphone tower in space," Dr. Travis Taylor, a senior scientist of the Army's space division said, "except it's not for cellphones, it's for Army radios." His team made sure SMDC-ONEs are tough enough to survive harsh conditions, but since the devices are small, they could still be displaced by space junk or ruined by adverse space weather.

The agency needs around 12 of these small satellites orbiting the Earth to get the coverage it wants, but it's not going to be easy making that happen. Aside from launches being really costly, the scientists can't put a conventional rocket motor on the SMDC-ONEs, because they might explode and take the rest of a rocket's payload with them. Those rocket motors are necessary for the devices to be able to propel themselves to the right orbit -- that's why Taylor and his team designed a new one using a plastic printer (see image below) and filling it with liquid nitric oxide and a sparker. The plastic and propellant combust together once the sparkler's lit, but this design's apparently safe enough to be loaded onto a rocket.

In addition, the Army's also designing an imaging nanosatellite that's a bit larger than the one for communications. It will be able to generate images with a ground resolution of two to three meters, enough to tell if there's a tank on the way. It hasn't been tested yet, though it's scheduled to be launched from the ISS in February next year. As we mentioned, though, the SMDC-ONE has already been tested; in fact, one is orbiting the planet right now. If all goes well, the Army will launch a few more units this year and the next until there are 12 or more out there circling the Earth.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fenrir

AMDR said:


> *US Army wants to send small, cheap satellites to space*
> US Army wants to send small, cheap satellites to space
> 
> View attachment 238975
> 
> 
> The military has been conjuring up one idea after another in an effort to improve its personnel's ability to communicate, such as putting LTE on a ship and launching a WiFi router to space. This time, the US Army is in the midst of testing nanosatellites that will provide coverage for soldiers' radios wherever they are. The Army's having trouble providing a means of communication between soldiers in rural areas, and these small satellites called SMDC-ONE (ONE stands for Orbital Nanosatellite Effect) can solve that issue. "It's basically a cellphone tower in space," Dr. Travis Taylor, a senior scientist of the Army's space division said, "except it's not for cellphones, it's for Army radios." His team made sure SMDC-ONEs are tough enough to survive harsh conditions, but since the devices are small, they could still be displaced by space junk or ruined by adverse space weather.
> 
> The agency needs around 12 of these small satellites orbiting the Earth to get the coverage it wants, but it's not going to be easy making that happen. Aside from launches being really costly, the scientists can't put a conventional rocket motor on the SMDC-ONEs, because they might explode and take the rest of a rocket's payload with them. Those rocket motors are necessary for the devices to be able to propel themselves to the right orbit -- that's why Taylor and his team designed a new one using a plastic printer (see image below) and filling it with liquid nitric oxide and a sparker. The plastic and propellant combust together once the sparkler's lit, but this design's apparently safe enough to be loaded onto a rocket.
> 
> In addition, the Army's also designing an imaging nanosatellite that's a bit larger than the one for communications. It will be able to generate images with a ground resolution of two to three meters, enough to tell if there's a tank on the way. It hasn't been tested yet, though it's scheduled to be launched from the ISS in February next year. As we mentioned, though, the SMDC-ONE has already been tested; in fact, one is orbiting the planet right now. If all goes well, the Army will launch a few more units this year and the next until there are 12 or more out there circling the Earth.



A good idea, but I wonder why a cheap, high volume launch platform isn't being developed in conjunction with smaller satellites? In the event of a counter-satellite activity during war, the US will need to replace its comms sats quickly and cheaply, but with existing rockets such as Arteries and Minotaur that can't be done.

This use to be the realm of Blue Scout (I, II, and junior), and to be fair I don't know the current standard, but a cheap, expendable, high-volume of launch system should be developed for mass launches during times of crisis.






Rockets and Missiles

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

Technogaianist said:


> but I wonder why a cheap, high volume launch platform isn't being developed in conjunction with smaller satellites?


DARPA to the rescue

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fenrir

*Watch The USS Little Rock Take The Plunge Of Her Life*






Lockheed Martin officially launched the Navy’s 9th Littoral Combat Ship, the USS _Little Rock _(LCS-9). The almost violent side-launching affair took place yesterday at Marionette Marine’s ship-building facility along the Menominee River in Wisconsin. The occasion included all the typical ship launching fanfare, including broken bottles of champagne and politician’s speeches.






The name USS_ Little Rock_ is fairly well known in naval circles. Its predecessor, the USS _Little Rock _(CL-92), was a valiant ship with multiple lives. It was born a light cruiser towards the end of WWII and then decommissioned in 1949. It was later brought back into service and converted into a guided missile cruiser in 1960, after which the _Little Rock_ served till 1976, often times as the Sixth Fleet Flagship. Today, that USS _Little Rock_ is a museum ship in Buffalo. You can bet that there is a meeting of the _Little Rocks _of old and of new in the works.






The LCS-9 still has the better part of a year’s work left to be done and testing to complete before she becomes an active player for the U.S. Navy, at which time she will be deployed for long periods to Singapore. Eventually, four Littoral Combat Ships will be continuously deployed there as part of the Department of Defense’s “pivot toward the Pacific” and to monitor and attempt to counter balance China’s growing claims on the South China Sea.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

*New 'cyber college' to train airmen on cyber challenges*
New 'cyber college' to train airmen on cyber challenges

Airmen may soon take cybersecurity classes as part of a new school designed to bring the Air Force's digital abilities to the cutting edge.

"Ultimately, when we're fully capable, every airmen will have access to content on cyber education that makes them aware of the world around them and their goal of being problem solvers," said Lt. Gen. Steven Kwast, who's heading up the endeavor.

On June 2, Kwast, commander of Air University at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, made public the plans to create a "cyber college" to expand the education and training available to airmen.

A few days later, the federal government announced it was the victim of one of the largest data breaches in history, with hackers getting personal information on millions of Americans.

"It just reinforces the fact that we as a society, and really we as a world, have grown dependent on cyber," Kwast told Air Force Times. "Those dependencies can create vulnerabilities that we have to be able to defend against."

Kwast hopes the new cyber college will help lead the Air Force's answer to that growing cyber threat.

"The purpose of Air University is to help educate airmen for the defense of this nation," he said. "As we move from an Industrial Age world to a Digital Age world, educating the workforce on how to integrate, respond rapidly, find solutions in the cyber realm is critical."

Professor Anthony Skjellum of nearby Auburn University said "there can't be enough smart cyber people and folks working directly for the armed services."

"They need to be the leaders because it's a constant threat," said Skjellum, Auburn's lead cyber scientist and a professor of computer science and engineering.

It's important for every single member of the military to have a grasp of cyber threats, he added.

"Your weakest link is what gets you," Skjellum said. "It goes all the way down to the secretary's computer -- that can be a vector for attack."

As the world becomes increasingly digital, so too does the training.

"When people hear 'cyber college,' they're thinking how many students, how many teachers, how many classrooms," Kwast said.

The idea, however, is to have a range of educational options available – including online courses airmen can access from around the world.

Plus, rather than having a set program where everyone in a classroom is studying the same thing, Kwast said each airman will be able to study the things that are relevant to his or her job and mission.

"We live in a world where we can tailor-make the curriculum for the individual needs of that specific airman," Kwast said. "The new airmen that comes in, if they're going to be a cyber-expert, their education is going to be very different then someone who's going to be a pilot…The curriculum will be as flexible as cyber is diverse."

That education, Kwast hopes, will change some of the current mindset about cybersecurity issues.

"Whenever a problem is new on the horizon, people try to use their current existing technology to solve that problem," he said. ""After they throw all the current tools at it, they realize they don't understand the problem."

Some cyber solutions might not require action on a computer at all, but rather a change in policy or procedure, Kwast said, adding that people often need to fully understand the problem before taking action.

"Not a lot of people step back and say 'what is the nature of this problem and how might we solve it?'"

But Kwast said it's critical that airmen understand cybersecurity issues, since the topic is so important to Air Force operations.

"All airpower missions have to work with, on, or through cyber in some form or function," he said.

Due to the unique missions of each military branch, the services need to have their own education on cybersecurity, Kwast said.

"The problem in cyber that is experienced by a satellite or a plane in flight is slightly different then the cyber problem that is encountered by a soldier on the ground," Kwast said. "When you have an airman thinking about the problems of aerospace and the problem of needing to have that reach anywhere in the world in a timely matter, the cybersecurity challenges of that are different."

Skjellum said the advanced computer systems carried on modern aircraft pose a unique threat to the Air Force.

"When you're driving at 30, 40 mph and driving a Jeep, you can stop," he said. "When a plane is flying, you don't have the option to reboot. If you leave a Jeep for half an hour, OK, someone has to walk; but you lose a plane for a half an hour, it's not in the air [carrying out missions]."

Officials need to make sure the training is deep and complete enough to equip America's next generation of cyber warriors, Skjellum said.

"It's not enough to have one course on how to change your password or run an anti-virus. There's a lot more that goes into cyber," he said. "The opponent is sometimes very smart, and sometimes we're letting in opponents that are not that smart because we're not organized and not prepared."

The Air Force is partnering with local universities, like Auburn, as well as reaching out to private companies and other educational institutions to form partnerships to aid in the cybersecurity training, said Joe Greene, the military liaison for the Montgomery, Alabama, Chamber of Commerce.

"The whole river region [around Maxwell] is fully behind this effort," he said. "We've got a number of universities not only in the local area but within the state which are doing a number of very significant things in cyber."

The universities are all studying different aspects of cybersecurity as well, Greene said, such as digital forensics or open source capabilities.

"The synergies associated with all of those collaborations collectively is greater than what each institution is doing singularly," he said.

The group is working in a "virtual sandbox," Greene said, where they can solve real-life cyber solutions in a controlled environment.

Kwast said partnerships with universities and companies will allow the Air Force "to stay at the leading edge of creative innovation in civil society," and take advantage of the progress made by those private institutions.

"The innovation that will happen in cyberspace is going to be so rapid, and most of that innovation is going to be in civil society," he said.

But the partnership cuts both ways, and the military's efforts to better understand and respond to cybersecurity threats "benefits all of society, it adds to the collective security of society," Kwast said.

"When the power system is benefiting from ideas that are floated around, that then they can import into ways of being more resilient, then our entire society is safer," he said. "This is national security at its heart."

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fenrir

*Exclusive: Lockheed to buy United Tech's Sikorsky for over $8 billion*

Exclusive: Lockheed to buy United Tech's Sikorsky for over $8 billion| Reuters






_Mick Maurer, president of Sikorsky, gestures on stage as he remarks about the new Sikorsky Aircraft S-97 RAIDER helicopter during its unveiling ceremony at Sikorsky Aircraft in Jupiter, Florida October 2, 2014._
_REUTERS/ANDREW INNERARITY_

Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) has agreed to buy United Technologies Corp's (UTX.N) Sikorsky Aircraft for over $8 billion, two sources said on Sunday, cementing a deal that would confirm Lockheed's dominance in weapons making and giving the Black Hawk helicopter to the maker of the F-35 fighter jet.

The deal will add further heft to Lockheed, which already has annual revenues of around $45 billion and dwarves its nearest competitors, the defense business of Boeing Co (BA.N) and Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N).

It will make Lockheed less reliant on the $391 billion F-35 fighter jet business, while expanding its overseas sales by adding Sikorsky's iconic Black Hawk helicopters to a product line that already spans everything from satellites to naval ships.

The two companies plan to announce the deal on Monday before both report second-quarter results on Tuesday, said the sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly.

It will be Lockheed's largest acquisition since it bought Martin Marietta Corp for about $10 billion two decades ago. It is the first major strategic move for both United Tech Chief Executive Officer Greg Hayes, who was elevated to CEO from finance chief in November, and Lockheed CEO Marillyn Hewson, who took her job in January 2013.

United Technologies and Lockheed officials declined comment.

Textron Inc (TXT.N), parent of Bell Helicopter, had submitted a bid for Sikorsky, but dropped out of the bidding after the price rose, according to several sources familiar with the matter. Both helicopter makers have seen revenues drop due to lower demand from the oil and gas sector.

Pentagon officials last week said they would carefully evaluate any sale of Sikorsky, saying it was important to the department to maintain competition and avoid market distortions.

The U.S. Defense Department can object to a merger involving its key suppliers during a federal antitrust review, which in this case could be led by the U.S. Justice Department.

Industry executives do not expect antitrust objections since Lockheed does not build helicopters, but said U.S. officials could ask for certain written assurances given Lockheed's expanded scale.

"It's a big deal, but it doesn't concentrate markets any further than they already were," said Virginia-based defense consultant Loren Thompson. "There's no real overlap between the fighter market and the rotorcraft market. They're discrete markets with different customers and users."

Lockheed is also looking to shed some of its lower-margin services businesses, which could help lower revenues in coming months, according to several sources familiar with the matter.

Industry executives have long predicted further consolidation in the U.S. defense market after a massive contraction in the 1990s after the Cold War. The only sector that had remained largely unscathed was the helicopter market. Boeing, which makes CH-47 Chinook helicopters and works with Bell on the V-22, has already teamed up with Sikorsky to develop a next-generation helicopter for the U.S. military.

UTC in March said it would explore alternatives for Sikorsky, which accounted for $7.5 billion in sales last year out of total UTC revenues of $65 billion. In June, it said it would exit the helicopter business and sell or spin off Sikorsky, which expects slower revenue growth and has lower profit margins than other UTC divisions.

Sikorsky's fit with United Tech, which also makes Pratt & Whitney jet engines and Otis elevators, had been long debated on Wall Street.

Sikorsky's first-quarter operating profit dropped 11 percent on a 7 percent fall in sales. In June, the unit announced 1,400 job cuts and said it would consolidate facilities.

The price of the acquisition was inflated by a huge tax bill facing UTC since Sikorsky's value has appreciated so much since it became part of United Tech in 1929.

UTC could use the funds for other large acquisitions, although the CEO has said the high valuations of targets have made potential transactions expensive.

Lockheed decided to proceed with the deal, despite the hefty price tag, because it views Sikorsky as a "signature company" that will ensure strong revenues in the medium term, when F-35 production begins to taper off, according to two of the sources.

Lockheed and Sikorsky already work together on several major helicopter programs, including the presidential helicopter, a combat rescue helicopter and the MH-60R- and S-model helicopters built for the Navy and Marine Corps.

Sikorsky's strong foreign sales would help Lockheed expand its international footprint, said Richard Aboulafia, aerospace analyst with the Virginia-based Teal Group.

"It's a great business for them to own. In addition to the F-35 and the C-130J, Sikorsky is another great brand for them to underpin their defense strategy," he said.

Lockheed is keen to preserve the Sikorsky brand, the sources said, which means the company may well allow Sikorsky to continue functioning as a standalone business instead of integrating it into its already huge Aeronautics division, which had revenues of over $14 billion last year.

Other big aerospace companies, including Italy's Finmeccanica SpA, Europe's Airbus and Textron Inc, allow their helicopter businesses to operate as separate units.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

*Primes Line Up to Compete for JSTARS Recap Program *
August 2015 

By Stew Magnuson 





_JSTARS E-8C_ 

The next version of the Air Force’s joint surveillance and attack radar aircraft will have a smaller airframe, along with updated radar, communications and battle management suites.

But JSTARS is a recapitalization program, not something new, Col. David Learned, the program’s senior material leader said.

“The war fighters want the existing capability — what they have in the field now — but at a reduced lifecycle cost,” he said in an interview. This is not a developmental program, he stressed. In fact, the Air Force has colored the first round in the procurement process as an “engineering contract.”

“We’re recapitalizing a combat proven capability,” he said.

The Air Force-Army JSTARS E-8C carries a radar that provides intelligence on the movement of ground forces, plus a battle management system. The current fleet was built from second-hand Boeing 707-300 aircraft, which are expected to come to the end of their service lives in the early 2020s. As older airframes, they are expensive to operate and maintain.

After the Air Force’s self-proclaimed top three most important acquisition programs — the joint strike fighter, the long-range bomber and aerial refuelers — the service considers JSTARS its “number four” priority, Learned said. 

“From my perspective, the Air Force has been all in,” he added. The program is fully funded in fiscal year 2015 and he hoped for the same in 2016. There is $2.4 billion budgeted through the following five years.

William LaPlante, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, cautioned that programs such as JSTARS, when it comes to budgets, can be dicey. It could be another three years after the preliminary design review when the Defense Department gives the green light to proceed.

“There’s always these programs that are right on the edge. … That’s what I warn people about — particularly in this [budget] climate that we’re in today — that just because you start a milestone A, the real commitment won’t come for about three years,” he said at a Center for Strategic and International Studies speech.

Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Frank Kendall doesn’t approve programs unless he is assured that they are fully funded and the service can afford them, he added. 

Before coming to a final budget decision, contractors will have to reduce the technological risks, LaPlante added.

Learned said this will be an integration challenge. The four main components that will have to work together are a new business-class sized jet, the radar, a communications suite and a battlefield management command-and-control system.

There is “a tight coupling to the legacy requirements,” he said. Those were first written some 40 years ago. “The only difference is where modern technology is available and provides better performance,” he said.

The Air Force is planning to place these same requirements in a smaller aircraft, which will be one of the technological hurdles, he said. 

“We do expect to go with a new commercial derivative business-class jet,” he said. It will be smaller, more reliable and will allow operations with a smaller crew. Plans call for the crew number to shrink from 18 to 10.

“We will have to rely on automation to perform some of the missions that the existing crew does,” he added.

The key will be nondevelopmental technology — or at least very little of it — Learned said. So far, the Air Force has not spelled out to potential vendors the requirements for the subsystems beyond the original program’s specifications. It does want the latest radar, communication suites and battlefield management systems, but they must be at a high technology readiness level, he said. The program wants “proven performance.”



“We also want affordability throughout the lifecycle and agility. So we will focus on those key things within the subsystems we think we might need to replace or update,” he said. That means an open architecture where components can be easily swapped out when something better comes along. 

Northrop Grumman is the current prime contractor for the program. Flying jets that were already used when the Air Force acquired them has proven costly. With the current fleet coming to the end of its life, there is a sense of urgency.

“I can’t tell you how long the legacy fleet will be kept alive. But that was the impetus for this program and what’s driving us to be a recap and deliver a capability as soon as we can to the war fighter,” Learned said.

The program is expected to award up to three pre-engineering manufacturing and development contracts in August. Learned could not disclose which vendors had responded to the Air Force request for proposals, however, incumbent Northrop Grumman, and rivals Boeing and Lockheed Martin have all announced their intentions to compete.

Alan Metzger, vice president and integrated product team lead for next-generation surveillance and targeting at Northrop Grumman’s military aircraft systems division, said its consortium, which includes business jet manufacturer Gulfstream and L-3 Aerospace Systems, is the best for the job because of its track record with JSTARS and other Air Force platforms.

“We have decades of proven battle command-and-control experience,” he said. The Gulfstream G550 model it is proposing will be able to provide better speed, range, altitude, reliability and endurance and at a lower cost than the legacy platforms.

“We think that the attributes that it has fit the mission very nicely,” he said. L-3 will bring its integration expertise and communications products. Northrop has yet to choose a radar, he said. It is still evaluating the options. “There are a few different manufacturers out there that exist, including Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and others,” he said. The team will make a selection on the sensor as the Air Force further defines its requirements.

He confirmed that there aren’t a lot of details yet.

“I will tell you that the requirements that we have seen are commensurate with what’s performing today on the existing JSTARS platforms,” Metzger said. “It’s up to us to figure out how to put the proper configuration and architectures together to satisfy those specs,” he added.

After the three possible pre-EMD contracts wrap up in about 2017, the Air Force will have an open competition for the final EMD phase where one prime integrator will be chosen.

At that point, new entrants may come in, or the three competitors may reconfigure their teams. The relationships with the subcontractors are not exclusive, company executives said.

“Who knows how it will play out and whether there will be reteaming?” Learned said. 

Lockheed Martin also announced its team when it chose Bombardier for the business-class jet, and Raytheon for the radar system and communications suite. 

“We have done a tremendous amount of work on battlefield management command and control — BMC2 — using the Air Force’s new open mission system architecture standards,” said Jack O’Banion, Lockheed Martin vice president of strategy and customer requirements. “Lockheed Martin and Raytheon have been the most prolific contractors in executing those contracts in both classified and nonclassified programs,” he said.

“And we’re now leveraging that body of work to create the BMC2 suite that will be the centerpiece for integrating JSTARS,” he said.

Montreal-based Bombardier has a stable of business-class jets to choose from, many of which have been converted to military use in overseas programs, he noted. Its Global 6000 aircraft are optimized for remote locations where customers can’t always depend on support being there.

“Raytheon has done a tremendous amount of work on the existing JSTARS solution and how to package a complex comms suite like that onto an aircraft and not have interference issues,” he added.

O’Banion reiterated what the Air Force said. It wants low-risk, low-cost technologies. “They are certainly interested in taking advantage of the latest technology provided that the [technology readiness] level is high and it’s not going to drive up the risk of the program or create an expansive development activity.”

The main hang-ups on such programs have been integrating the subsystems and creating the software that makes it all work together. That is the one area where there may be some developmental technology, he said.

“I think software is a concern for most programs that are incorporating and integrating technology,” he said.

“I can’t tell you at this time how much software development is going to be required to make that happen, but I can tell you that that subsystem integration is a key risk for us,” Learned said.

Boeing is not making any announcements as far as its possible team members, company spokeswoman Nanette Feeney said. It is offering its own 737-700, the smallest of its class, as the business-size jet, she said.

Learned said: “There is technology available now to meet our requirements. Whether it’s two teams or three teams, we’re just trying to prove that it’s out there.”

The winner of the EMD phase will build three test aircraft. The Air Force is aiming for 2023 for its initial operating capability, he said.

The new aircraft is going to address a lot of top cost drivers of the legacy JSTARS including manpower, maintenance and fuel. It’s going to be more reliable and require less upkeep along with improved mission performance, he said. 

“It’s also going to allow us to have that strategic agility to make future changes in a competitive environment to address future threats. It’s going to provide a fantastic upgrade over the existing capability,” Learned said.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

*Navy asks Lockheed Martin to study performance upgrades to Mk 48 Mod 7 CBASS submarine torpedoes*
Navy asks Lockheed Martin to study performance upgrades to Mk 48 Mod 7 CBASS submarine torpedoes

*NEWPORT, R.I., 13 July 2015.* U.S. Navy undersea warfare experts are moving forward with plans to upgrade and enhance the Navy's Common Broadband Advanced Sonar System (CBASS) version of the Mk 48 Mod 7 heavyweight torpedo.

Officials of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division-Newport in Newport, R.I., announced a $26.4 million contract Friday to Lockheed Martin Sippican Inc. in Marion, Mass., for services to improve the Navy's fleet of CBASS submarine-launched torpedoes.

The CBASS broadband sonar makes the torpedo more effective against emerging submarine classes in the harshest of acoustic environments, Lockheed Martin officials say. The Mark 48 Mod 7 CBASS torpedo uses modern commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) technologies in an open-architecture computing environment, and can be improved with regular hardware and software upgrades.

This this contract is for engineering to support the future capability upgrades of the Mk 48 Mod 7 CBASS torpedo, as part of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division-Newport’s spiral development program.

This includes technology assessment, mechanical and electrical component design analysis, software upgrade development, critical item testing, hardware and software integration, certification and test, in-water validation, and life cycle logistics studies for testing components of torpedoes and subsystems.

Lockheed Martin Sippican experts will recommend design changes; address failure and improvements to weapon hardware, software, and firmware; and support government testing.

The Mark 48 Mod 7 torpedo is standard armament for the Navy's fleet of Los Angeles-, Virginia-, and Seawolf-class fast attack submarines, as well as Ohio-class ballistic-missile and cruise-missile submarines.

The Lockheed Martin Corp. Mission Systems and Training segment in Washington is building the Mark 48 Mod 7 CBASS heavyweight torpedo with advanced common broadband advanced sonar system for expanded operational capabilities for shallow waters along coastlines and inside harbors, as well as in the deep-water open ocean.

The CBASS torpedo also has the ability of multiband operation with active and passive homing; advanced counter-countermeasure capabilities; effectiveness against low-Doppler shallow submarines, fast deep diving submarines, and high-performance surface ships; autonomous fire-and-forget operation or wire-guide capability to enable post-launch monitoring and updates via the submarine combat system; and running Otto Fuel II as the propellant.

The Mark 48 Mod 7 CBASS torpedo can transmit and receive over a wide frequency band and use broadband signal processing techniques to improve the torpedo’s search, acquisition, and attack, Lockheed Martin officials say.

The Mark 48 torpedo is 19 feet long, 21 inches in diameter, and weighs 3,500 pounds. It can be used as deep as 1,200 feet at distances as far as five miles. The torpedo can travel at 28 knots and has a 650-pound high-explosive warhead.

On this contract Lockheed Martin will do the work in Marion, Mass.; Newport, R.I.; Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; Australia; Washington; and Keyport, Wash., and should be finished by June 2020. For more information contact Lockheed Martin Sippican online at www.sippican.com, or the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division-Newport at

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

*Georgia Power to build 30MW solar power facility on US Navy base*
Georgia Power to build 30MW solar power facility on US Navy base - Naval Technology

eorgia Power and the US Department of the Navy (DON) have reached an agreement on the development of a new 30MW AC solar generation facility at Naval Submarine Base (SUBASE) Kings Bay in St Marys.

As part of the agreement, a real estate outgrant has been executed with the DON to use 258 acres of land at SUBASE Kings Bay for the solar project.

SUBASE Kings Bay commanding officer captain James Jenks said: "We are excited to partner with Georgia Power to develop a large cost-effective renewable energy project that will enhance the navy's energy security and operational capability.

"This project is important in meeting the Secretary of the Navy's energy goals."

The project, which is expected to increase DON's energy security, involves development of ground-mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) panels to deliver energy to the state's electric grid.

Georgia Power Renewable Development vice-president Norrie McKenzie said: "Our innovative solar partnerships with the state's military bases, including SUBASE Kings Bay, are growing solar in Georgia, strengthening Georgia military bases and stimulating investment in Georgia communities.

"Our latest project with the DON will add even more cost-effective solar energy to our state and further execute on our strategy of identifying opportunities for renewable growth to benefit our customers and partners."

The company expects to break ground on the project by September and bring the facility online by the end of 2016.

The SUBASE Kings Bay solar project is estimated to represent a $75m investment at the installation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fenrir

*Marines blow up concrete walls protected only by a blanket*






Watch US Marines with the 3rd Marine Logistics Group, 9th Engineer Support Battalion show how they get into buildings. The most amazing part is when they blow a concrete wall while they all stand there in line, just protected by a ballistic blanket. These guys are nuts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fenrir

*Someone order some freedom?*

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## AMDR

*Air Force F-35As Fly SEAD Missions*
Air Force F-35As Fly SEAD Missions | Defense Tech

Air Force F-35A pilots flew last month for the first time in a large scale combat training mission to specifically defeat enemy air defense systems.

Known as SEAD, or suppression of enemy air defenses, military leaders have highlighted the F-35’s ability to defeat air defense systems to allow U.S. and coalition aircraft to penetrate enemy borders. The military has allowed other aircraft such as the EA-6B Prowler to retire and allow the F-35 to take over the SEAD mission.

The F-35A is still a year away from its initial operating capability date but F-35A pilots flew SEAD missions in the recent Air Force Weapons School Integration Phase out of Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., for the first time.

Air Force officials didn’t offer many details on the F-35A’s performance and pointed out that many of the sensors and software is not yet ready for many of the SEAD missions.

However, Air Force leaders highlighted the ability to add the F-35A to mission packages has opened up F-22 pilots to focus more on air-to-air responsibilities. Previously, F-22 pilots were becoming over saturated with tasks, “potentially hampering mission execution,” according to the release.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

*Fabrication Begins on Future USS Delbert D. Black*
SEAPOWER Magazine Online

PASCAGOULA, Miss. — Construction of the future USS Delbert D. Black (DDG 119) currently is underway at the Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) shipyard, a Naval Sea systems Command spokesman said in a July 21 release. A ceremony held July 21 celebrated the start of fabrication.

The guided-missile destroyer honors the first Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy (MCPON). Black, a 30-year veteran, rose from the ranks of Master Chief Gunner to Senior Advisor of the Navy; the title later changed to MCPON. The MCPON is an advocate and voice of all Sailors and their families, serving as the senior enlisted adviser to the chief of naval operations. 

“I am excited to see DDG 119 production starting off strong,” said CAPT Mark Vandroff, DDG 51 class program manager, Program Executive Office (PEO) Ships. “This ship will not only honor a great Navy leader, it will serve as a testament to all our current and future senior enlisted leaders of the value the Navy places on their service.” 

This ship will be equipped with the Navy’s Aegis Combat System, the world’s foremost integrated naval weapon system. This system delivers quick reaction time, high firepower and increased electronic countermeasures capability for anti-air warfare. The ship is part of the Navy’s latest flight of destroyers, Flight IIA, which enables power projection, forward presence, and escort operations at sea in support of low-intensity conflict/coastal and littoral offshore warfare as well as open-ocean conflict. 

DDG 119 is the third ship in the fiscal 2013-2017 multiyear procurement contract to start fabrication. The future USS _Paul Ignatius_ (DDG 117) already has begun fabrication at HII. _Daniel Inouye_ (DDG 118) currently is in production at Bath Iron Works in Bath, Maine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fenrir

*Navy to Invest Up to $1.43 Billion to Support Unmanned Mine Countermeasures Vehicles*

Navy to Invest Up to $1.43 Billion to Support Unmanned Mine Countermeasures Vehicles - USNI News
_




Aerographer’s Mate 2nd Class Robert Carlson, left, and Aerographer’s Mate 1st Class Melvin Lankford, assigned to Commander, Task Group 56.1, deploy a MK 18 MOD 2 Swordfish to survey the ocean floor during the International Mine Countermeasure Exercise (IMCMEX) in the Gulf of Oman on November 4, 2014. US Navy photo._

The Navy will spend as much as $1.43 billion in the next several years on unmanned surface and subsurface vehicles to conduct mine countermeasures missions.

Seven contractors were awarded three-year contracts, with two one-year options, for a range of engineering work: design, fabrication, installation, test and evaluation, fielding, maintenance, training and more for both hardware and software of existing and future systems, according to a July 6 contract announcement.

Applied Research Associates, Inc., Camber Corporation, Exelis, Inc., Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Training, Mantech Advanced Systems International, MAR Range Services LLC and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) won these contracts, which will allow them to compete for task orders throughout the next three years or longer if options are exercised.

“The Unmanned Maritime Systems Support contract is intended to support programs engaged in waterborne and underwater mine countermeasures (MCM), both surface and subsurface,” Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific spokesman Ed Budzyna told USNI News on July 21.

“MCM systems currently planned for deployment include the MK 18 Unmanned Underwater Vehicle system and Mine Hunting Unit Unmanned Surface Vehicle system. The scope of this contract covers current systems as well as any future waterborne and underwater technologies in the following maritime system mission areas: MCM; anti-submarine warfare; Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance; or force protection.”

The base value of the seven contracts add up to $846 million, representing a hefty investment in unmanned MCM capabilities in the coming years.

The MK18 Mod 2 Kingfish underwater unmanned vehicle first deployed to the Middle East in 2013 for testing, and in 2014 it participated in the International Mine Countermeasure Exercise (IMCMEX).

The Mine Hunting Unit Unmanned Surface Vehicle system was a rapid-acquisition collaboration between the U.S. Navy’s Unmanned Maritime Systems Program Office (PMS 406), Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) Division Newport and Northrop Grumman. It combines Northrop Grumman’s AQS-24A Mine Detecting Sensor System with an 11-meter unmanned surface vehicle and was successfully demonstrated in the Arabian Gulf last fall.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armstrong

Technogaianist said:


> *Navy to Invest Up to $1.43 Billion to Support Unmanned Mine Countermeasures Vehicles*
> 
> Navy to Invest Up to $1.43 Billion to Support Unmanned Mine Countermeasures Vehicles - USNI News
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aerographer’s Mate 2nd Class Robert Carlson, left, and Aerographer’s Mate 1st Class Melvin Lankford, assigned to Commander, Task Group 56.1, deploy a MK 18 MOD 2 Swordfish to survey the ocean floor during the International Mine Countermeasure Exercise (IMCMEX) in the Gulf of Oman on November 4, 2014. US Navy photo._
> 
> The Navy will spend as much as $1.43 billion in the next several years on unmanned surface and subsurface vehicles to conduct mine countermeasures missions.
> 
> Seven contractors were awarded three-year contracts, with two one-year options, for a range of engineering work: design, fabrication, installation, test and evaluation, fielding, maintenance, training and more for both hardware and software of existing and future systems, according to a July 6 contract announcement.
> 
> Applied Research Associates, Inc., Camber Corporation, Exelis, Inc., Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Training, Mantech Advanced Systems International, MAR Range Services LLC and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) won these contracts, which will allow them to compete for task orders throughout the next three years or longer if options are exercised.
> 
> “The Unmanned Maritime Systems Support contract is intended to support programs engaged in waterborne and underwater mine countermeasures (MCM), both surface and subsurface,” Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific spokesman Ed Budzyna told USNI News on July 21.
> 
> “MCM systems currently planned for deployment include the MK 18 Unmanned Underwater Vehicle system and Mine Hunting Unit Unmanned Surface Vehicle system. The scope of this contract covers current systems as well as any future waterborne and underwater technologies in the following maritime system mission areas: MCM; anti-submarine warfare; Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance; or force protection.”
> 
> The base value of the seven contracts add up to $846 million, representing a hefty investment in unmanned MCM capabilities in the coming years.
> 
> The MK18 Mod 2 Kingfish underwater unmanned vehicle first deployed to the Middle East in 2013 for testing, and in 2014 it participated in the International Mine Countermeasure Exercise (IMCMEX).
> 
> The Mine Hunting Unit Unmanned Surface Vehicle system was a rapid-acquisition collaboration between the U.S. Navy’s Unmanned Maritime Systems Program Office (PMS 406), Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) Division Newport and Northrop Grumman. It combines Northrop Grumman’s AQS-24A Mine Detecting Sensor System with an 11-meter unmanned surface vehicle and was successfully demonstrated in the Arabian Gulf last fall.



@Nihonjin1051 - Is it me or does this Norwegian lady needs a normal hobby ? 

I've never seen Transhumanist talk about football, food or even fashion ! 

Only tanks, missiles, guns and aircrafts !


----------



## Fenrir

Armstrong said:


> @Nihonjin1051 - Is it me or does this Norwegian lady needs a normal hobby ?



I have other hobbies.

I like to dance

Badly







Armstrong said:


> football



What's that? Can you play it with a stick and puck?



Armstrong said:


> food



I'm not really the eating type.



Armstrong said:


> fashion



Does this count as fashion? 'Cause I'm totally into this.








Armstrong said:


> Only tanks and guns



Who?



Armstrong said:


> aircrafts



Well I am an ex-member of:

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Aepsilons

Technogaianist said:


> I have other hobbies.
> 
> I like to dance
> 
> Badly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's that? Can you play it with a stick and puck?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not really the eating type.
> 
> 
> 
> Does this count as fashion? 'Cause I'm totally into this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who?
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am an ex-member of:



So, can you into competition with Armstrong?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armstrong

Nihonjin1051 said:


> So, can you into competition with Armstrong?



I hear that @Technogaianist is chubby so I dunno if there would be much of a competition ! 

But then again I've gained a few pounds these past few months too ! 

And no I don't know how to dance.....at all !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fenrir

Nihonjin1051 said:


> So, can you into competition with Armstrong?



No, I think Armstrong's already won the "who's the most girly person on PDF" competition, though I hear Sven gave him a run for his money too.



Armstrong said:


> I hear that @Technogaianist is chubby so I dunno if there would be much of a competition !



I was in the US around Girl Scout cookie time, I felt like this afterwards:

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Armstrong

Technogaianist said:


> No, I think Armstrong's already won the "who's the most girly person on PDF" competition, though I hear Sven gave him a run for his money too.
> 
> I was in the US around Girl Scout cookie time, I felt like this afterwards:



The most girly....!  

Take that back...!  

Take that back....!  

I defined the word 'machismo' !  

Okay jokes aside....its nearly midnight here and I've got a long day tomorrow !  

I hate working !  

So see you all later.....take care !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Aepsilons

Technogaianist said:


> No, I think Armstrong's already won the "who's the most girly person on PDF" competition, though I hear Sven gave him a run for his money too.
> 
> 
> 
> I was in the US around Girl Scout cookie time, I felt like this afterwards:





Hahahahhajahahahahaha


*chokes*


Hahahaha..... X_x

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

*Air Force Plans Bomber Contract for September*
Air Force Plans Bomber Contract for September | Defense Tech

The Air Force plans to announce a contract award for their new stealthy long-range bomber aircraft in September of this year, service officials told Military.com.

The contract award for the aircraft was initially expected to arrive earlier this summer. In fact, this new timeline comes on the heels of a series of delays for the award.

The new Long Range Strike Bomber, or LRS-B, is slated to fly alongside and ultimately replace the existing B-2 bomber.

Senior Air Force officials told Military.com that taking extra time at the front end of the process to make sure the selection is the right one will ultimately save much more time and money throughout the longer-term acquisition process. The service plans to field the new bomber by the mid-2020s.

“It will be done when [the contract award is] done. It is fair to say we are in the closing parts of it. This is something that will be with us for 50 years. To build fast, you’ve got to go slow,” William LaPlante, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Acquisition, said at recent event at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington D.C.-based think tank.

The Air Force ultimately plans to acquire as many as 80 to 100 new bombers for a price of roughly $550 million per plane, Air Force leaders have said.

Over the last two to three years, the Air Force has worked closely with defense companies as part of a classified research and technology phase. So far, the service has made a $1 billion technology investment in the bomber.

Northrop Grumman is competing against a partnership of Boeing and Lockheed Martin for the rights to build the bomber. Northrop Grumman ran a regional Super Bowl ad pitching the company’s experience building Air Force bombers.

The new LRS-B is slated to replace the Air Force’s bomber fleet to include the B-2 stealth bombers.

Although much of the details of the LRS-B development are not publically available, Air Force leaders have said the aircraft will likely be engineered to fly unmanned missions as well as manned missions.

The new aircraft will be designed to have global reach, in part by incorporating a large arsenal of long-range weapons. The LRS-B is being engineered to carry existing weapons as well as nuclear bombs and emerging and future weapons, Air Force officials explained.

In particular, the aircraft is being engineered to evade increasingly sophisticated air defenses which now use faster processors and sensors to track even stealthy aircraft at longer ranges.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*Lockheed Martin Receives SEWIP Block 2 Contract from Navy*
SEAPOWER Magazine Online

SYRACUSE, N.Y. — The U.S. Navy has awarded Lockheed Martin a $154 million contract to upgrade the fleet’s electronic warfare defenses against evolving threats, such as anti-ship missiles, the company reported in a July 23 release.

Under this low-rate initial production contract for Block 2 of the Navy’s Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP), Lockheed Martin will provide additional systems to upgrade the AN/SLQ-32 systems on U.S. aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers and other warships with key capabilities to determine if the electronic sensors of potential foes are tracking the ship.

“We’re proud to continue supporting the U.S. Navy with capabilities delivered on schedule to rapidly introduce new technology to the sailors,” said Joe Ottaviano, Electronic Warfare program director for Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Training. “Our fleets are facing a rapidly changing threat environment in theaters across the globe. This contract allows us to continue providing much needed technological advances that will help outpace our adversaries and protect our warfighters.”

Block 2 is the latest in an evolutionary succession of improvement “blocks” the Navy is pursuing for its shipboard electronic warfare system, which will incrementally add new defensive technologies and functional capabilities. In 2013 and 2014, Lockheed Martin was awarded 24 systems as part of low-rate initial production, the first 10 of which have been delivered to the Navy on schedule.

Work on the SEWIP program will be performed at the company’s Syracuse facility.

*Cost of US Air Force Decoy Systems Reduced*
Cost of US Air Force Decoy Systems Reduced | Military.com

TUCSON, AZ -- A carbon-fiber airframe for U.S. Air Force miniature decoy systems has been developed using robotic and formula racing technologies, Raytheon reports.

Raytheon said the airframe for the Miniature Air Lanch Decoy, or MALD, and MALD-J systems was developed in partnership with Fokker Technologies of the Netherlands and Italy's Dallara and reduces the airframe production cost by 25 percent.

"MALD is a cost-efficient, modular system that can protect manned aircraft from the need to engage threats and make stand-off munitions even more lethal," said Scott Muse, Raytheon's MALD programs director.

"Driving affordability is a key element of customer success. Through the partnership with Fokker, Dallara and the U.S. Air Force, we delivered MALD's capabilities at a lower price."

Raytheon said Fokker Technologies, which develops and produces advanced structures and electrical systems, helped to adapt robots to wind the carbon fiber fuselage of the composite airframe and Dallara applied the lightweight, strong structural technologies used in Indy car racing to airframe accessories.

Previously, the carbon-fiber fuselage of the decoy system followed a conventional, hand-built approach.

The new innovative composite design will be included in this year's Lot 7 production of the systems.

MALD is a modular, air-launched and programmable flight vehicle with a range of 500 nautical miles that protects aircraft by confusing incoming missiles by duplicating the combat flight profiles and signatures of U.S. and allied aircraft.

MALD-J adds radar-jamming capability to the basic MALD platform.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fenrir

Om Nom Nom Nom

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

Technogaianist said:


> Om Nom Nom Nom




This picture raises so many questions I don't know where to begin

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fenrir

AMDR said:


> This picture raises so many questions I don't know where to begin



Hahaha. Who knows what it means?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

Technogaianist said:


> Hahaha. Who knows what it means?


Lmao "Swamp Gas"




I love OAF so much. Funniest posts on Instgram ever






*U-2 uses F-22 data to help re-target anti-ship missile*
U-2 uses F-22 data to help re-target anti-ship missile - 7/22/2015 - Flight Global

A high-flying Lockheed Martin U-2 spy plane has enabled a mission control station to dynamically re-target a simulated Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM), using data passed from an F-22 Raptor over the deserts of Southern California in a recent flight trial.

During the tests, targeting data was passed from the F-22 to a ground station via an L-3 Communications modem on the U-2, says Scott Winstead, Lockheed Martin's head of strategic development for the U-2 programme. This allowed the ground station to re-target the LRASM surrogate, essentially a cruise missile mission systems flown on a business jet.

In addition, the U-2 was able to translate and pass data between the F-22 and a Boeing F-18 Hornet during the series of flights, which took place in June. The tests were designed to evaluate new US Air Force open mission system (OMS) standards using a Skunk Works product called Enterprise Open System Architecture (E-OSA).

Company officials told Flightglobal in a recent interview that the U-2 testbed was on loan from the operational fleet, and has been modified to comply with open standards the air force has been developing through an “OMS consortium” involving the top aircraft manufacturers and suppliers.

These recent tests build on the success of Lockheed's internally-funded Project Missouri in 2013, which tested Link 16 communication between an F-22 and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. It also follows the SYERS-2C multispectral imagery sensor integration and test last December.

Renee Pasman, senior manager for the Lockheed open system architecture roadmap, says that the programme team was able to integrate seven OMS-compliant payloads with the modular U-2 Dragon Lady in just three months, as opposed to the 12- to 24-months it normally takes to integrate a new pieces of equipment with a military aircraft.

She adds that the work supports the air force OMS project, established to speed up and reduce the cost of integrating new capabilities by having standardised interfaces and software.

“The payloads for this latest demonstration were primarily communications payloads, for example Link 16 terminals as well as other radio equipment and some communications signals intelligence payloads integrated from our industry partners,” she says. “The communications payload was a fourth- to fifth-generation translator, fighter to fighter.”

It is no coincidence that Lockheed is testing communications relays, since the air force is exploring a programme called Multi-Domain Adaptable Processing System (MAPS) that would let new and old fighter jets share battle information.

“This demonstration was not done in support of the MAPS programme, but certainly the approach we demonstrated and technologies we demonstrated would be applicable to solving the MAPS requirements,” Pasman says.

The open standards are being developed as a requirement for whatever platform is developed to replace the Northrop Grumman E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) as part of the air force’s “owning the technical baseline” initiative. It could also be used on the T-X next-generation trainer and Long-Range Strike Bomber. The air force is also exploring ways to make these standards interoperable with the open mission system standards designed for the US Army and Navy.

The U-2 testbed is currently stationed at the Lockheed Skunk Works facility in Palmdale and will be returned to the operational fleet in December.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fenrir

*Awesome Video Showcases Historic Cruise For C-2 Greyhound Detachment One*






The U.S. Navy’s VRC-30’s Detachment One, the “Hustlers,” just ended a_ ten month long_ cruise with the USS _Carl Vinson._ This was the longest Carrier Onboard Delivery detachment since the Vietnam War. During the historic cruise, with just 45 sailors and two C-2 Greyhounds, the Hustlers racked up some ridiculously awesome statistics:


724 combat logistics sorties in direct support of Operation Inherent Resolve
Transported 7,966 passengers
Performed 33 life-saving medical evacuations
Supplied over 1,000,000 pounds of high priority cargo and mail
96 percent mission completion rate
Over a two month period provided support to both the USS _Carl Vinso_n and the French aircraft carrier FS_ Charles de Gaulle _
Recipient of Carrier Air Wing 17’s 2015 “Golden Wrench” Award for maintenance excellence
Check out the awesome cruise video VRC-30 “Providers,” the parent squadron of Detachment One, put together to highlight their awesome contribution to the USS_ Carl Vinson’s_ historic deployment:






The Hustler’s accomplishments over the last year underlines once again just how critical the C-2 Greyhound and its Carrier Onboard Delivery mission is when it comes to projecting and sustaining U.S. Naval power abroad. This is especially relevant considering the Pentagon’s pivot toward the vast Pacific and heightening regional tensions over maritime claims in the region.

Controversially, the C-2 will be replaced by the HV-22 Osprey in the not so distant future. Although there are some benefits to using the tilt-rotor for this mission, such as the ability to provide point-to-point resupply of other ships in the Carrier Strike Group, it also has massive drawbacks, some of which could present strategic vulnerabilities to American flotillas.






Regardless of the changes to come, here’s to you, the hard working men and women of Detachment One and VRC-30, who do so much with comparatively little.

And just remember folks, that at any given time, there is at least one VRC-30 detachment out there somewhere around the world, supplying our water-borne armadas with the most essential people and material they need. It is a mission that truly never ends.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fenrir



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Place Of Space

AMDR said:


> This picture raises so many questions I don't know where to begin


  Where is pilot cab of this plane?


----------



## Fenrir

Place Of Space said:


> Where is pilot cab of this plane?



Blocked from view in that angle:
















Same deal other large aircraft like the AN-124:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armstrong

Technogaianist said:


> Om Nom Nom Nom

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fenrir

Armstrong said:


>



I know, hot dogs!

Yuck

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armstrong

Technogaianist said:


> I know, hot dogs!
> 
> Yuck



What ? 

Hot Dogs ! 

Giant planes that can gulp you in !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Place Of Space

Technogaianist said:


> Blocked from view in that angle:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same deal other large aircraft like the AN-124:


 
All right, got it. The first picture in my brain lol, you know, pilot in the cab.


----------



## Fenrir

Armstrong said:


> What ?
> 
> Hot Dogs !
> 
> Giant planes that can gulp you in !



You guys really have bad taste, don't you? Hot dogs? I saw someone calling McDonalds good. I'm scared to even set foot in one.

Punjab Food Authority seals Fatburger outlet in Lahore

Unfortunately we had them in the RNoAF too.







Now to get that taste out of my mouth. Here's some awesome pics of Lightening and Raptors.





















I'll see you later, it's early (6:30 am) and I'm going back to sleep

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Place Of Space

Technogaianist said:


> You guys really have bad taste, don't you? Hot dogs? I saw someone calling McDonalds good. I'm scared to even set foot in one.
> 
> Punjab Food Authority seals Fatburger outlet in Lahore
> 
> Unfortunately we had them in the RNoAF too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now to get that taste out of my mouth. Here's some awesome pics of Lightening and Raptors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll see you later, it's early (6:30 am) and I'm going back to sleep


 
Good products with good ads, perfect marketing, dude good night.


----------



## AMDR



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Place Of Space

AMDR said:


> View attachment 240632
> View attachment 240633
> View attachment 240634
> View attachment 240635
> View attachment 240636
> View attachment 240637
> View attachment 240638
> View attachment 240639



Why not to adds some context?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

Place Of Space said:


> Why not to adds some context?



If I did have some context I would.

You are right tho, next time I will add short descriptions where I can

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Place Of Space

AMDR said:


> If I did have some context I would.
> 
> You are right tho, next time I will add short descriptions where I can


 
Do you have any news about the X-37B sky-space fighter?
In my opinion, this fighter may carry atomic bombs. If it carry normal missils, it can't carry as many as strategic bombers, it won't be good cost perfermance, though having crazy speed. What do you think?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fenrir



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

Place Of Space said:


> Do you have any news about the X-37B sky-space fighter?
> In my opinion, this fighter may carry atomic bombs. If it carry normal missils, it can't carry as many as strategic bombers, it won't be good cost perfermance, though having crazy speed. What do you think?



The latest news is that a couple of months ago it went on its 4th mission, doing secret stuff.
US Air Force Launches X-37B Space Plane on 4th Mystery Mission

There are many theories as to what its purpose is. Many people think its actually just acts as a maneuverable spy satellite testing new compact sensor packages. Either way its likely to have a modular payload.

My personal theory is that one of its many missions is to carry and test prototype ASAT weapons up in space. If you look at this thermal picture of the X-37B after its reentry to earth, you can see what looks like a weapons rack inside the internal bay.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Place Of Space

AMDR said:


> The latest news is that a couple of months ago it went on its 4th mission, doing secret stuff.
> US Air Force Launches X-37B Space Plane on 4th Mystery Mission
> 
> There are many theories as to what its purpose is. Many people think its actually just acts as a maneuverable spy satellite testing new compact sensor packages. Either way its likely to have a modular payload.
> 
> My personal theory is that one of its many missions is to carry and test prototype ASAT weapons up in space. If you look at this thermal picture of the X-37B after its reentry to earth, you can see what looks like a weapons rack inside the internal bay.
> View attachment 240776


 
You mean, use the rack-like operational hands to grasp and collect the satellite into the fighter? That's impressive, wow.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

Place Of Space said:


> You mean, use the rack-like operational hands to grasp and collect the satellite into the fighter? That's impressive, wow.


Or use it to hold ASAT missiles. 

Who knows? Maybe one day we will find out what it is really doing up there


----------



## AMDR

*Navy Builds Second America-Class Amphibious Assault Ship*
Navy Builds Second America-Class Amphibious Assault Ship | DoD Buzz

The Navy and Huntington Ingalls are nearly one-third complete with initial construction of the soon-to-be USS Tripoli, the second new America-class amphibious assault ship slated for delivery in December, 2018.

The USS Tripoli, called LHA 7, is being built at a Huntington Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula, Mississippi. It is scheduled for launch in July, 2017, service officials said.

“LHA 7 is approximately 30% complete. Fabrication has started on 211 units, 97% of all units, and 84 grand blocks are erected — 47% of the total,” Navy spokesman Mathew Leonard told Military.com in a written statement.

The first America-class amphib, the USS America or LHA 6, was commissioned and delivered to the Navy last year.

“The Navy and Ingalls have identified lessons learned from design and construction of LHA 6 for incorporation into design and construction of LHA 7 to improve production and quality. These lessons learned were addressed at Unit Readiness Reviews prior to the start of fabrication of each unit, for incorporation into the LHA 7 build strategy,” Leonard said.

The America-class amphibs are engineered to carry more Marine Corps F-35B Short-Take-Off-and-Landing Joint Strike Fighters, MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, CH-53 Super Stallions and UH-1Y Huey helicopters.

Designed as aviation-centric amphibs, the first two America class ships do not have well-deck for amphibious vehicles but rather are engineered with a larger hangar for aircraft, increased storage for parts and support equipment and additional aviation fuel capacity to support a higher op tempo, Navy officials said.

Technical adjustments were made to the flight deck of LHA 6 to better enable the ship to withstand the heat generated by the take-off and landing of the F-35B; these changes are being built into LHA 7 earlier in the construction process, Leonard explained.

“LHA 7 is being built as a repeat of the LHA 6 with very limited changes to the design. After delivery of LHA 6, a group of significant changes to the ship’s flight deck structure and equipment were necessary to accommodate the F-35B aircraft. These improvements are being incorporated into the basic build of LHA 7, which is expected to yield a better overall technical solution at reduced cost,” Leonard added.

The flight deck modifications to LHA 6 entail adding intercostal structural members underneath flight deck landing spots numbers 7 and 9, Navy officials explained.

“With the added structure, these two landing spots will provide the capability to perform closely timed cyclic flight operations with the F-35B without overstressing the flight deck,” a Navy official explained.

There are also numerous minor changes that were made during LHA 6 construction that will be implemented on LHA 7 to improve production and quality, Leonard explained.

The LHA 7 design will incorporate a high-tech Navy ship-based computing network called Consolidated Afloat Network and Enterprise Services, or CANES, Leonard said.

Overall, the USS Tripoli will be 844-feet long and 106-feet wide and have a weight of more than 44,000 tons. A fuel-efficient gas turbine propulsion system will bring the ship’s speed up to more than 20 knots, a Huntington Ingalls statement said.

The ship will be able to carry a crew of 1,204 and 1,871 troops, meaning the ship is being engineered to carry a Marine Expeditionary Unit, the statement added.

America class ships are outfitted with a group of technologies called a Ship Self Defense System. This includes two Rolling Aircraft Missile RIM-116 Mk 49 l aunchers; two Raytheon 20mm Phalanx CIWS mounts; and seven twin .50 cal. machine guns, Navy officials said.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*LCS Hits Its Stride in Marinette*
LCS Hits Its Stride in Marinette







MARINETTE, Wis. — A striking view awaited motorists this summer as they drove over the Menominee River — three littoral combat ships (LCS), all grouped together, pointed right at the Route 41 bridge between Wisconsin and Michigan. The Milwaukee (LCS 5) and Detroit (LCS 7) were already in the water, while the Little Rock (LCS 9) sat on shore poised for launch.

The group was shuffled a bit on June 18 when the Little Rock was christened and launched sideways into the river, where the three will sit alongside at the Fincantieri Marinette Marine shipyard until the Milwaukee sails away in the fall. But in only a few months the Sioux City (LCS 11) will be rolled out of an assembly building and placed in the launch position, to be followed later by the Wichita (LCS 13).

Those five ships and parts of two more are visible around this small but bustling shipyard, where about 1,500 employees and 500 contractors daily come through the gates to produce the Freedom-class Lockheed Martin monohull variant of the US Navy's LCS. Along with the Independence-class produced by Austal USA in Mobile, Alabama, the LCS program is in full-rate production, and each variant is — at long last — hitting its manufacturing stride.

Not only has the LCS building program broken through from the fits and starts of its early years, but the shipyard itself has undergone a remarkable transition. When construction of the Freedom (LCS 1) began in February 2005, Marinette Marine was part of the privately held Manitowoc Marine Group. With well under a thousand employees, the yard's facilities were outdated and inadequate. Much of the shipyard was unpaved, and without enough storage space, ship components were stored in the open — buried in snow in winter, sitting in muck during summer rains.

"All steel stood outside in the dirt," said Chuck Goddard, a retired rear admiral who served as Program Executive Office Ships, the US Navy's top shipbuilder.

"We were spending more money on cleaning than we would've had to to pave the yard," said Joe North, Lockheed's vice president of Littoral Ships and Systems.

The yard's erection building wasn't big enough to contain the entire LCS hull.

"When we built LCS 1 and 3, the bows stuck outside" said Goddard, now a senior vice president with the shipbuilder.

The blast and paint shop was too small for big component modules. To paint, "we needed three days of good predictable weather," he said, and environmental controls were inadequate. Work would often come to a stop because of rain or snow, heat or cold.

Then in January 2009, the yard was acquired by Italian shipbuilding giant Fincantieri, the world's fourth-largest shipbuilder, in an all-cash $120 million deal, with Lockheed Martin as a minority owner. Thus began a major transformation of the yard into a modern manufacturing facility, staked by an initial $73.5 million capital expansion investment from Fincantieri.

One of the first steps, Goddard said, was to map out a new workflow plan. The old yard had no particular flow — ship components might move back and forth several times before being installed, up to eight miles of movement inside the shipyard. The backtracking now has largely been eliminated by a new layout and new and expanded facilities. The erection building was virtually doubled in size, and a new blast and paint facility was designed, with input from General Dynamics' National Steel and Shipbuilding Co. in San Diego, allowing work to continue regardless of the weather.

A new steel panel line building was built for the initial process of cutting and bending flat steel plates to the forms needed for a ship, along with a new steel plate stockyard and storage facility to keep steel out of the weather. The state of Wisconsin kicked in to restore and improve a nearly unusable rail spur to allow train cars to come right up to the building to unload.

A new outfitting building was built, where modules are fitted out with piping, electrical wiring and numerous components, and finally a new grand module building went up, big enough to put together the big pieces of a ship. Amidst the construction, dirt disappeared under asphalt paving. Fincantieri expanded its investment to over $100 million.

And while the yard physically transformed, LCS construction was ramping up. The Milwaukee and Detroit were built even as the shipyard around them was reconstructed — and the workforce nearly doubled, from about 800 permanent employees to around 1,500.

"I called them my stumbling blocks," North said of the two ships. "[LCS] 5 and 7 were straddled half in the old process, half in the new, 7 more than 5. Five almost went through the whole yard and it shows."

Little Rock represents the first ship built since the shipyard was rebuilt.

"Nine is the first one that went through the entire new yard and that shows with its performance," North said July 17, a day before the LCS was launched. The Little Rock "had much better cost performance, especially over 5 and 7."

On the earlier ships, he noted, "I pushed a lot of work out onto the waterfront, which makes our costs go up," reflecting the absence of properly covered building areas. Now, he added, "Little Rock is in very good shape," 84 percent complete at launch. "She'll be in trials coming out of the ice period next year in April and May, and will be delivered in midsummer."

Both Milwaukee and Detroit are late in delivery due to the yard construction, but the rate of construction is improving. North is aiming for a building time averaging 36 months across the current 10-ship construction contract, which starts with the Milwaukee and ends with LCS 23. Milwaukee will come in close to 42 months, but Detroit, due for completion in 2016, looks like 37 or 38 months, North said.

When the next contracts are bid, North said, the shipyard "thinks they can get down to 32 with the new processes coming in. That is a lot of time. It's going to take a lot of hours, but there are ways to do that."

The Milwaukee had been aiming for a delivery date in August, but that's been delayed at least a month by a shipyard accident that took place in late May in the midst of builder's sea trials — a series of underway periods where the shipyard checks out the ship before the Navy runs acceptance trials. While most shipyards run sea trials over a three- or four-day period underway, with the ship packed with shipyard workers and contractors, Marinette prefers to hold the trials over about 10 days, coming back into port most evenings and embarking only those needed for the day's events.

The accident took place late one evening as the ship was pierside in Marinette, trying to get ready to head back out in the morning.

"We were basically looking at cleaning up a lube oil system," North explained. "We had an inadvertent start of the turbine that went to the gear that spun the starboard shaft in the machinery plant between the splitter gear and the forward gear." The shaft should have been decoupled so the turbine wouldn't turn it. "So with no lube oil there, that is not the way you want to run it. It was a very, very short time frame, less than a minute."

But it was long enough to damage the splitter gear, shaft bearings and other parts.

"We were actually pretty fortunate there wasn't a whole lot of damage in there," North said. "There were a lot of parts that might have been scored or something or marked. We had them remachined, brought back in, put the gear back together."

Repairs have been completed, he said, and crews were putting all the pieces back together to resume sea trials.

While the investigation is still being completed, North acknowledged the accident was the shipyard's fault.

"It was a procedural error, human error," he said.

The Navy is right in the middle of overseeing the repair work.

"We are pleased on the Navy side with the work we are seeing and the progress that is being made," Rear Adm. Brian Antonio, program executive officer for the LCS, said July 17 at the shipyard. "I actually went down into the space and things are being put back together again. The shipyard is doing the welding and the testing required to put the ship back to where it was prior to the casualty."

And while the accident has cost about a month in the testing schedule, North is optimistic the ship will be delivered to the Navy and leave Marinette in time to make it out of the Great Lakes before the ice season begins, when the lakes become unnavigable and close down.

"We will go out and finish the tests that are still incomplete from those trials, and hopefully a short period right after that go out on acceptance trials and we will still deliver in the fall," North said, meaning the ship will make its commissioning ceremony scheduled for November in the city of Milwaukee.

The accident, North added, will not cost the Navy any money.

"The cost is on us," he said.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

*DARPA TRACE to tackle radar target recognition*
DARPA TRACE program using advanced algorithms, embedded computing for radar target recognition

*WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB, Ohio, Va., 24 July 2015.* U.S. military researchers needed new ways of using computer algorithms and high-performance embedded computing (HPEC) for radar target recognition to identify military targets rapidly and accurately using radar sensors on manned and unmanned tactical aircraft. They found their solution from Deep Learning Analytics LLC in Arlington Va.

Officials of the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, announced a $6 million contract this week to Deep Learning Analytics for the Target Recognition and Adaption in Contested Environments (TRACE) program. The Air Force awarded the contract on behalf of the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in Arlington, Va.

The DARPA TRACE program has three goals: military target recognition on low-power aircraft; low false-alarm rates for targets deployed in complex environments; and rapid learning of new targets with sparse or limited measured training data.

In a target-dense environment, the adversary has the advantage of using sophisticated decoys and background traffic to degrade the effectiveness of existing automatic target recognition (ATR) solutions, DARPA researchers explain.

Aircraft attacks on relocatable targets require pilots to fly close enough to identify the targets visually before firing their weapons, which puts the aircraft at risk from ground-to-air missiles and other kinds of anti-aircraft weapons.

Although radar can take images of ground targets at safe standoff distances, the false-alarm rate of human and machine-based radar image recognition is unacceptably high. Existing target-recognition algorithms also require impractically large computing resources for use aboard manned and unmanned aircraft.

The result has been either to move the processing to remote ground stations or drastically reduce system performance to fit legacy aircraft computers.

To overcome these challenges, the TRACE program will develop an accurate, real-time, low-power target-recognition system that can be co-located with the radar to provide responsive long-range targeting for tactical airborne surveillance and strike applications.

The TRACE project lasts for 42 months and consists of two phases that will culminate in the flight demonstration of real-time radar target identification of stationary ground targets using one-foot resolution synthetic aperture radar imagery.

In the first phase, Deep Learning Analytics experts will develop advanced radar target recognition algorithms and design a low-power, real-time radar target recognition system. The program's second phase will enhance the algorithms and provide a real-time flight demonstration on low-power processor architectures.

Deep Learning Analytics experts have their work cut out for them, DARPA officials say. Despite significant military investments in radar target recognition over the past 30 years, few radar target-recognition systems have made it into widespread use in tactical applications.

Typically these systems have been too computationally complex for tactical aircraft. Algorithms have been too computationally complex or require too much run-time memory to fit onto legacy tactical aircraft computers.

Additionally, these kinds of systems have poor false-alarm performance such that they are inadequate for tactical surveillance applications. These systems also have not been adaptable. Learning to recognize new targets has taken too much time and computer power, and take a lot of operator and machine training with data and high fidelity models.

Deep Learning Analytics experts will try to overcome these limitations by exploiting recent advances in machine learning, low-power mobile computing architectures, and radar signature modeling. They will capitalize on the reduced runtime complexity of new recognition algorithms and increased computational efficiency of new mobile processors to reduce the run-time size, weight and power (SWAP) of radar target-recognition algorithms.

Company engineers will take advantage of emerging mobile computing architectures, including multi-core system-on-a-chip (SoC) systems combine general-purpose computing elements, such as multi-core ARM processors, with on-chip co-processors such as multi-core graphics processing units (GPUs) and field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), DARPA officials say.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

*Navy Orders 200 JSOWs from Raytheon*
By RICHARD R. BURGESS, Managing Editor
SEAPOWER Magazine Online

ARLINGTON, Va. — Raytheon Co.’s Missile Systems Division has been awarded a contract for the procurement of 555 Joint Stand-Off Weapons (JSOWs) for the U.S. Navy and the government of Saudi Arabia, the Defense Department announced in a 24 July release.

The Tucson, Ariz., company was awarded a $180 million firm-fixed-price contract from Naval air Systems Command for the procurement of 200 full-rate production Lot 11 AGM-154C-1 Unitary JSOWs for the Navy and 355 AGM-154 Block III C Unitary JSOWs for Saudi Arabia, the latter under the Foreign Military Sales program.

The Navy order is being made with fiscal 2015 funding.

*Navy Names Littoral Combat Ship for Cooperstown*
SEAPOWER Magazine Online

ARLINTON, Va. — Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said the next Freedom-variant littoral combat ship will be named USS_Cooperstown_ (LCS 23), the Defense Department announced in a July 25 release.

The future _Cooperstown_ will be the first ship to bear the name. It was named to honor the veterans who are members of the National Baseball Hall of Fame located in Cooperstown, N.Y. These 64 men served in conflicts ranging from the Civil War through the Korean War.

A fast, agile surface combatant, the LCS provides the required war fighting capabilities and operational flexibility to execute a variety of missions in areas such as mine warfare, anti-submarine warfare and surface warfare.

_Cooperstown_ will be built with modular design incorporating mission packages that can be changed out quickly as combat needs change in a region. These mission packages are supported by detachments that deploy both manned and unmanned vehicles, and sensors in support of mine, undersea, and surface warfare missions.

The ship will be 388 feet long and will be capable of traveling at speeds in excess of 40 knots. The construction will be led by a Lockheed Martin industry team in Marinette, Wis.

Posted: July 27, 2015 4:54 PM

*Navy Orders Six Blackjack UASs From Boeing’s Insitu*
By RICHARD R. BURGESS, Managing Editor
SEAPOWER Magazine Online

ARLINGTON, Va. — Boeing’s Insitu Inc. has been awarded an order for six RQ-21A Blackjack unmanned aerial systems (UASs).

Insitu, based in Bingen, Wash., has been awarded a $78 million modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract for the procurement of six low-rate initial production Lot IV RQ-21A Blackjacks, the Defense Department announced in a July 24 release.

The order includes procurement of the air vehicles, ground control stations, launch and recovery equipment, spares, and system engineering and program management.

Funding is provided from the Navy’s fiscal 2015 funds and the Marine Corps’ fiscal 2013, 2014 and 2015 funds.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

Blending in

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Fenrir

*USAF Keeping Spare AC-130Us Gunships For Laser And 'Pain Ray' Tests*






The AC-130 family is slowly morphing from cannon shell spraying aerial gunships to arsenal ships packed with a wide array of guided munitions and direct fire systems, and soon they will be carrying the most exotic weapons of all, those of the directed energy variety.

This is precisely why the USAF has retained some of its spare AC-130U “Spooky” gunships to be used as flying testbeds for emerging laser technologies. According to Lt. Gen, Bradley Heithold, commander of Air Force Special Operations Command, the idea is that in the not so distant future not only will the new and ever evolving AC-130J Ghostrider be able to cook a single individual in a crowd from on high, or be able to disable vehicles with a high-powered laser, but it will also be able to disperse crowds via a powerful, non-lethal, “active denial system.

Such a system would use rapid bursts of microwave energy over a specific area, which makes individuals feel as if their skin is on fire, while at the same time having no long-lasting effects, if used correctly at least. Active denial systems, often referred to as “pain rays,” have been in development for well over a decade, and have even been tested in prisons here in the U.S., but such an evolved active denial capability would give one of the most deadly flying machines ever invented a true “less than lethal” option.

Once proven on the AC-130, an airborne active denial system could be deployed to other fixed-wing platforms, and domestic applications are not out of the question, something that will surely be controversial if it comes to pass.






Arming a C-130 with a laser has been a long-time ambition of the Defense Department. The Advanced Tactical Laser, which was in development in some form since the mid 1990s, cooked through the hood of a truck in 2009. Like its defunct bigger brother, the YAL-1 Airborne Laser, the Advanced Tactical Laser was a cumbersome chemical based system.

Now, with solid state lasers making huge strides, not just in output power but also in miniaturization, durability and usability, the goal of an operational AC-130 based laser system is totally feasible.

Because of its size, the C-130’s amazing adaptability, frequent use and the AC-130’s unique mission set, the AC-130J is a perfect place for the USAF to realize its growing directed energy weapons initiative operationally. What would be learned by AC-130J crews employing this new class of weaponry in combat could be migrated to tactical aircraft in the not so distant future as their more miniaturized and complex laser systems come on line. As a whole, directed energy weapons have the ability to change air combat in drastic ways, and the AC-130J Ghostrider could be the USAF’s first foray into this new combat reality.

The AC-130J Ghostrider is still in testing and there are serious kinks with the platform that are being worked out, but its additional performance, updated systems and wide array of potential armament, including lasers and microwave weapons, could enable it to be the most versatile combat aircraft in the entire USAF fleet. This is especially true for the wars we continuously find ourselves in, not the ones we love to fight “on paper.”

It may seem a bit ironic for an aircraft that is widely known as a brutal flesh slaying machine, but the next generation AC-130’s biggest accomplishment may be not having to kill at all, or if it does, being able to do so with laser like precision, literally.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*US Army eyes electromagnetic railgun as navy test plans unfold*
US Army eyes electromagnetic railgun as navy test plans unfold - IHS Jane's 360





An artist's rendering of the USN's EMRG concept, shown here integrated on a JHSV, which will host the first EMRG firing at sea in 2016. Source: US Navy

The US Navy's (USN's) electromagnetic railgun (EMRG) programme is moving ahead through several lines of effort, and officials are considering ways to apply the system to land-based air defence.

In the near term, the USN's fifth and newest Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV), USNS _Trenton_ , is to host the first at-sea demonstration of the EMRG sometime in 2016, but the navy is also working to develop a GPS-guided Hypervelocity Projectile (HPV) that can be steered towards targets, and hopes to integrate a 'repetitive rate' firing the railgun for trials at sea in 2019, according to Rear Admiral Bryant Fuller, deputy commander for ship design, integration, and naval engineering at Naval Sea Systems Command.

He spoke during a 28 July Directed Energy Summit in McLean, Virginia.

During the event, Brigadier General Neil Thurgood, the US Army's programme executive officer for Missiles and Space, said his service is working with the navy and Pentagon on doctrine and techniques for the ERMG, a navy-led programme, to see how it might fit into the army's air defence structure.

Rear Adm Fuller noted that "in order to make [the land-based railgun] effective … we need to be able to steer the HPV and we need to close the fire control loop". To this end, the army, navy, and Pentagon are exploring various fire control solutions that could address more complex air defence missions, he added.

Meanwhile, although he praised the EMRG's capability, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus lampooned the navy's acquisition processes for taking so long to field the system.

EMRG "will finally be on board a US Navy ship in 2016, but only for testing, and only after several decades of development - that's too long", he said.

Mabus said the testing "will shoot 20 projectiles, five of them GPS-guided Hyper Velocity Projectiles, or HVPs, at targets 25-50 miles away".

Still, the 32 mega joule weapon marks a notable increase in capability. It will launch projectiles out to 100 miles, whereas the USN's current 5-inch gun can only reach out 13 miles. EMRG could also, potentially, result in savings because its rounds "cost about USD25,000 compared to USD500,000 to USD1.5 million for missiles", Mabus noted.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Fenrir

Photo credit:

U.S. Air Force photographer Staff Sgt. Jodi Martinez,
U.S. Air Force photographer Master Sgt. Jeffrey Allen,
U.S. Air Force photographer Staff Sgt. Vernon Young.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Fenrir

*Is This Semi-Autonomous Mini Submarine The SEALs' Next Super Weapon?*






U.S. Navy SEALs have to infiltrate and exfiltrate from some of the most hostile areas on earth, and often times they travel underwater to do so. The Mark 8 SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV) has been used in various configurations for decades for this mission, and after previous tries to replace it, a group with an incredible maritime tech pedigree thinks they have the solution.






Meet Proteus, the brainchild of Huntington Ingalls Underwater Solutions Group, Bluefin Robotics and Battelle. This streamlined mini-sub goes far beyond being just another swimmer delivery vehicle, it is a “dual-mode” vehicle that can operate manned or unmanned for a wide array of missions.






The concept came out of a previous Large Displacement Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (LDUUV) imitative that the Office Of Naval Research was, and still is working on. As the large underwater drone developed, it became clear to Huntington Ingalls that is was big enough to be turned into an optionally manned platform similar in size to the Seal Delivery Vehicle that had been built for years.

Because of its similar size and ‘wet’ configuration as the long-used SDV, a Proteus like design could allow U.S. fast attack and guided missile Submarines equipped with dry-dock shelters to be able to carry a large unmanned submersible and a frogman delivery vehicle in one package, not having to choose between one or the other.

Proteus weighs just over 8,000 pounds, and can deliver six (possibly more) fully equipped frogmen to their destination over a range of 350 to 700 miles depending on the batteries used. It has a top speed of 10 knots and cruises at 8 knots, and is equipped with multi-beam sonar for avoidance and navigation. It operates at a _disclosed _maximum unmanned depth of 200 feet, or 150 feet with divers on-board.

The slick little sub is equipped with a pair of low-profile masts that fold down onto its dorsal spine. These can be equipped with imaging sensors, communications antennas and navigational arrays, or they can be outfitted for with advanced eavesdropping and spying equipment. The center section of Proteus can be equipped with a large bay that can hold 3,600 pounds of equipment and can lower that equipment to the seafloor.

What is interesting about Proteus is that it takes the same proven and relatively simple “wet” design concept as the SDV, but packages it into a more streamlined and much more adaptable package. In the past, attempts to replace the SDV have been made, largely focusing on creating a complex “dry interior” design, where SEALs would basically board the mini-submarine and exit through an airlock. This greatly increased complexity and cost and changed the already established logistics footprint used by the proven SDV.






Years of development led to the Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS) in the 2000s, an ambitious mini-sub that would provide a massive increase in capability over the SDV, but at a huge cost. The comparatively huge, 16 man ASDS was plagued with issues during testing, and its cost skyrocketed. Eventually a catastrophic fire led to the program’s final demise in 2008. Meanwhile, the ever upgraded Mark 8 SEAL Delivery Vehicle soldiered on.

Seeing the embarrassment of the ambitious ASDS program, Proteus may just be the right mix of new capability and low-risk, proven design and operations philosophy for it to make sense for the Navy to buy. Keep in mind this doesn’t even account for the submersible’s unmanned capability, which could be game changing.

The fact that Proteus can operate autonomously is an amazing capability to ponder as it opens up a wide new concept of operations while still utilizing the same logistics footprint as the SEAL Swimmer Delivery Vehicle. While even the Mark 8 SDV has some unmanned functions, where it can loiter in wait for the SEALs to return from a mission, Proteus is a much smarter and more adaptable machine, able to be outfitted for a variety of missions. These include transporting and installing equipment on the sea floor, mine detection, inspecting undersea infrastructure, spying and transporting divers and bulk cargo. Basically, it can go from driving SEALs into combat to becoming a autonomous sensor truck and equipment truck. This means not only can Proteus resupply SEALs on a mission, or pick them up at a different location than where they departed, but it can also turn into pretty much anything it needs to be depending on the mission.

Take a surveillance mission for instance. A _Virginia_ Class submarine could launch Proteus hundreds of miles off an advanced enemy’s coastline, where it would approach that coast and conduct surveillance for a prolonged period of time (days) before returning to the _Virginia _Class submarine. Under such a concept of operations, if the submarine is detected and attacked, you only lose Proteus, not a multi-billion dollar state of the art nuclear fast attack submarine with a hundred and fifty people on-board.

Mine detection, planting explosives or listening devices on the sea floor and even hunting for other submarines are all potential roles Proteus could undertake while working from a Nuclear Submarine or even a ship. In such a role, you can’t think of Proteus as a SEAL Delivery Vehicle but more as a drone that is also capable of the SEAL Delivery Vehicle mission set.






Proteus first entered the water in 2012 and the Navy has since leased it to support “payload development programs.” Since then it has been evaluated by the Naval Research Laboratory, the Naval Surface Warfare Center, the Naval Special Warfare Command and the Space and Warfare Systems Command. In the meantime, its makers have worked out the kinks and as such they say the adaptable little “wet-sub” is ready to go to work.

Now we will have to see if the 26 foot long Proteus provides enough capability to warrant its $10-12M price tag (depending on the sensors) and how it will compete for cash with the Navy’s initiative to field two new special operations submersibles by the end of the decade. These shadowy programs supposedly include the Shallow Water Combat Submersible and the Dry Combat Submersible, the latter of which is similar but smaller than the defunct Advanced SEAL Delivery Vehicle.

In a time of restrictive defense spending, where platforms capable of multiple missions are a major selling point to Congress and the Pentagon, and considering that you get a new SEAL Delivery Vehicle and a massive unmanned underwater vehicle capable of a whole slew of missions with one purchase, Proteus’s price tag seems like a bargain. This is especially true considering new anti-access and area denial strategies that our potential foes are putting in place in the maritime environment.

If anything else, when purchasing Proteus, you get a robot that can deploy from all of America’s non-ballisitic missile nuclear submarines today and go hundreds of miles while carry a payload the weight of a Honda Accord. It doesn’t get much more tactically exciting than that and seeing how disastrous the Navy’s last attempt to build a dry-submersible for special operations was, Proteus may be the off-the-shelf, low-risk solution the Navy’s special warfare community needs today. At the very least, it could buy the Navy some time, and save some money in the process, until its next generation advanced SEAL delivery vehicles are ready for prime time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

*USAF unveils roadmap for microwave weapons use*
USAF unveils roadmap for microwave weapons use - 7/29/2015 - Flight Global

The US Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) has unveiled a technology roadmap for its cruise missile-based “CHAMP” high-power microwave (HPM) weapon, which successfully fried banks of computers at a test range in October 2012.

The organisation says it is working on an improved, second-generation “multi-shot, multi-target HPM cruise missile” that builds on the mature counter-electronics high-power microwave advanced missile project payload previously demonstrated.

Based on past comments by AFRL officials, this next iteration of the Boeing and Raytheon-built system will probably be carried on an extended-range Lockheed Martin AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM-ER).

The laboratory is also eyeing an “HPM advanced missile” in the longer term with a more sophisticated CHAMP-like payload, and then eventual integration with a manned or unmanned aircraft.

“We’ve already demonstrated the military utility of a high-power microwave system at a sufficient technology maturity level to be fielded,” AFRL commander Maj Gen Tom Masiello said at a 28 July directed energy summit in Washington DC.

“Where we’re going next is improving a CHAMP-like payload to increase the overall effectiveness and maybe even the ability to steer it more precisely than the original CHAMP. Next would be looking at various other platforms other than the air-launched cruise missile. And finally, everybody recognises the utility of having a reusable platform, maybe a manned or unmanned aircraft.”

Masiello describes the demonstration in 2012 with a repurposed Boeing conventional air-launched cruise missile as very successful.

“It flew against two major targets, but was able to conduct several different runs,” he says. “That demonstrated the maturity level of a high-power microwave weapon sufficient to go into a programme of record at a sufficient risk level if the decision was made to go there.”






Exactly when the technology derived from CHAMP will transition to a programme of record is a point of contention in Washington.

Congress has been pushing the air force to make a deployable weapon available to operational military units, but there has been considerable “inertia”.

The USAF's Air Combat Command (ACC), which trains and equips combat forces, says it is still considering how the HMP weapon fits into its missions and war plans.

“In an unclassified format, you can’t say too much about that, other than we recognise the capabilities, but until we work it into our war plans, we are still trying to study how that weapon system would impact some of the threats we’re looking at,” says ACC vice-commander Maj Gen Jerry Harris. “Yes, we are looking at it, and we think the technology will make a viable weapon in the future. We’re trying to bridge that gap from just a technology to bringing it into production for the warfighter.”

Some lawmakers, though, think the air force is dragging its feet, since it has already been given extra funding and congressional direction to pursue both “near and far-term” counter-electronics capabilities.

Directed energy caucus co-chair congressman Jim Langevin says the military faces a constant conundrum where the laboratories are only interested in the science and the operational forces are slow to adopt new technologies.

“The scientists and researchers want to keep this stuff in the labs and research it to death in many cases, so we have to be constantly pushing the labs when it’s ready to make sure there’s a path forward,” he says. “[Unmanned air vehicles] when they first came online, there was a resistance within the traditional air force to adopt all these technologies, and now we realise they’re indispensable.”

Boeing, for its part, is keen to move the CHAMP technology forward. Phantom Works president Darryl Davis said in May that the focus now is on miniaturising the payload for possible integration with new cruise missiles and UAVs. The Long-Range Standoff cruise missile that the USAF plans to buy is one possible candidate.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## T-55

A series of photographs taken by reporter Jacobus Rentmeysterom during the battle of American and Vietnamese government troops against the forces of the Viet Cong in the valley Aschau, held in April 1968




















more pictures/sorce 477768 - Вьетнамские будни

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Fenrir



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Fenrir



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Fenrir

*How Did This Airstrike Hit Six Areas Of A Single ISIS Compound At Once?*






While watching the latest air strike videos coming out of Syria and Iraq I noticed this unusual targeting FLIR imagery of a compound being obliterated by six nearly simultaneous precision strikes, each hitting a defined area of the complex. Targeting tags appear on the exact spots that are struck.

This is something different. Such a capability is a far cry from using one or two laser guided bomb of much higher yield, or multiple smaller guided bombs over the course of a much longer attack on a similar target. So what exactly is going on here?

Be advised that this video shows an air strike on a militant compound, we cannot confirm if there were casualties or not.






Although we do not know if the targeting platform is the same as the “shooter” platform, the upside down triangular tags with lines through them appear to be targeting coordinates derived by the sensor platform. For laser guidance, aircraft are limited to targeting one single point at a time.

With this in mind, and seeing as the there is no sign that the targeting system is lasing the target at all, these symbols look like individual coordinates most likely derived by “squirting” the targeting aircraft’s laser onto strategic parts of the structure, then taking those coordinates and loading them into GPS guided weapons. The coordinates could have also been derived via using Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) and are then visually overlayed on the targeting system’s imagery, although I cannot confirm if such a high level of sensor integration is widespread on America’s combat aircraft today.

Targeting pods on American fighter and bomber aircraft and sensor balls on unmanned aircraft have become amazingly capable over the last decade and a half. Is the ability to “tag” coordinates via laser ranging (or possibly SAR) and loading them into GPS weapons a new capability? No, but the amount of closely positioned points of impact and the speed and synchronization of the attack is remarkable if the building was indeed targeted and attacked “on the fly.”

If nothing else, this video is a reminder of just how far we have come when it comes to employing tailored precision guided weaponry in complex ways onto complex targets. All of which increases the effectiveness of an attack, while also hopeflly limiting the loss of innocent lives nearby.

I would guess that this is video originated from either an unmanned system which did the targeting, with the munitions (probably 500lb JDAMs) coming from another aircraft entirely or the entire thing is via a flight of F-15Es Strike Eagles. The B-1B is also a possibility.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fenrir



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Fenrir



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Fenrir



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fenrir

*Watch A B-1B Refuel And Thank The Tanker With A Gorgeous Burner Break*







Swing-wings, a sleek and flowing fuselage, and four big GE-F101 turbofans pointing out the back: the B-1B’s silhouette is ominous to say the least. That silhouette is exactly what a tanker crew saw after refueling the “Bone” from their KC-135R Stratotanker, as seen in the video below.






Another cool part is seeing all the little pilot and fly-by-wire inputs on the control surfaces that allow the B-1 to stay in close formation with the tanker. Often times, when the B-1s are loading down with munitions as well as fuel during combat, they have to engage two of the jet’s four afterburners to a certain degree in order to remain in place behind the tanker, as you can see in this awesome image from our good friend Jaye Morton:

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## T-55

US Marines in the battle for the city of Sainte-Mère-Église; Normandy; 7 of June 1944
































more 477768 - Десант "in action"

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Fenrir

*Hanging with the Ruskies*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Moon

Technogaianist said:


> *Hanging with the Ruskies*



Do you know why Sven got banned??


----------



## Fenrir

Mr.Meap said:


> Do you know why Sven got banned??



He's on leave until January for a couple of reasons. He got married last month, so that covers July, but for the remain 5 months of the year his ban should cover his wife's pregnancy - and his helping make sure it's a pleasant experience for her. I expect he'll be back around February though, considering January would only be the 8th month Anna's (his wife) pregnancy.

He'll be back, it'll just take some time.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Oldman1

Can use this to launch rockets especially for the military.


----------



## Moon

Technogaianist said:


> He's on leave until January for a couple of reasons. He got married last month, so that covers July, but for the remain 5 months of the year his ban should cover his wife's pregnancy - and his helping make sure it's a pleasant experience for her. I expect he'll be back around February though, considering January would only be the 8th month Anna's (his wife) pregnancy.
> 
> He'll be back, it'll just take some time.




Awwwwww that's so sweet of him, meanwhile throughout my mom's pregnancy my dad was posted in Balochistan and he met me for the first time when I was three weeks old  . So Sven put himself in ban?.


----------



## AMDR

*US Navy Tests Printing Drones at Sea*
US Navy Tests Printing Drones at Sea

Additive manufacturing (AM) has found a place in a vast number of different fields, including defense. While AM can’t make a soldier, it can make his job easier by providing support in the field. A 3D printer and access to some digital files gives the military flexibility in what “materiel” is required to be physically present during deployment.

The US Navy has been actively pursuing AM as a solution to logistical problems forsome time. The first solution to be unveiled is the Navy’s intention to produce 3D printed drones on ship. The ability to print drones while at sea can offer commanders a tactical advantage by allowing them to tailor a drone’s capabilities for the current mission.

The first test was on board the USS Essex. Digital plans were transmitted by satellite link, and fed into the 3D printer by sailors. The crew then took the printed parts and assembled them, including electronic parts (motors, radio, controller and a GPS unit) already on board.

The result was a drone equipped with a camera that offers Navy vessels improved intelligence capabilities when dealing with piracy, drug smuggling or rescues at sea. The drone can provide an overhead look at a ship, or zip around to the side that isn’t visible to monitor activities.

While promising, the program still has a number of problems to overcome. Tests need to be conducted to see how difficult it is to launch a small drone from a moving ship in a variety of weather and travel conditions. Additionally, researchers will need to investigate whether the variety of signals produced by a warship will interfere with the control and functionality of a drone.

Assuming the latter problems can be ironed out, it’s pretty easy to envision a time when every ship carries a 3D printer and the extra parts required to build drones. As technology improves, many of the electronic parts may also be printed, further reducing the amount of space taken up onboard.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*DARPA’s Plan X to bring ‘military mindset’ to cyber-war*
DARPA’s Plan X to bring ‘military mindset’ to cyber-war | ExtremeTech

Ask most “real” computer security experts, the guys and gals who have been cracking and/or protecting networks since before Windows were NT, and they’ll tell you the best way to protect a network is simply to know everything about it. They take pride in being able to quickly navigate arcade database structures and monitor access using only a text-based interface — but with virtually every organization of any real size now turning to computer security experts to protect their business, these sorts of security hardcores are getting washed out by snot-nosed millennials who think Unix is how you used to play Ubisoft games online.

That’s especially true in the military, which misses a good portion of the libertarian-minded hacking set right off the bat. What is the biggest military in the world to do, when one of the most important upcoming industries simply can’t provide the volume of talent they require to keep their operations safe? DARPA’s Plan X is an attempt to answer that question.

Plan X takes a very simple approach to solving the talent crisis: Rather than increasing the amount of talent being produced (this has been tried for several years), instead try simply lowering the amount of talent needed to do the job. The goal is to make basic monitoring of network security a whole lot more approachable, using an intuitive user interface and easily digested symbology to make it easy — and, more importantly, quick — to keep tabs on the source and type of any access to a particular network.

This includes, but is not limited to, interactive touchscreen interfaces, and Oculus-powered VR info-spaces. With easily digested information presented in a creative way, even someone with minimal training should be able to tell the difference between anomalous, non-threatening activity (like an automatic software update) and anomalous, threatening activity (like a cyberattack by Chinese government hackers). Plan X would make flags for malicious activity as obvious as possible, by changing the color of an icon or even animating it to pulsate menacingly.

Of course, in order to animate an icon differently, Plan X has to have already identified it as under attack, or at least questionable activity — meaning that Plan X is fundamentally an automated security effort with a heavy emphasis on human supervision. Once the threat is identified, all the operator would need to do is drag the appropriate response tool over the offending node in the network, and let Plan X do the rest.

Overall, DARPA wants to make cyber-warfare a lot more like “kinetic” warfare, the fast, aggressive style of conventional combat which the US has been slowly perfecting for several decades. DARPA describes it as “bringing the military operational mindset” to computer security, which seems to mean that basic network monitoring might soon be able to be farmed out to disinterested Privates, a cyber version of sentry duty. For a fighting force that prides itself on agility and adaptability, the sluggish helplessness they often display in the face of cyber-warfare threats is, evidently, quite galling.

DARPA recently held a “hackathon” to get security experts to help improve its security measures. These are the “real” security gurus mentioned above, and their contributions will go to improving the basic algorithms at the heart of Plan X. They mostly contributed ideas and software designed to identify malicious activity in a complex network. They’ve also collaborated with design firms to create novel (and media-friendly) data visualizations, like the conceptual demonstration shown off using the Oculus Rift.

The official project page for Plan X states somewhat defensively: “Plan X will not develop cyber offensive technologies or effects. National policymakers, not DARPA, will determine how the cyber capabilities developed under Plan X will be employed to serve the national security interests of the United States.” That’s certainly true, though by designing the platform they dictate how it can be deployed.

The bigger issue is: how long will the logic behind Project X continue to put value on having an under-trained recruit at the end of the decision-making process? If Plan X is suggesting the best response to a particular issue, and time is of the essence in stopping an infiltration, why not just let Plan X deploy the appropriate countermeasure automatically? Aside from providing someone to blame should something go wrong, why should they choose to continue to put up with human fallibility?

High level security will probably always have to involve a highly skilled, creative specialist working in real time to stop real-time threats. But basic network monitoring and simple, reflexive reactions don’t necessarily require that sort of expertise. If DARPA is successful in creating a set of algorithms that can make basic network security at least mostly automatic, the next big question will become when the general public will get its hands on the code.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*US Army seeks Stinger-based defence against cruise missiles*
US Army seeks Stinger-based defence against cruise missiles - IHS Jane's 360

The US Army issued a request for information (RfI) for a Raytheon FIM-92 Stinger-based air defence system to counter cruise missiles on 4 August.

The RfI, which was posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website, calls for sources with the capability to provide engineering services in support of the Stinger missile in relation to the development of the Cruise Missile Defense Systems (CMDS) for both United States and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers.

As highlighted in the RfI, the Stinger is a short-ranged fire-and-forget shoulder-launched man-portable air defence system (MANPADS) designed to provide point-defence for ground forces against attack or observation by low-flying unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), helicopters, and fixed-wing threats out to 4.5 km.

The missile currently utilises a high-explosive, hit-to-kill warhead with a contact fuze, and can be fired from a range of platforms, including ground vehicles, UAVs, and helicopters. While no configuration has been disclosed, in the CMDS role it will be either a static or mobile ground-based system.

Having first entered service in 1981, the Stinger is now in its Advanced FIM-92E Stinger Block 1 configuration. A FIM-92E Block 2 configuration with an improved infrared/ultraviolet seeker that could defeat low-signature cruise missiles was shelved not long after engineering and manufacturing development was begun in 2000.

The RfI provides no details on the configuration of the proposed CMDS, or if it will be a mobile vehicle-based or a static solution. No details of timelines, numbers, or contract values were released either.

More than 44,000 Stinger missiles have been delivered to US forces and 17 export customers, with Raytheon claiming a more than 90% success rate in over 1,500 tactical firings, resulting in more than 270 kills against helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. Besides the US Army, customers include Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Qatar, South Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey. On 4 July, the Latvian government confirmed to _IHS Jane's_ that it too is to buy the Stinger system, with a procurement programme commencing in 2016.

The identity of the potential FMS customers for the Stinger-based CMDS has not been revealed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fenrir

The Helo Dunker prepares Marines for helicopter crashes over a body of water. They start with air tanks and goggles and to complete the training, they must pass this challenge with no air and black out goggles.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*US Army to acquire enhanced MH-47G Block 2 Chinooks*
US Army to acquire enhanced MH-47G Block 2 Chinooks - IHS Jane's 360





_The US Army is set to receive eight new-build MH-47G Chinooks by the end of the year, the first of which is seen here outside the company's production facility in Philadelphia. The service wants to renew production once these deliveries are complete to replace some or all of its 61 remanufactured MH-47Gs with an enhanced Block 2-standard platform._

The US Army is looking to renew production of the Boeing MH-47G Chinook special mission helicopter in an upgraded Block 2 configuration, it disclosed on 3 August.

With production of the final eight Block 1 MH-47Gs set to be complete by the end of the year, the US Army Aviation Integration Directorate is proposing the resumption of production after this date to deliver an undisclosed number of additional MH-47G helicopters in a Block 2 configuration, according to a solicitation posted on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website.

The US Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) currently fields 61 remanufactured Block 1 MH-47Gs (62 were delivered - 35 CH-47Ds, nine MH-47Ds and 18 MH-47Es - although one was lost on operations in Afghanistan). The USASOC is to receive the additional eight new-build MH-47Gs by the end of 2015 to offset the fleet's high operational tempo.

The army is known to be looking at options for replacing some or all of its remanufactured Block 1 MH-47Gs with new-build airframes, and it is this requirement that the solicitation posted on FedBizOpps site likely pertains to. Boeing deferred questions related to the solicitation to the US Army, which did not respond to a request for information by the time of publication.

Derived from the baseline CH-47F heavy-lift Chinook, the MH-47G is a specialist special-mission platform that features double-capacity 'fat' fuel tanks, an in-flight aerial refuelling probe, a digital advanced flight control system, and classified sensors and electronic warfare kits specified by SOCOM.

According to the solicitation, rather than build more of the same Block 1 standard helicopters, the army is looking to integrate a Block 2 upgrade into its new MH-47Gs. Speaking to reporters at the company's Philadelphia plant earlier this year, Boeing officials said that the Block 2 enhancements for both the MH-47G and CH-47F helicopters were still being defined, but that they will likely be based on already existing technologies.

One option being proposed by the company is the Advanced Chinook Rotor Blade (ACRB). Still under development, the ACRB is not a flat blade as currency fitted, but features lots of geometry and a new asymmetric aerofoil to increase the lift by approximately 900 kg per blade (5,400 kg for the helicopter). An interesting design criterion of this blade is that the first 45 cm, where it attaches to the hub, is identical to the old blade for easy retrofit (the ACRB is also made of the same materials as the old blade). Boeing said that the ACRB should be ready for fielding in about 2019, raising the baseline CH-47F helicopter's current payload from 10,886 kg to 16,286 kg.

The Block 2 upgrade is expected to be fielded by the US Army in the early 2020s, although this will be dependent on the government's acquisition funding process, and other factors. Once in service, the army's earlier Block Chinooks will likely be upgraded to the Block 2 configuration for a common standard across the fleet.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## T-55

Long double fighter F-82F Twin Mustang from the 449-th all-weather fighter squadron of US Air Force airbase Ladd, Alaska; 1952 Year





















477768 - "Спарки на службе"

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*How DoD is making cyberattacks more costly, less successful*
How DoD is making cyberattacks more costly, less successful

One of the best ways to reduce the cyber threat is to make it harder and more costly for adversaries to initiate attacks, says Defense Department CIO Terry Halvorsen. Powerful and innovative security measures such as multifactor authentication and biometrics, along with strategic security planning and training, could make launching attacks on DoD resources time-consuming and futile.

“The approach to cyber defense is expanding from its original roots, which was to defend the network technically at the point of entry from the public Internet using firewalls and malware signature recognition,” said Mark Testoni, president and CEO of SAP National Security Services. “Instead, cyber is now being understood as a warfare domain, much like the other domains of air, sea, land and space.”

Cyber changes rapidly, according to Henry Muller, director of the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Research, Development and Engineering Center (CERDEC). “In less than two decades, cyberspace has radically transformed how the Army operates and wages war,” he said. “Unlike the physical domains, cyberspace will continue to grow and is projected to reach over 100 billion connected devices within just the next 10 years.”

Bharat Doshi, CERDEC’s senior cybersecurity research scientist, noted that many different processes, policies and technologies can be used to make it costlier for adversaries to mount a successful attack. “Since the operational discipline and hygiene are critical first lines of defense, basic but persistent improvements in these areas will make it more expensive for an adversary to succeed,” he said.

CERDEC is currently researching several promising technologies, Doshi said. “One general class of technologies involves obfuscation, which prevents the adversary from getting valuable information even if they are able to observe our systems. Encryption of data at rest, data in transit and data in processing provides one way of obfuscation.”

Another approach designed to enhance cybersecurity is the “moving target defense,” in which several key network and processing system aspects change either periodically or randomly, preventing snoopers from developing a detailed understanding of operations. “Changes may also be executed after detection of a cyberattack ... to prevent the successful intruder from causing further damage,” Doshi said.

*MFA and biometrics*

The DoD and other agencies should be looking at multifactor authentication (MFA) to help reduce exposure caused by phishing campaigns and login compromise, said Steve Orrin, federal chief technologist for Intel. Orrin also recommended that agencies consider augmenting MFA with contextual security controls such as location, device identity, device trust attestation and network access point.

“Adding these controls to existing or new MFA-based approaches will provide better security posture and allow for more granular controls and policy enforcement,” he said.

An expansion of the use of MFA has been on DoD’s road map for a number of years and is slated to eventually become universally adopted across the department, said Adam Firestone, president and general manager of Kaspersky Government Security Solutions. He also said biometric authentication technologies are advancing and gaining operational traction.

CERDEC recognizes the advantages of biometrics for identification and authentication and believes its use will increase, Doshi said.

“CERDEC also recognizes challenges in using biometrics at the tactical edge in the middle of active fighting,” he added. “In this environment, soldiers may be required to operate in various levels of stress and mission-oriented protective postures, which hinder the use of biometrics.”

A combination of strong MFA along with an attribute-based access control forces an adversary to devote significantly greater resources to penetrating and effecting lateral movement within a network, Firestone said. “Encrypting everything reduces or eliminates the payoff for an attack,” he said. “Continuous monitoring reduces the amount of time an adversary has to exploit a breach, and a trap, or honeypot, causes the attacker to expend resources on a useless and potentially dangerous — to them — target.”

*Promising innovations*

Security innovations exist at both the platform layer and for the data center and security operations center, Orrin said. “New features in hardware and software allow for inline memory protection and containerization that provide security to applications and data in hostile environments subject to malware and other exfiltration attacks,” he said. “New models for software-defined networking and network function virtualization can allow a network to be more dynamic, resilient and can automate threat responses, mitigations and forensics/honeypotting.”

Analytics applied to threat intelligence represents the next wave for gaining better insight and faster detection of threats and attacks, he said.

Earl Matthews, a retired Air Force major general and vice president of enterprise security solutions for Hewlett-Packard, advocates the adoption of active hunting for pending attacks, encryption and using a diversified technology base.

“This is controversial, because a homogenous network is less costly to manage, patch and maintain in compliance,” Matthews said. “But static networks enable the adversary to perform long-term targeting operations and homogeneity actually narrows their attack solution.”

Under a diversified technology architecture, it is possible to decrease the technical vulnerability risk across the enterprise and reduce supply-chain risk while making the adversary spread their resources more thinly, he said.

“To strengthen our security posture, it’s time to think beyond the traditional perimeter,” Testoni said. Cybersecurity needs to be less about walls and moats and more about analyzing behavioral anomalies in networks and systems.

“In our current threat landscape, we have to assume that the wall has been breached in network defenses,” he said. “This is because the weakest link in cyber defense is the behavior of users and the effectiveness of social engineering methods, such as phishing, or even willful breaches by insiders.”

Testoni believes that behavioral analysis of network devices and users, utilizing machine-learning algorithms and other techniques, will be necessary to give commanders situational awareness and, ultimately, complete command and control over the cyber domain.

*Training the weakest link*

Humans are the weakest link in network security, so end-user training is critical, Doshi said.

“They are the first line of defense,” he said. “Lack of discipline and operational hygiene will provide an easy access for an adversary.”

Yet people can also serve as security sentinels. “End users reporting anomalies will help the system operators to identify intruders faster and more accurately,” he said. “Training could be very useful in leveraging these ‘human sensors.’ ”

Training programs must be geared toward specific user roles, said William Senich, global cyber solutions director for Alion Science and Technology.

“While there are basic security rules by which everyone must abide, people in certain jobs may require specialized training that teaches them how to recognize threats unique to their positions,” he said.

A technical specialist with high-level access privileges, for example, may require specialized training that differs greatly from the training needed by colleagues with limited system access.

“Of course, people in either role are vulnerable to the same commonly observed threats, from one-off penetration attempts to, in some instances, sustained persistent attacks,” Senich noted.

Approaches and tactics

The DoD and other agencies need to improve contextual security by integrating security products and technologies across security solutions and security domains, while also taking an end-to-end view of how to protect data and systems, Orrin said.

The best way to secure massive amounts of information in the shortest length of time is to follow a strategic, layered approach, Matthews said. The goal “is to ensure that the most valuable data has the most protection, and security resources are allocated accordingly,” he said.

Matthews also advocated taking the cyberwar directly to the adversaries. “Perform counter-intelligence operations to disrupt the adversary’s development, deployment, doctrine and dogma,” he said.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Fenrir

Welcome to BUD/s




































Ring the bell to make the pain go away.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*US Navy railgun research and progress*
Next Big Future: US Navy railgun research and progress

http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Conferen...r-Warfare-Electromagnetic-Railgun-Lasers.ashx

The Navy is already working on a railgun that would allow for 10 shots per minute. This “rep rate” version, despite challenges including thermal management in the barrel, is expected to go to sea by FY 2019.

There will be railgun tests in 2016, where about 20 shots will be fired at targets 25-50 miles away.

Once the Navy reaches the higher-powered laser gun and the more operationally useful “rep rate” railgun, the service will have to figure out how to deploy them. Fuller said the Navy just wrapped up a feasibility study on the Zumwalt-class DDG-1000 destroyers, and leadership will be briefed on the results soon. Other studies, including one on the Arleigh Burke-class DDG-51 destroyers, are ongoing.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*Lockheed receives $431M to support F-35 production ramp up*
Lockheed receives $431M to support F-35 production ramp up - 8/5/2015 - Flight Global

Lockheed Martin has received $431 million for special tooling and test equipment to support the ramp up of F-35production over the coming years.

The hefty sum was awarded as a modification to the current Lot 8 production contract, and comes as Lockheed and the Pentagon negotiate the purchase of approximately 150 domestic and international aircraft in Lots 9 and 10.

The current contract bought 43 aircraft with deliveries starting in 2016, whereas Lot 9 buys 57 aircraft and Lot 10 would secure just shy of 100 fighters, of which about 40% will be for international customers.

Of this latest award, the US Defense Department will pick up 70% of the tab ($300 million) and the international partners and foreign military sales customers will contribute $75 million and $56 million respectively.

“These items include special tooling and special test equipment items that are critical to meeting current and future production rates,” the August 4 contract announcement says.

Production is expected to peak at upwards of 160 aircraft per year after 2018, according a Lockheed chart.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AMDR

*US Navy About To Double Its LCS Fleet*
US Navy About To Double Its LCS Fleet

MARINETTE, Wis. — The launch of a new littoral combat ship on July 18 was another festive occasion here at Fincantieri Marinette Marine, marking the fifth time this heartland shipyard has put an LCS in the water.

But the Little Rock (LCS 9) will also become a milestone departure of sorts for the US Navy's LCS program when, after she's delivered to the fleet next year, the warship will be the first East Coast-based LCS, operating from Mayport, Florida. The first eight LCSs — half of which already are in service —– are based at San Diego.

"All of the odd-numbered hulls starting with 9 won't have to go through the Panama Canal," noted Rear Adm. Brian Antonio, program executive officer for LCS and the Navy's top official on the program. "The Mayport basin is smaller, so [they] get the monohull versus the trimaran."

Antonio spoke in July at Marinette, taking a break from a program review held just prior to the Little Rock's launch.

Freedom-class ships — the ones built at this shipyard under contract to Lockheed Martin — are 387-foot-long monohulls with a 58-foot beam, all with odd numbers in the Navy's LCS designation system. The trimaran-hulled Independence class, built by Austal USA in Mobile, Alabama, and carrying even hull numbers, are 418 feet long with a beam of 104 feet. The smaller Freedom class is easier to handle in the relatively confined Mayport basin, enclosed on three sides, while the California base sits along much wider San Diego Bay.

Another consideration for placing Freedom-class LCSs in Mayport, Antonio noted, is the experience already gained operating the surface warfare mission module, deployed aboard the Freedom during its 2013 deployment to Singapore and currently operated in the southwest Pacific by the Fort Worth. While the Mayport-based ships are expected to conduct deployments operating out of Bahrain in the Arabian Gulf, they'll also be called upon for more operations closer to home.

"If they are not going to Bahrain and you deploy them to the Fourth Fleet [around Central and Latin America] and you are doing counter-drug operations, a surface warfare mission package would be more appropriate to use as opposed to mine countermeasures or anti-submarine warfare" package, Antonio noted.

The ships of the Independence class have yet to officially operate a surface warfare package, although a module using most of the available components was shipped on the Independence last summer when the Navy made a late decision to send the LCS to RIMPAC, a major fleet exercise held every two years off Hawaii. But the Coronado (LCS 4), now coming out of a yard period in San Diego, will soon carry out the first formal tests of the package on the class.

"This is the first full-up [surface package] test, with the 30mm guns, the VBSS [visit, board, search and seizure team], the 11-meter boat as part of the complete package," Antonio said. "She will go into her tech evaluation period, take a short break to look at the data and make sure that the systems are ready." By the end of September, he added, "I've got high confidence" the testing will be complete.

In 2017, Antonio said, the Coronado will become the first Independence-class ship to deploy to Singapore. By then, she's expected to join with one of the Freedom-class ships as the Navy tries operating both LCS variants simultaneously while forward-deployed.

"I don't like to use the word challenge, I like to use the word opportunity," said Antonio. "It was pretty easy to be focused on one ship and make sure it is going to be successful."

Program officials have been eager to point out how much better the Fort Worth's current deployment has gone compared with the earlier Freedom cruise.

"We have gotten a lot better with LCS 3 not only in the part support but understanding the command and control, how to contract for work getting done, the whole concept of the expeditionary maintenance," Antonio said. "We will use those concepts and those lessons-learned that were non-hull specific and we will apply them to LCS 4 when she comes over."

Comparative data made available by the LCS program illustrated the dramatic improvement of the Fort Worth over the Freedom cruise at the 180-day mark. Some examples: Fort Worth has been underway for 96 days out of 89 planned, while Freedom was underway for 51 days with 72 planned. The Fort Worth lost no days to maintenance, Freedom lost 21. Overall, the Fort Worth needed 8,100 fewer maintenance man hours than Freedom.

The four LCSs now in service will soon be joined by four more as the long construction pipeline begins to deliver ships at a much faster rate. The Jackson (LCS 6) is expected to be delivered to the Navy this month. The Milwaukee (LCS 5) will follow in October, the Montgomery (LCS 8) in December and the Detroit (LCS 7) in February. At each shipyard right now, three ships are in the water with four others ashore in various stages of construction.

As more ships enter service, the LCS crewing plan will become more apparent. Ships are being paired, with three crews rotating among the two ships. So, for example, the Independence (LCS 2) will relieve the Coronado in Singapore, and those two hulls will remain paired together.

"One and 3 are paired and 2 and 4 are paired in the 3-2-1 [crewing] concept," Antonio explained. "When 3 gets back 1 will deploy for her notional 16 months, be relieved by 3, be relieved by 1. The three crews rotate between those.

"There is a way to work it out where the crew is on board for notionally four months. When they finish overseas they come back and are shoreside for four months — leave period, training period, time to do personnel turnover. I believe that would be the best time to bring new personnel in."

The LCS program is also developing a Flight 1 version referred to as a frigate. The program is still working to determine what specific components will be installed on the newer ships, scheduled to be included in the fiscal 2019 shipbuilding program.

"We are still in the system selection phase," Antonio said. "It will be happening throughout the summer and into the early fall. … The goal is in late 2017 to get to a technical data package that we can then turn into a request for proposal and give it to both the shipbuilders in time to inform a 2019 award."

Work is also moving ahead to determine what over-the-horizon missile system to use on the frigates. A request for information (RFI ) was issued in late June to gauge industry interest and capability in providing weapons, fire control systems, launch systems, software and electronics. The Navy, in the RFI posted on a government website, noted it is seeking a "non-developmental item solution."

Meanwhile, eight more LCSs need to be ordered between current contracts and the frigate variant, Antonio noted.

"We are not ready from a design perspective yet to go buy those frigates. We have to get the engineering work done," he said.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

Speechless.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## T-55

Refueling F-35B fighter aircraft from the aircraft-refueling KC-130J during performances; South Carolina
















477768 - Показной фотосет

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## T-55

A small selection of photographs taken in January and February 1968 in the streets of Saigon during the "Tet Offensive" 































477768 - "Шумные праздники"

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## T-55

A series of photographs taken by American soldiers who served in the 1968-1969-th years. in Vietnam as part of the 2nd Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment

























477768 - "Вьетнамские приключения кавалеристов"

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kristian

Old American style in Vietnam war.


----------



## F-22Raptor

SR-71

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AMDR

*5 Things You Might Not Know About CVN 78/Ford Class*
5 Things You Might Not Know About CVN 78/Ford Class | Navy Live

*1)* USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) is the lead ship in the Ford-class of aircraft carrier, the first new class in more than 40 years. CVN 78 will be delivered in spring of 2016 as the fleet numerical replacement to CVN 65 (USS Enterprise). Follow on Ford class carriers will begin the phased replacement of Nimitz-class carriers.






_NORFOLK (Nov. 17, 2013) The aircraft carrier Pre-Commissioning Unit (PCU) Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) is moved to Pier 3 at Newport News Shipbuilding. The ship will undergo additional outfitting and testing for the next 28 months. (U.S. Navy photo courtesy of Huntington Ingalls Industries by Chris Oxley/Released)_

*2)* Because the island is smaller and farther aft than the Nimitz‐class, increasing space for flight deck operations and aircraft maintenance, CVN 78 is capable of generating 33 percent more sorties (flight missions) per day than Nimitz‐class carriers.






_WASHINGTON (May 12, 2012) A design rendering of the nuclear-powered, aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78). Gerald R. Ford is the first in a class of new carriers to be built by Huntington Ingalls Newport News Shipbuilding. (U.S. Navy photo illustration courtesy of Newport News Shipbuilding/Released) 100512-ZZ999-201_

*3)* An Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), similar to the system that powers many of today’s roller coasters, replaces steam catapults, enabling a smoother launch and capability to support the air wing of the future.






*4)* The Ford class design enables the Navy to operate the ship with less manpower, saving the Navy more than $4 billion in total ownership costs over each ship’s 50‐year life, when compared to today’s Nimitz class aircraft carriers.

*5)* CVN 78 is the first aircraft carrier to make a significant leap to electrical power, with three times the generating capacity of Nimitz class to allow replacing legacy steam‐powered systems and providing margins and ship weight allowance to incorporate future technologies.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Oldman1



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Fenrir

Credit to Military Photos

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Fenrir

Credit to Military Photos

Reactions: Like Like:

3


----------



## Fenrir



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fenrir

Credit to Military Photos

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Fenrir

Credit to Military Photos

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## James David

@Technogaianist and @AMDR , i spent the whole of two hours looking at pictures of squids and flyboys!!! You guys are kinds biased arent you!? Lol but keep 'em comin' guys!! Nice pictures!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fenrir

James Jaevid said:


> You guys are kinds biased arent you!?



Maybe?

I'm partial to Air and Naval forces from my days in the RNoAF - maritime SAR. Add SvenSvensonov - PDF's Navy vet (currently on leave) and AMDR's contributions, also mainly Navy, and we've little to no Army contributions. PDF's resident Army vet Jhungary doesn't contribute too much in this thread.

We welcome you to contribution though. Perhaps you can help right the bias of this thread.

...

If you're looking my Army contribution, you'd find them here:

Nordic Defense News, pictures, videos and history | Page 27

Wrong nation though

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMDR

*General Dynamics to Equip New Submarines, Surface Ships with Advanced DMR Radios*
SEAPOWER Magazine Online

FAIRFAX, Va. — The U.S. Navy has ordered 56 AN/USC-61(C) Digital Modular Radios (DMRs) and related equipment from General Dynamics, the company announced in an Aug. 10 release.

The newly built DMR radios will be capable of using the Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) waveform, the digital dial tone needed to make voice calls to the U.S. Department of Defense’s next generation, narrowband MUOS satellite communications system. The four-channel radios form the foundation of the Navy’s network communications aboard submarines, surface ships and on-shore locations. This order, valued at over $29 million, exercises option five on a contract awarded to General Dynamics in 2010.

“DMR is an extremely versatile radio and we continue to update its capabilities to ensure that Navy communications networks have the most advanced and secure technologies,” said Mike DiBiase, vice president and general manager of C4IRS Technologies for General Dynamics Mission Systems. “MUOS is an excellent example of an advanced capability that will provide smartphone-like connectivity among military personnel working in some of the toughest, most remote environments.”

Earlier this year, General Dynamics announced a software upgrade for existing DMRs that turns the radio’s four channels into eight virtual channels. This expanded communications capacity is available when Sailors are using high-frequency communication frequencies. As a software upgrade, the added capacity keeps the existing onboard DMR, saving the Navy the cost of replacing the physical radio or changing the configuration in space-constrained radio rooms.

The software-defined DMRs are one of the only military approved radios to communicate with Ultra-High Frequency SATCOM, Single-Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Systems, Line of Sight and High Frequency radios on Navy vessels and land locations. General Dynamics has delivered more than 550 DMRs since 1998.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

*Ocean Aero Awarded DoD Contract for Long Range Unmanned Vessel*

*11 August 2015* - Ocean Aero has announced that it signed a multi-million dollar two-year contract with the Department of Defense under the Rapid Innovation Fund (DoD RIF) program.

Ocean Aero was selected to create a prototype Long Range Unmanned Underwater and Surface Vessel, similar to their current Submaran model. This contract is the result of a year of developing this exclusive concept, drafting and writing the proposal, as well as negotiating the contract with the DoD. 

The Department of Defense’s Rapid Innovation Fund (RIF) was created to implement small business technologies into programs designed for national security needs. RIF issued a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) early last year looking for firms who had the ability to produce a “long range, high endurance hybrid unmanned underwater/surface vehicle that can transit for long, open ocean distances on the surface with a relatively low signature and then submerge to avoid surface traffic; and conduct intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) operations.”

CEO and President, Eric Patten, noted the magnitude and value this contract to the local San Diego business, “We are very excited about this opportunity to grow as a company and demonstrate how valuable the Submaran is to major organizations around the world. This contract further validates that our team is on the right path with our technology and vision.”

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Fenrir

*Navy's MUOS-4 Encapsulated for Launch on ULA's Most Powerful Atlas-V Rocket August 31*

Navy’s MUOS-4 Encapsulated for Launch on ULA’s Most Powerful Atlas-V Rocket August 31 « AmericaSpace
_



_
_MUOS-4, the next satellite scheduled to join the U.S. Navy’s Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) secure communications network, has been encapsulated in its protective launch vehicle fairing for its August 31 launch from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Photo Credit: ULA_

The fourth in a Lockheed Martin-built, five-ship fleet for a next-generation, narrowband tactical military satellite communications system has been encapsulated in its 5.4-meter (17.7-foot) bullet-like payload fairing for an early morning nighttime liftoff atop a 206-foot tall United Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas-V rocket from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station later this month.

The U.S. Navy’s 7.5-ton Mobile User Objective System-4 (MUOS-4) arrived in Florida on June 28 onboard a C-5 Galaxy transport aircraft via Lockheed’s Sunnyvale, CA facility and nearby Moffett Federal Airfield, courtesy of the 60th Air Mobility Wing at Travis Air Force Base.

“Delivery of this fourth satellite for the U.S. Navy completes the initial MUOS constellation and provides near-global coverage for the network,” said Iris Bombelyn, vice president of Narrowband Communications at Lockheed Martin. “For our mobile forces, that means for the first time they will be able to have secure, high-fidelity voice conversations, networked team calls and data exchange, including video, with anyone around the world connected with a MUOS terminal.”

Launch is currently scheduled for Aug. 31 during a window from 4:07 a.m. EDT to 8:07 a.m. EDT.

MUOS operates like a “smart phone cell tower in the sky,” supporting a worldwide, multi-Service population of users in the UHF band, providing increased communications capabilities to smaller terminals while still supporting interoperability with legacy terminals. The new military SATCOM system will, for the first time, give MUOS Wideband Code Division Multiple Access technology users beyond-line-of-sight capability to transmit and receive voice and data using an Internet Protocol-based system, giving users greater mobility, higher data rates, and improved operational availability.

MUOS gives military users more communications capability over existing systems, including simultaneous voice, video, and data—similar to the capabilities experienced today with smart phones and providing users with 10 times more communications capacity.

MUOS-4 has been undergoing final testing and preparations for flight at Astrotech Space Operations in Titusville, Fla. since arriving on the Sunshine State’s “Space Coast”, and now the time has come to transport the enormous flight-ready military satellite to nearby Space Launch Complex-41 (SLC-41) to meet its Atlas-V rocket, which will fly in its most powerful “heavyweight” variant (551 configuration) to deliver the enormous 15,000 pound MUOS-4 to a 22,000 mile high geosynchronous orbit.

In simple terms, that means the rocket will need the added power of five strap-on solid rocket boosters (supplied by Aerojet Rocketdyne) to get MUOS-4 into space, something that the rocket has only done previously on 5 of its 55 flights over the last 13 years since the vehicle’s inaugural launch.

Three of those flights were the first three MUOS satellites; the other two were both NASA spacecraft to worlds in the outer solar system – New Horizons to Pluto in 2006 and JUNO to Jupiter in 2011.

The MUOS satellites represent the heaviest payloads ever to be launched by ULA’s Atlas-V.

The satellite will make its way to the launch pad this weekend, at which point it will then be hoisted vertical and integrated on top of ULA’s workhorse Atlas-V for final integrated testing and closeout preparations for launch. The rocket will then be rolled out from its Vertical Integration Facility (VIF) to the launch pad on Aug. 28.





_ULA’s Atlas-V 551 rocket launches the NAVY’s MUOS-3 under cover of darkness on Jan. 20, 2015. Photo Credit: Alan Walters / AmericaSpace_

Although a total of five MUOS satellites will make up the MUOS fleet, only four will actually be required to put the whole system into action; the fifth and final MUOS to launch in 2016 will instead serve as an on-orbit spare, should any of the first four lose their capabilities.

Original plans called for the first MUOS to launch by 2010, but budgetary adjustments made in response to the Iraq war led to a two-year delay. MUOS-1 launched on Feb. 24, 2012, followed by MUOS-2 on July 19, 2013, and MUOS-3 on Jan. 20, 2015. In the time since they have demonstrated new capabilities, especially in the Arctic, an area previously beyond the coverage of UHF satellites and growing in interest for transportation and natural resources exploration above 65 degrees north latitude. In the past year MUOS successfully connected users near the Arctic poles during independent testing by Lockheed Martin, and during the U.S. Navy’s 2014 Ice Exercise (ICEX) and the U.S. Coast Guard’s Arctic Shield 2014.

The MUOS satellites seek to offer global satellite communications narrowband (64 kbits/sec and lower) connectivity for use by U.S. and allied forces, with an ultra-high frequency range from 300 MHz-3 GHz. When fully functional, it will replace the legacy UHF Follow-On (UFO) satellite network—the first of which was launched back in March 1993—before the latter system reaches the end of its operational service. MUOS will provide new capabilities and enhanced mobility, access, capacity, and quality of service, with particular emphasis upon mobile users, such as aerial and maritime platforms, ground vehicles, and dismounted soldiers.

By operating in the UHF frequency band, which is lower than that used by conventional cellular networks, MUOS will provide U.S. and allied warfighters with the tactical ability to communicate in “disadvantaged” environments, including heavily forested areas where higher-frequency signals would be otherwise impaired. Even troops in buildings with no satellite access are expected to see an increase in communications capability.

The infrastructure to both fly the MUOS satellites and control access of a user’s communications is managed from the ground. Operationally, information flows to the satellites via UHF WCDMA links, and the satellites then relay the information to one of four ground sites located in Hawaii, Virginia, Italy, and Australia via a Ka-band feederlink. These facilities identify the destination of the communications and route the information to the appropriate ground site for Ka-band uplink to the satellite and UHF WCDMA downlink to the correct users. MUOS will also provide users access to select Defense Information System Network voice and data services.

The MUOS network is expected to be operational by the end of 2015, and all four required MUOS ground stations are complete. According to Lockheed, over 55,000 currently fielded radio terminals can be upgraded to be MUOS-compatible, with many of them requiring just a software upgrade.





_MUOS-4, the next satellite scheduled to join the U.S. Navy’s Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) secure communications network, has been encapsulated in its protective launch vehicle fairing for its August 31 launch from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Photo Credit: ULA_

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*US Wargame Pits Army Missile Defenses Against Russian Jamming*

HUNTSVILLE, ALA.: US missile defenses can hit a bullet with a bullet, shooting supersonic weapons right out of the sky — _when_ they can see them. But as the Russians are showing in their invasion of Ukraine, radar can be jammed.

That’s why the US Army conducted an unprecedented wargame this spring to test its new air and missile defense network against advanced electronic warfare techniques. The highly classified exercise at White Sands Missile Range produced a staggering 70 terabytes of data, twice the size of Wikipedia. It will take a year to analyze the lessons-learned and implement needed fixes to Army systems, Brig. Gen. Neil Thurgood, the Army’s Program Executive Officer (PEO) for Missiles & Space, said. Another such exercise will occur in 2017, Thurgood told the Space & Missile Defense conference here. Then the Army plans to hold them every other year.

The Army’s own electronic warfare arsenal is painfully thin, with offensive jammers not set to enter service until 2023. No wonder, then, that the White Sands exercise assumed the enemy was on the electronic offensive and tested how US air and missile defenses would hold up.

The exercise tested an early version of theIntegrated Air & Missile Defense Battle Command System, which links together sensors, launchers, and command posts. The idea is that a battery no longer has to rely on its own radar but can get targeting data from any radar in the system — even if the two weren’t originally designed to work together, for example a Patriot launcher and aTHAAD AN/TPY-2 radar.

The original inspiration for IBCS was simple efficiency. It will replace a half-dozen different command and control systems for air and missile defense, and it will allow the Army to mix-and-match elements from different weapons systems as needed. But the Army also realized that IBCS could help defeat radar jamming. If one battery’s radar is jammed, spoofed, or hacked, IBCS allows it to stay in the fight using data from radars that are in different locations and/or on different frequencies. Better yet, IBCS will combine data from different radars into a single “composite track” of a given target, allowing radars with an accurate picture to correct radars that are being spoofed.

“Today, we don’t hook all those together. We don’t see one single air picture, one composite track for one target,” Thurgood. But in the exercise, “we had the Patriot weapon platform, the Sentinel [radar], the Avenger weapon platform, [and others] all linked to IBCS, all making the composite track, one track from all the sensors, and we practiced engagements… against an electronic warfare adversary that mirrors what’s happening in theUkraine and what we project is happening with other potential adversaries around the world.”

Traditional analog jamming can be effective, but it’s pretty obvious, Thurgood said: It just blasts out interference in selected wavelengths in a given area. But the Russians, Chinese, and others are using advanced digital jamming which attacks specific frequencies and can spoof the radar. Essentially, they record an incoming radar pulse and play it back in distorted form, confusing the radar receiver.

The distorted return signals can cancel out the true one, “like a set of Bose noise-cancelling headsets,” Thurgood said, or they can create “multiple false targets.” US missile defense batteries might be tricked into firing scarce interceptors at empty air while the real threat slips through. That’s a problem the Army wants to figure out in wargames before it ever faces it in real life.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Fenrir

*The Navy Built an Algorithm That Predicts Pirates' Behavior Before an Attack*

The Navy is a veritable patent machine—it regularly beats all other government bodies when it comes to sheer volume, with 364 filed last year alone. One recent filing: Patent #US8838515, a “Method for predicting pirate attack risk.”

It’s no surprise that the Navy wants to use artificial intelligence to predict what a team of engineers and scientists behind the patent call “emergent pirate behavior.” Pirates are on the rise, operating largely unchecked as they prey on lucrative international shipping routes. Right now, the Navy uses a system that simply analyzes wind and wave data to show where the best _conditions _for attacks are located. That’s all well and good, since as the team behind the project notes, “pirates tend to operate in small vessels, they are particularly vulnerable to adverse winds and seas.”

But it’s purely environmental—all the intel about local pirate gangs has to be synthesized by humans. The Navy’s new software creates models combining the best known conditions for pirating plus all available intel on the pirates in question. The name for these models? “Pirate replicates.”






Each replicate combines all that wave and weather data with the good stuff: behavioral data about pirate groups, where they’re based and where they keep stations, how big their groups are, what sorts of craft they’re using and how fast they can move, and whether they use particular patterns to troll for prey on the open seas. The replicate is a three-armed model—the pirate leave from their hideout, they search for prey, and they return—that’s shaped by all of that data, changing over time, they explain in their application.

The model is actually borrowed from a similar prediction system—based on predators and prey in nature:

_The model used for the pirate problem is based on a prey/predator game with a learned hunting model for a pirate group as predator. Unlike prey/predator games where the population oscillates based on evolutionary dynamics, the presence of pirates at sea fluctuates depending on intelligence information as well as current and past meteorological conditions._

_




_
But the Navy wouldn’t be spending all this time developing a nuanced algorithm for pirate attacks if it didn’t have applications to defense at large right? The patent does say that “one skilled in the art would understand that the methodology described herein can be used in many other areas,” including everything from “undersea warfare” to “anti-narcotics efforts.”

Yep—pirate predictor might be a catchy name, but it looks like it’s far from the only use case here.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

U.S. Navy Ordered to Put Costliest Carrier Through Shock Testing - Bloomberg Business

"Top Pentagon officials have ordered the Navy to conduct shock tests at sea for its new aircraft carrier over objections from the service, which says the requirement may delay deployment by as long as six months.

Navy officials have argued that postponing full shock testing of the $12.9 billion USS Gerald R. Ford, the costliest U.S. warship, until as late as 2025 is justified because its components are being fully tested, it’s designed to be hardened against combat shocks and it’s being evaluated through modeling and simulation.

Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work, the Defense Department’s No. 2 civilian official, decided otherwise and directed that the tests be completed before deployment of the ship designated CVN 78 and built by Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc., according to a memo sent to the Navy and a spokeswoman for the service.

The test “will be conducted to ensure the survivability of the CVN 78 design is understood prior to beginning operational deployments,” Frank Kendall, the undersecretary for acquisition, wrote on Aug. 7 to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, conveying Work’s decision.

In a shock trial, underwater charges are set off to assess how well a ship can withstand them. A crew is on board, and the test isn’t intended to damage equipment. The results are used to judge vulnerabilities and design changes that may be needed.

*Pentagon Debate*
The decision ordering the testing by Work, a former Marine who served as Navy undersecretary, is part of continuing debate inside the Pentagon over testing the Ford carrier. It has pitted the Navy against the Pentagon’s director of combat testing and at least three other civilian officials who all pushed for the test.

The chief tester, Michael Gilmore, has said that if the carrier performs as the Navy maintains, the process should take no more than three months.

More broadly, the debate reflects tensions between the military services, which want to field new weapons systems as soon as possible, and testing specialists who have gained clout since Congress created the office of combat testing in 1983, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said in a June report.

Conducting tests on the Ford before deployment would delay the return to an 11-carrier fleet, the number mandated by Congress, the Navy has said.

The Navy has operated with 10 carriers with the retirement of the USS Enterprise in 2012. Extended deployments of the remaining ships have placed stress on crews, the service has said.

*Potential Vulnerabilities*
Pentagon leaders considered the test’s timing and implications and its impact on the deployment schedule, Kendall’s spokeswoman, Maureen Schumann, said in an e-mail.

After discussions with the Navy, the leaders “concluded that impacts on operational deployments did not outweigh the utility of obtaining information about potential vulnerabilities, which could be revealed through testing,” she said.

Work made “the right decision,” Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain said in an e-mail.

McCain, an Arizona Republican, has pressed the Navy to do the testing that he said “will mitigate the risks of integrating several new technologies, improve the design of future carriers, and, most importantly, increase” the vessel’s survivability and the “ability of the crew to survive battle damage.”

*Navy Notified*
Commander Thurraya Kent, a Navy acquisition spokeswoman, said in an e-mail that the service “has been notified of the decision” and “will move forward as directed.”

James Thomsen, who was the Navy’s principal civilian deputy for acquisition, wrote Kendall on May 20 extolling the Ford’s progress as validating the service’s rationale for a test delay.

“These improvements significantly reduced the risk of mission-critical failures in a combat shock environment but don’t eliminate them completely,” Thomsen wrote. “While there is some risk of deploying in advance of the shock trial, the Navy considers that this is low-risk and acceptable.”

In its report on the defense authorization bill for fiscal 2016, H.R. 1735, the Senate Armed Services Committee said the Ford’s new catapult, arresting system and radar “as well as a reliance on electricity rather than steam to power key systems” mean “there continues to be a great deal of risk in this program.”

The Senate version of the bill, now in negotiation in a House-Senate conference committee, would add $79 million for the shock test and a requirement for the Navy to certify that it will be performed no later than Sept. 30, 2017.

It also would hold up $100 million in procurement spending on the second carrier in the new class, the USS John F. Kennedy, until the Navy submits its certifications. The House version doesn’t have those provisions.

The Senate defense appropriations subcommittee, unlike its House counterpart, also would provide the $79 million for testing in its proposed fiscal 2016 spending bill."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




USS Theodore Roosevelt shock test

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*US Navy to activate additional P-8 workstation for high-tempo ASW and ASuW missions*
US Navy to activate additional P-8 workstation for high-tempo ASW and ASuW missions - IHS Jane's 360

The US Navy (USN) is to activate an additional mission station aboard the Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime multimission aircraft (MMA) to alleviate elevated workload levels during high-contact anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and anti-surface warfare (ASuW) missions, a service spokesperson told _IHS Jane's_ on 13 August.

This disclosure comes on the back of a 7 August notification posted on the US government's Federal Business Opportunities website (FedBizOpps), in which the navy said it had awarded Boeing a cost-reimbursement-type contract for the procurement of design, development, and testing of supplies and services to integrate an additional workstation into the P-8A.

According to the notification, the contract began in June and will run through to December. The P-8A is currently fitted with five fully functioning mission crew workstations, but has space for an additional sixth already set aside. This additional station is already fully 'plumbed in', and requires only the mission system controls and consoles to be fitted.

"The addition of the sixth workstation will be activated across the entire [US Navy] fleet," the USN spokesperson said. "The first modification will be done in the production line, with retrofit modifications to be executed during opportune depot-level maintenance events."

The spokesperson added that the additional workstation will be extended to Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) P-8A aircraft as part of the standing Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the US Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Defence of Australia. The official was unable to comment as to whether it would be rolled out to India and its P-8I Neptune, as that was a direct commercial sale between Boeing and the Indian government. Boeing had not responded to _IHS Jane's_ at the time of writing.

With the P-8A set to fully replace the Lockheed P-3C Orion in USN service by the end of 2019, the Boeing platform is being rolled out in a series of capability increments (previously referred to as spirals). Increment 1, currently fielded, was rolled out from 2013 to add P-3 capabilities to the P-8A. Increment 2 will add multistatic active coherent (MAC) technology for undersea surveillance from 2016; while Increment 3, which is still being defined, will be introduced in 2020.

The sixth workstation is being activated to correct a deficiency in the baseline Increment 1 capability standard, while Increment 3 will capitalise on the addition to facilitate the addition of new capabilities in line with the P-8A Incremental Acquisition Strategy. One Increment 3 capability set that might necessitate the installation of a sixth mission station is the operation and teaming of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Boeing has been testing the MagEagle Compressed Carriage (MECC) UAV since 2010, with a view to deploying the system from the P-8.

The term 'compressed carriage' refers to the UAV's wing, control surfaces, and propeller being foldable. This design will enable it to be carried and deployed initially from the underwing pylon of the P-8A, or latterly from its internal weapons bay. It is envisioned that the MECC, which is based on the unarmed Insitu ScanEagle Compressed Carriage (SECC) UAV, would be launched from a P-8A to localise and track surface and subsurface vehicles, before being recovered aboard surface ships or shore stations. With an endurance of between 14 and 24 hours and a cruise speed of 80 kt (with sprints up to 115 kt), the MECC, and other systems like it, would greatly enhance the P-8's area of coverage.

The US Navy is to receive 109 P-8As in all, although an original requirement for 117 aircraft remains.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

*SeaRAM set for Rota-based DDG 51 destroyers*
SeaRAM set for Rota-based DDG 51 destroyers - IHS Jane's 360

The US Navy (USN) is moving ahead with a fast-track programme to install Raytheon Missile Systems' Mk 15 Mod 31 SeaRAM inner-layer missile system on four DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class Aegis guided-missile destroyers forward deployed to Rota, Spain.

Using funding reprogrammed from fiscal year 2015 (FY 2015) appropriations, the navy will acquire four SeaRAM systems for installation on USS _Carney_ (DDG 64), USS _Ross_ (DDG 71), USS _Donald Cook_ (DDG 75) and USS _Porter_ (DDG 78). It has also provisioned funds for Aegis/SeaRAM integration, and combat system hardware/software modifications.

The Mk 15 Mod 31 SeaRAM is an adaptation of the Mk 15 Block 1B close-in weapon system (CIWS) that replaces the 20 mm M61A1 Gatling gun with an 11-round guide for the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM).

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Fenrir

US Special Missions Aircraft Squadrons. Make sure to resize the images for a more clear picture.






US Tanker force






Can't wait to see the KC-46 added to this list

full resolution versions here and here.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AMDR

*MQ-8C radar promises long-range ISR boost for LCS*
MQ-8C radar promises long-range ISR boost for LCS - IHS Jane's 360

*Key Points*

NAVAIR plans to award the contract for a surface search radar for the MQ-8C Fire Scout UAV in March 2016
Draft specifications indicate that the radar will be able to track 500 targets at ranges out to 100 n miles
The US Navy (USN) is seeking a surface search radar for the MQ-8C Fire Scout unmanned air vehicle (UAV) in an effort to provide Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs) and other helicopter-capable vessels with an organic persistent long-range ISR capability.

Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) has given industry until 5 October to submit proposals for a maritime search radar (MSR) for the Northrop Grumman-built rotary-wing platform, which merges the airframe of the Bell 407 helicopter with autonomous control systems from the smaller MQ-8B UAV.


*Marines Adding Tanks, Artillery to Black Sea Rotational Force to Reassure Against Russian Threat*
Marines Adding Tanks, Artillery to Black Sea Rotational Force to Reassure Against Russian Threat - USNI News

_This post has been updated to correct the type of artillery the Marines are bringing to Bulgaria. The Black Sea Rotational Force’s combined arms company will use the M777 155mm field artillery piece, not the older M198._

The Marines are shaking up their force in Europe, adding a one-of-a-kind Combined Arms Company to the Black Sea Rotational Force to train with local partners and allies on anti-tank capabilities.

Four M1A1 Abrams tanks, three M777 155mm field artillery pieces and six light-armored vehicles (LAVs) LAV-25arrived in Bremerhaven, Germany, on Sunday, and will be boarded onto trains and sent to their new home in Novo Selo Training Area in Bulgaria, according to a U.S. Marine Corps Forces Europe statement.

The Black Sea Rotational Force, established in 2010, is based at the Mihail Koglinceanu Air Base in Romania and consists of about 265 Marines. That force rotates semi-annually and has traveled the region doing theater security cooperation (TSC) exercises. It recently was pulled under a common headquarters with the Europe-based Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) Crisis Response Africa, which provides a similar capability to U.S. Africa Command. But these forces have never had the capability to do anti-tank training – nor has any other Marine unit around the world.

With the tanks, LAVs and artillery, “combine that with CAAT (combined anti-armor team) platoons, the heavy weapons companies and those sorts of assets, and you’ve got a more comprehensive take and training on anti-armor,” U.S. Marine Corps Forces Europe spokesman Capt. Richard Ulsh told USNI News.

Ulsh said the new company is the only of its kind in the Marine Corps and was created specifically for the current situation in Europe. Many close partners and allies, particularly in Eastern Europe, are concerned that Russia’s expansion won’t stop in Ukraine, where columns of tanks poured across the border last year even as Russia denied invading its neighbor.

Earlier this month, when the rotational force turned over, outgoing commander Lt. Col. David Fallon said in the transfer of authority ceremony that “this is a complicated and volatile time for this region. Russia’s aggression and influence in Ukraine is real. It has the undivided attention of all of Eastern Europe, and they look for reassurance that they do not stand alone. That is precisely what we provide – reassurance.”

The creation of the new combined arms company is “a demonstration of our resolve to our allies and our partners in the region,” Ulsh said.
“Look at it as an increased footprint in the area because that’s how serious we take the territorial integrity of our allies and our partners.”

The heavy equipment and about 160 Marines from II Marine Expeditionary Force are meant to work with European militaries’ mechanized units to improve their collective combined arms skills and anti-armor tactics, the Marine Corps statement said.

The combined arms company will be stationed in Bulgaria in part to spread out the force and create a larger footprint, and in part because the Novo Selo Training Area is optimized for the type of exercises the Marines hope to do, Ulsh said.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fenrir

*The Navy's MQ-4C Triton Enters The Sci-Fi Realm Of The Anechoic Chamber*







The Navy’s MQ-4C Triton Broad Area Maritime Surveillance drone is seen lifted inside NAS Patuxent River’s anechoic chamber earlier this month. The test was unique as it was the first time ever that a vehicle was controlled via an external ground station while undergoing electromagnetic compatibility testing in the chamber.

The testing will take over two months to complete and will verify that all the aircraft’s subsystems can operate without interfering with each other electromagnetically. It is a process most military vehicles go through but it is especially critical to combat aircraft as their sensors and emitters are becoming more powerful and sensitive than ever before, and some can even be used as weapons themselves.






_This CV-22 Osprey is shown undergoing testing at Elgin Air Force Base’s smaller anechoic chamber. There are only a handful of such facilities scattered around the U.S._

The anechoic chamber, just one of the many exotic testing facilities that support American weapons development scattered across the U.S., gets its bizarre appearance from the thousands of cones that cover all its interior surfaces. These cones deaden electromagnetic emissions, keeping them from bouncing off walls and keeping stray external signals from interfering with tests. These sound-stage like structures are like stealth buildings on the inside, and they can be used for everything from systems integration testing, to musical recording, to radar signature testing, although the most advanced, purpose-build radar signature testing anechoic chambers can look even more exotic in nature than what you see here. (we will cover them in an upcoming post).

*I really wish there was a higher quality version of this pic





The anechoic chamber at NAS Patuxent River is truly massive, but the largest in the world resides at Edwards AFB. Known as the Benefield Anechoic Facility, the chamber is large enough to accept any aircraft in the world, or multiple aircraft at once if the testing demands it. It is made up of 816,000 pyramid foam structures to deaden any radio frequency signals that careen through the massive 250 foot deep by 264 foot wide by 70 foot tall chasm. Inside engineers can hang their subjects from the ceiling using gantry cranes, or they can place them on a 160 foot wide turntable that can spin 1,000,000 pounds of machinery through 360 degrees. Aircraft as large as the B-52 and B-1 have been tested in the Benefield Anechoic Facility with plenty of room to spare and America’s next bomber, the LRS-B, will most likely be tested there as well, if a prototype has not already visited the facility.






_Here you can see the cousin of the Navy’s MQ-4C, the RQ-4B Global Hawk being tested at Edwards AFB’s huge anechoic facility. _

These amazing facilities are quite literally the quietest places on earth, and the precise engineering and systems development that are accomplished within their four walls is just as interesting as their crazy, almost sinister yet futuristic appearance. They stand as just one more reminder of the incredibly shy, yet complex weapons development apparatus that supports America’s military capabilities. A good part of winning in any conflict occurs in obscure facilities like these long before the first shot is fired, where we get a edge over our competition through advanced engineering and science.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Armstrong

@Technogaianist - Well someone was supposed to be away for the week !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fenrir

Armstrong said:


> @Technogaianist - Well someone was supposed to be away for the week !



Who says she isn't.



Sorry I haven't got around to saying hello yet, I haven't noticed @Nihonjin1051 or yourself today (or yesterday for that matter). So hello, formally, for the first time in over two months. Unfortunately, after this week it will be many more months before I return again.

My ban officially ends January 1st, but I still might not be back until a few weeks later, at the earliest (this all depends on when the little one's ready).

Oh, and here's a bunny

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hurshid Celebi

Armstrong said:


> @Technogaianist - Well someone was supposed to be away for the week !


She or Sven Svensonov with new nick ?  Unfortunately almost all is copy paste as I see.


----------



## Armstrong

Technogaianist said:


> Who says she isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I haven't got around to saying hello yet, I haven't noticed @Nihonjin1051 or yourself today (or yesterday for that matter). So hello, formally, for the first time in over two months. Unfortunately, after this week it will be many more months before I return again.
> 
> My ban officially ends January 1st, but I still might not be back until a few weeks later, at the earliest (this all depends on when the little).
> 
> Oh, and here's a bunny



Sven !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hurshid Celebi

*The Department of Defense awarded a contract worth more than $85 million to Textron’s Bell Helicopter division to develop updates for weapons systems for the US and Pakistani helicopter fleets, the US Navy said in a press release.*
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — In April 2015, the Department of State approved a $925 million foreign military sale to the Pakistan government for a fleet of attack helicopters and hellfire missiles. The principal contractors on that deal were Boeing, Bell, General Electric and Lockheed Martin.

In the meantime, Moscow has been holding talks with Islamabad on potentially selling a number of Russian combat Mi-35 helicopters to Pakistan, a Russian presidential aide said last month.









New V-280 Valor Tiltrotor May Replace Entire US Army Helicopter Fleet
The new contract calls on Bell to develop updates for weapons systems in support of the US Navy and Pakistani government helicopter fleets.
Bell’s work on the weapons systems will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas, and is expected to be completed in August 2020.
In the meantime, Moscow has been holding talks with Islamabad on potentially selling a number of Russian combat Mi-35 helicopters to Pakistan, a Russian presidential aide said last month.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hurshid Celebi

@Technogaianist She/Him insulted me, after I protested her publishing not genuine photos and proved it, GHQ was informed . That's the reason ! You know it for sure . And it is not fair, unserious, and against the rules of PDF taking over someones IDENTITY !

LINKS are not Problem I unlinked them

So you want to detect a submarine? | Page 2
Links are as I said no problem


----------



## Fenrir

Hurshid Celebi said:


> So you want to detect a submarine? | Page 2
> 
> Links are as I said no problem



You'll provide a link or you'll stop bothering with this thread. We aren't children here, we maintain a standard of professionalism and attribute credit to its appropriate source. If it's not your content, you offer credit via a link.

Where's the article from? I don't see any link and I know you didn't write the content.

So you want to detect a submarine? | Page 2

End of Story. You abide or your contributions will be removed.



Hurshid Celebi said:


> @Technogaianist She/Him insulted me, after I protested her publishing not genuine photos and proved it, GHQ was informed .



Let me explain this in no uncertain terms:

I. Don't. Care. I don't care what your problem with her is, that's your business. Don't bother me with that garbage.



Hurshid Celebi said:


> and against the rules of PDF taking over someones IDENTITY !



You're free to ask Jungibaaz, Oscar or Slav Defence, Waz or Manticore, it doesn't matter, especially considering I've also spoken to them using an account that I'm borrowing for a few days. They're fine with me using an account that isn't mine.

Whatever | Page 4043




*Watch The Coast Guard Make The Biggest Narco Submarine Coke Bust Ever*






On July 18th, the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter _Stratton _intercepted a narco sub about 200 miles south of Mexico. On board the homemade semi-submersible were 16,000 pounds of cocaine worth almost a quarter of a billion dollars. Yes, billion, with a B. The Coast Guard pulled 12,000 pounds out of the turquoise-colored sub before it sank to the seafloor






Over the last decade and a half, submarines have been increasingly popular for drug running. They range widely in capability and complexity, from semi-submersible vehicles with very low radar signatures, to fully submersible ones. They are largely built under the jungle canopy, away from the prying eyes of aerial and satellite surveillance, and are then launched on the coastline after being stuffed with drugs and sent north.

The sub caught on the 18th was classed as a “Blue Semi-Submersible” which has been a cartel favorite for years. It runs right below the waterline, with just its exhaust, air stack and tiny wheel house sticking out up from the waterline.






According to the _NyTimes.com_, these subs can cost well over $1M to build and are equipped with a valve in their hull that can be actuated so that the ship can be quickly flooded. This way, if the mission is compromised, the sub and its contents can be sunk while the crew bobs in the water waiting to be plucked out by the Coast Guard.

The USCG has steadily increased its technological capabilities and the deadliness of its armament when it comes to intercepting drug running in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean, even working with military surveillance aircraft and nuclear fast attack submarines to hunt for targets. It’s a move that has been met with great support by some and great disdain by others who oppose what can seem to be an ever failing drug war.

Regardless of which side you stand on, the July 18th bust is remarkable in that it is said to be the Coast Guard’s largest bust of its kind. A quarter of a billion dollar loss is a large one, even for the cartels.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hurshid Celebi

Stop boring me with your offensive language Keep factual ! Rules are valid for all PDF !
I will inform Horus and Webmaster from GHQ, regional mods are regional mods.
And from whom should I know that you operate with covered or borrowed identity, I have no glass ball to look in !

If you would have read the articles detailed, you would have seen Washington (Sputnik)

ATR 72 ASW (Anti-Submarine Warfare) Aircraft - Naval Technology

US Awards Bell Helicopter $85Mln to Upgrade Navy, Pakistan Weapons Systems / Sputnik International


----------



## Fenrir

*OH-58D Kiowa Warriors Bow Out Of Fort Drum In Spectacular Fashion
*
*OH-58D*

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Fenrir

USN Dolphins are too be completely replaced by 2017

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fenrir



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fenrir



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fenrir

RIVRON






Mobile Diving Salvage Unit Two
















Firefighter training

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Fenrir

SOF

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## AMDR



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fenrir

*Video: All of the US Navy's combat jets*







Way back in 1939, FDR established National Aviation Day as August 19th, the birthday of Orville Wright. That’s today! So to celebrate in 2015, we created this awesome video that catalogs all of the US Navy’s combat jets. You’ll see modern jets like the Harrier and F-18 and F-35 along with old school, bad *** planes with names like Banshee and Phantom and Panther and Skynight.

It’s a really cool visual history of how far the US Navy has come (and it’s made even cooler seeing these planes take off from USS aircraft carriers).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fenrir

Anyone want to guess what my favorite helo is?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Falcon

Technogaianist said:


> Anyone want to guess what my favorite helo is?



OH-58 kiowa

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fenrir

PJs

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*Lockheed Martin's LRASM Anti-Ship Missile Just Got its U.S. Navy Designation: AGM-158C*
Lockheed Martin's LRASM Anti-Ship Missile Just Got its U.S. Navy Designation: AGM-158C

Contacted by _Navy Recognition_, a Lockheed Martin spokesperson said "we learned over the weekend that LRASM's official designation will be AGM-158C". AGM-158C is the designation for the air-launched LRASM missile only. There is no surface-launch LRASM program of record yet. The Department of the Navy, Naval Air Warfare Center, gave the official designation. 



*CGI: An AGM-158C LRASM is launched from an F/A-18E Super Hornet*

We reported last week that the U.S. Navy began initial integration testing of its Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) onto the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet at Patuxent River’s Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23 facility.

Based on the airframe of the proven Lockheed Martin JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile), the AGM-158C LRASM shares the designation of this land attack cruise missile too: AGM-158A being the designation of JASSM and AGM-158B being the designation of the extanded range version, JASSM-ER.

Lockheed Martin is also working on a surface launched variant of LRASM for the upcoming OASuW Increment II competition. In an exclusive interview conducted during Sea-Air-Space 2015, Hady Mourad, Lockheed Martin's Tactical Missiles Advanced Programs Director, told _Navy Recognition_ that "_As part of Lockheed Martin’s investment into its Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) weapon offering, surface-launched testing will continue in 2015-2016_'. (Read the full interview with some exclusive images at this link)




*An AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) integrated on F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Aug. 12 at NAS Patuxent River, Md. The program's flight test team is conducting initial testing to ensure proper loading, unloading and handling of the LRASM on the F/A-18 E/F. (U.S. Navy photo)*

When operational, LRASM will provide flexible, long-range, advanced, anti-surface capability against high threat maritime targets. This missile development program is a joint effort of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Naval Air Systems Command, the United States Air Force. the Office of Naval Research (ONR) with Lockheed Martin as prime contractor. The missile is fitted with BAE Systems' advanced long range sensor which is designed to enable targeted attacks within a group of enemy ships protected by sophisticated air defense systems.

The LRASM is a long-range subsonic cruise missile designed for better range and survivability than current anti-ship weaponry. It is carried with the wings and tail stowed and then deployed once released from the aircraft. 

LRASM is set to be fielded on the U.S. Air Force B-1B Bomber in 2018 and the U.S. Navy F/A-18 E/F in 2019.

To learn more: Link to LRASM Long Range Anti-Ship Missile technical datasheet

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fenrir

*F-22 Raptors Will Be Deploying To Europe To Send A Strong Message To Russia*






After teasing the possibility of Raptors deploying to Europe months ago, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James has confirmed to reporters that Raptor is indeed going to be sent to Europe as part of an ongoing initiative to reassure NATO allies of America’s commitment to their defense.

Secretary James made it clear that the move to send the F-22 to Russia’s front doorstep is part of Defense Secretary Ashton Carter’s “strong and balanced” approach to reminding Russia of the consequences of extra-border ambitions:

_“Rotational forces and training exercises help us maintain our strong and balanced approach, and we will certainly be continuing those in the future... For the Air Force, an F-22 deployment is certainly on the strong side of the coin.”_

Exactly what F-22 unit will be sent to Europe and where they would be based remains unclear, although General. Mark Welsh, the U.S. Air Force’s Chief of Staff noted:

_“We’ll get the F-22 into facilities that we would potentially use in a conflict in Europe... This is a natural evolution of our bringing our best air-to-air capability in to train with partners... We have an aircraft with pretty advanced capabilities, and we need, and they would like, for us to be able to interoperate in multiple type scenarios... And being able to train side by side with them and do that kind of training is really, really important for us. And that’s what this is for.”_






The Raptor’s inaugural long-term deployment to Europe (it has had a near constant presence in the Middle East) will most likely follow along the lines of what the Florida and Oregon Air National Guard have executed in their F-15C/Ds since Spring. As part of the ongoing Operation Atlantic Resolve, the Eagles hopped East from one key NATO base to another, training with local units along the way, before ending up at a temporary Eastern European air defense post.

Sending a detachment of Raptors to Europe also points to the possibility that things are not necessarily improving when it comes to Russian-NATO relations. If anything else, they are getting worse as forward deploying the world’s only truly operational 5th generation fighter to Eastern Europe is a card best held until needed.

Then again, the size of America’s air superiority fighter fleet has shrunk so much over the last 25 years that the Eagle community, made up of about 192 aircraft in total (about 25 percent of which are being used for training and development), may not be able to sustain these types of deployments alone while also meeting their homeland defense, regional deterrent and their many training goals. Additionally, both aircraft, the super complex F-22 and the aging F-15C, require large amounts of maintenance to keep them airworthy at any given time. As such, calling the F-22 to deploy to Europe may be an acknowledgement of an inevitable logistical reality as much as a strategic play.






...

I can't see them flying without drop-tanks or luneberg lenses:











Same with the F-35 when it's introduced in East Asia:

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Armstrong

Technogaianist said:


> Anyone want to guess what my favorite helo is?



For a change I know what these Helos are....or at least I can make a decent guess - These are armed Hueys right ? 

Mine are the Cobras....sleek, beautiful and deadly !


----------



## Fenrir

Armstrong said:


> For a change I know what these Helos are....or at least I can make a decent guess - These are armed Hueys right ?



Hmm. I see Sven's still getting me into arguments/debates. I'm going to be dealing with this for a bit.

But no, those are OH-58 Kiowa:






Compared to a UH-1N Iroquois:






And the UH-1Y Venom:








Armstrong said:


> Mine are the Cobras....sleek, beautiful and deadly !



Cobra or Supercobra?

Cobra:






Supercobra:

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armstrong

Technogaianist said:


> Hmm. I see Sven's still getting me into arguments/debates. I'm going to be dealing with this for a bit.
> 
> But no, those are OH-58 Kiowa:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to a UH-1N Iroquois:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the UH-1Y Venom:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cobra or Supercobra?
> 
> Cobra:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supercobra:



Those aren't Hueys ! 

They looked so much like the Hueys from the Rambo movies (the one about Vietnam) ! 

Just cobras 'cause they look better than their successors....plus the white color scheme effectively kills the 'deadly' look !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fenrir

Breach and Clear:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fenrir

Armstrong said:


> Just cobras 'cause they look better than their successors....plus the white color scheme effectively kills the 'deadly' look !



Will you change your mind after Pakistan begins flying the Supercobra?

State Dept. OKs $952M Pakistan Helo Deal



Armstrong said:


> Those aren't Hueys !



Nope. 

UH-1






OH-58






I like the MH-6:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armstrong

Technogaianist said:


> Will you change your mind after Pakistan begins flying the Supercobra?
> 
> State Dept. OKs $952M Pakistan Helo Deal
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> UH-1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH-58
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the MH-6:



Naaah....I still like the Cobras more....old is gold ! 

And come to think of it...now that I look at it closely....the OH-58s look like the Eurocopter ! 

And whats this bulbous little thing at the end ? 

A toy copter ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fenrir

Armstrong said:


> And whats this bulbous little thing at the end ?
> 
> A toy copter ?



. Not familiar with the "killer egg" - MH-6 little bird?

















Armstrong said:


> And come to think of it...now that I look at it closely....the OH-58s look like the Eurocopter !



I do see a resemblance:













You might have meant EC135 Hermes, yes?






Eurocopter is a consortum whose products include Tiger, EC135 Hermes, EC225 Super Puma and AS365 Dauphin.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Armstrong

Technogaianist said:


> . Not familiar with the "killer egg" - MH-6 little bird?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do see a resemblance:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might have meant EC135 Hermes, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eurocopter is a consortum whose products include Tiger, EC135 Hermes, EC225 Super Puma and AS365 Dauphin.







I had meant this one : 
Eurocopter AS350 Écureuil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I didn't know that there was more than one Eurocopter !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fenrir

US Navy MUOS-4 communications satellite awaiting launch

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fenrir



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Fenrir



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fenrir

*MARSOC Raiders*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fenrir

*Boeing's New Compact Laser Cannon Is Designed to Shoot Down Drones*






Boeing announced this week that it has successfully developed a new compact laser weapon system. And watch your back drones–because this one has been made with you in mind.

This summer has seen an explosion in the number of incidents where drones have interfered with emergency crews doing their jobs. Most notably, drone hobbyists have been hindering firefighting efforts in California by jerks flying their quadcopters too close to the flames.

Laser weapons have been used by US forces in both Afghanistan and Iraq, primarily for detonating IEDs from a safe distance. But those laser weapons are mounted on large trucks, while this new system is compact enough to be transported more easily.

Wired described Boeing’s demonstration of the new system in New Mexico this week:

_In the demo, Boeing used the laser to burn holes in a stationary, composite UAV shell, to show how quickly it can compromise an aircraft. Two seconds at full power and the target was aflame. Other than numerous safety warnings to ensure no one was blinded by the two-kilowatt infrared laser, there was no fanfare. No explosions, no visible beam. It’s more like burning ants with a really, really expensive magnifying glass than obliterating Alderaan._






One of the appeals of laser weapons systems is their relative low cost. Once the system is built, all you’re paying for is the electricity to run it. And with a world of ubiquitous drones (military or otherwise) just around the corner, being able to deploy drone-killing tech on the cheap is vital.

“This represents a low-cost way to deal with the threat,” David DeYoung, the director of Boeing Laser & Electro-Optical Systems told Wired. There are currently no plans to utilize the weapon on US soil, and it’s still a couple of years from seeing the battlefield. But if there’s anything we can count on seeing more of in the next decade it’s drones and lasers. And they’ll likely not be the best of friends.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*SSL awarded DARPA contract to study on-orbit satellite assembly*
SSL awarded DARPA contract to study on-orbit satellite assembly -- PALO ALTO, CA, Aug. 26, 2015

PALO ALTO, CA, Aug. 26, 2015 /PRNewswire/ - Space Systems/Loral, LLC (SSL), a leading provider of commercial satellites, today announced it was awarded a contract from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to study on-orbit robotic assembly of geostationary communications satellites. Called Dragonfly, the program is designed to enable larger and more powerful satellites that cannot be launched fully assembled, to be packaged in pieces within a standard launch vehicle fairing. 

"The Dragonfly program gives SSL the opportunity to demonstrate our advanced robotics capabilities with a mission that has the potential to transform the way satellites are built," said John Celli, president of SSL. "SSL has a track record of partnering with DARPA on cost-effective developments that leverage commercial practices and apply to both military and commercial use."

As one of the world's most prolific manufacturers of geostationary communications satellites, SSL brings a wealth of expertise to the Dragonfly study including heritage robotics. The Dragonfly concept, which is designed to have both military and commercial applications, is for satellites to self-assemble from an efficiently stowed state while in orbit with a focus on the installation and reconfiguration of large radio frequency (RF) antenna reflectors.

The study is scheduled for a five-month first phase during which SSL will seek to demonstrate how assembling satellites on orbit could lower satellite cost and mass, while at the same time enabling higher satellite performance. SSL is planning to further develop on-orbit satellite assembly capability and as part of this effort, has submitted a proposal to NASA for collaboration on taking the concept to a ground demonstration followed by a flight application.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fenrir

10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Fenrir

AC-130

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fenrir

*This Shot Of A P-8 Poseidon Dropping Three Harpoon Missiles Is Triumphant*






Boeing’s P-8 Poseidon program has a lot to feel good about. Not only has the aircraft been the star of the Navy in Pacific Theater as of late, but Australia has just ordered four of the maritime patrol and surveillance aircraft, officially making them the third operator of the type. The U.S. Navy also put in an order for nine more of the jets.

Yesterday’s order will bring the Navy’s total Poseidon order book to 62, with 28 of the jets already delivered. The Navy plans on buying 114 P-8s at an estimated cost of $32.8 billion according to DoDBuzz.com. This works out to almost $288 million per aircraft. That’s one expensive maritime patrol jet. The aircraft will replace its aging P-3C Orion counterpart.

The P-8 is proving itself capable of a whole array of missions, including some surveillance roles that were once the mission of dedicated aircraft alone. Additionally, its ability to mount various large sensor arrays underneath its belly, such as one of the world’s most advanced aerial radars and a shadowy communications pod, has shown surprising versatility for such a new weapons system.

Australia looks to order at least eight P-8s, with an option for another four, along with Broad Area Maritime Surveillance drones, most likely the MQ-4C Trident, which will collectively replace Australia’s own AP-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft inventory.

Boeing and the Navy think the number of countries operating the P-8 will grow, possibly including countries like the UK and Norway



in the not so distant future.

Those involved directly with the P-8 have compared the jet to the F-35 when it comes to commonality and exportability. Hopes are high that the relatively young platform will proliferate among allies in the coming years, although its price tag is a potential hurdle for less affluent countries. With this in mind, Boeing has developed the Challenger business jet-based Maritime Patrol Aircraft, which has subsystems commonality with the P-8 and is built to interoperate with it, but supposedly has a much lower price tag.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*Flexible Electronics Are the Goal of Pentagon’s First Silicon Valley Partnership*
Flexible Electronics Are the Goal of Pentagon's First Silicon Valley Partnership - Defense One

NEWPORTBEACH, Calif. — A partnership to develop electronic components that bend — think touchscreens that wrap around your arm, or aircraft wings made of sensors — is the next step in Defense Secretary Ash Carter’s fast-moving campaign to harness Silicon Valley’s innovation and invite its companies to help create a next-gen military.

On Friday, Carter will announce funding for a new research institute to be run by the FlexTech Alliance, a San Jose-based public-private consortium founded to invent and improve “flexible hybrid electronics.” Over the next five years, the Defense Department will contribute $75 million via the Air Force Research Laboratory, while 96 companies including Apple and Lockheed Martin, 11 labs and universities, and other state and local government partners will pitch in $90 million. The total funding will be $171 million.

“Given what we’ve already done, there’s truly no limit to what we can achieve together,” Carter will say, according to excerpts of his Friday speech provided in advance to reporters traveling with the secretary. “That’s why I’ve been pushing the Pentagon to think outside our five-sided box, and invest in innovation here in Silicon Valley and in tech communities across the country. And now we’re taking another step forward.”

What are flexible electronics? They are ultra-thin silicon bits printed or pasted onto stretchable substrates, freeing computers, their parts, and other electronics from stiff circuit boards and chipsets.

For the consumer market, breakthroughs in flexible electronics could foster an explosion in wearable computers. For the Defense Department, the potential applications start with slashing the size and power consumption of the devices that troops carry. The average Marine today carries an “assault load” of between 95 to 130 pounds, far beyond the recommended 50. The emerging field also holds tremendous promise for the personal and wearable sensors of the sort that the Defense Department is increasingly placing on the backs and fronts of people in uniform. One major application could be new types of computer displays that could fold like a fabric sleeve around a soldier’s arm, replacing heavy and bulky computer equipment.


The Army’s much-hyped Iron Man exoskeleton, the Tactical Assault Light Operator Suit program, or TALOS, which has consumed far more than the $80 million originally allotted to it, could get a big boost from breakthroughs in the area.

Flexible electronics could allow engineers to build new types of robots that are lighter, more resilient, and more useful than today’s highly limited and breakable bots — something like this soft, self-camouflaging specimen developed by Harvard and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

Perhaps the most important military beneficiary would be aircraft-makers, who could use flexible electronics to fit a lot more stealth, electronic warfare, and communications capabilities onto jets, spy planes and drones.

“For those interested in foreign policy and national security, there are lots of interesting challenges and problems to work on. And that’s also true for those interested in technology. But the intersection of the two is an opportunity-rich environment‎,” Carter will say in his speech.

Among the national security uses that White House sees: “Dramatically reducing the electronic systems package size and weight through electronics that conform to complex shapes such as aircraft wings or unattended vehicle platforms, and integrating electronics in clothing and fabrics.”

The new organization, called the Manufacturing Innovation Institute, will work to develop “an end-to-end stretchable electronics ‘ecosystem’ in the U.S.” according to the White House.

Carter made the announcement during a visit to the Defense Innovation Unit-Experimental, the Pentagon’s new California office created at lightning speed to convince Silicon Valley inventors and engineers to spend some time and energy ensuring that America’s military retains its technological superiority.

Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook explained it this way: “Secretary Carter is demonstrating tangible progress in building relationships with Silicon Valley, which he believes is necessary to help the U.S. military remain on the cutting edge well into the future. The public private partnership he is announcing at Moffett Field will benefit both the future warfighter and customers of a range of U.S. companies, helping the U.S. maintain leadership in manufacturing and innovation for years to come.”

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

*U.S. Army engineers prep Multi-Mission Launcher prototype, designed to defeat UAS, missiles, rockets*
U.S. Army engineers prep Multi-Mission Launcher prototype, designed to defeat UAS, missiles, rockets - Intelligent Aerospace

*REDSTONE ARSENAL, Ala., 1 Sept. 2015. *Personnel at the Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) will transfer the first prototype of the Multi-Mission Launcher (MML) to Program Executive Office, Missiles and Space (PEO MS). Both AMRDEC and PEO MS call Redstone Arsenal in Alabama home.






More than 150 subject matter experts, assembled by AMRDEC, with representatives from six directorates and more than 20 functional areas designed, manufactured, procured, assembled, and tested the MML, the U.S. Army’s newest Air Defense launcher. The MML Product Team also leveraged more than 85 industry partners to assist with design and manufacturing. 

Army officials are calling the MML prototype “the first development of a major acquisition program by the government in more than 30 years.”

The MML is part of the U.S. Army’s Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2-Intercept (IFPC Inc 2-I) program. IFPC Inc 2-I is a mobile ground-based weapon system designed to defeat unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), cruise missiles, and rockets, artillery, and mortars. The IFPC Inc 2-I system will combine: the MML, the Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System as the command and control unit, Sentinel radar system, and existing interceptors to provide 360-degree protection with the ability to engage simultaneous threats arriving from different azimuths. 

The MML is mounted on a medium tactical truck. The launcher can rotate 360 degrees and elevate from 0-90 degrees. It consists of 15 tubes, each of which can hold either a single large interceptor or multiple smaller interceptors. Developed using an open systems architecture, the launcher will interface to the IBCS Engagement Operations Center via radio. The truck will also pull a trailer that has a missile data link to communicate to interceptors in-flight, and an Army standard 60-kilowatt (kW) generator to power the system while emplaced.






In 2012, the IFPC Inc 2-I Product Office came to the AMRDEC to conduct an engineering feasibility study to support an Analysis of Alternatives excursion for a Multi-Role, Common Launcher. A white paper published in April 2012 concluded that such a launcher was feasible from an engineering standpoint. The launcher groundwork continued with a deeper dive into key performance goals and performance trade studies leading to a Conceptual Design in October 2012. The Conceptual Design leveraged the M1157 Dump Truck, an existing member of the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV), and a M1095 five-ton trailer. The FMTV frame reinforcements, cradle, and azimuth geared bearing were leveraged from the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System along with significant hardware and software architecture experience from AMRDEC engineers.

In March 2014, IFPC Inc 2-I received an Acquisition Decision Memorandum approval to proceed with the AMRDEC development and demonstration of two prototype launchers for the Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction acquisition phase. On 3 Sept. 2015, AMRDEC will deliver the first of two prototype MMLs in 18 months, on schedule and on budget. The second MML will be delivered on schedule on 22 Oct. 2015.

The launchers will demonstrate a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6 at the Engineering Demonstration to be held at White Sands Missile Range in March 2016. AMRDEC will provide eight additional MMLs through the Engineering and Manufacturing Development acquisition phase, six of which will be assembled by Letterkenny Army Depot.

AMRDEC is part of the U.S. Army Research, Development, and Engineering Command (RDECOM), which develops technology and engineering solutions for America's soldiers. AMRDEC employs nearly 11,000 civilian scientists, researchers, and engineers.

RDECOM is a major subordinate command of the U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC), the Army's provider of materiel readiness -- technology, acquisition support, materiel development, logistics power projection, and sustainment -- to the total force, across the spectrum of joint military operations.

PEO MS provides centralized management for all Army air and missile defense and tactical missile programs as well as selected Army Space programs. The PEO is responsible for the full life-cycle management of assigned programs.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Fenrir

*ULA Atlas-V Propells MUOS-4 Satellite Into Space as Air Force and Congress Shudder Over Threats To Russian RD-180*

ULA Atlas-V Propells MUOS-4 Satellite Into Space as Air Force and Congress Shudder Over Threats To Russian RD-180 « AmericaSpace





_A ULA Atlas-V 551 rocket launches the Navy’s MUOS-4 satellite to orbit from Cape Canaveral, Fla. Sep. 2, 2015. Photo Credit: John Studwell / AmericaSpace_

A Russian RD-180 powered United Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas-V 551 rocket successfully launched the 7.5 ton Lockheed Martin/Navy Mobile User Objective System (MUOS 4) satcom into geosynchronous transfer orbit early today. The launch success comes as the Pentagon and Congress grow increasingly alarmed that Russian President Vladimir Putin could halt deliveries of RD-180 engines before the U.S. can field a replacement around 2021.

“The threats are real,” Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James, told the Senate Armed Services strategic subcommittee. The RD-180 situation is “disgraceful” said full committee Chairman Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona).

In spite of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, ULA is being allowed to procure an additional 18 RD-180s to carry Atlas-V operations to about 2021 by when SpaceX, and ULA”s new Vulcan rocket and perhaps other competitors can assure competition and heavy satellite access to space after the RD-180s run out.

If Vladimir Putin halts deliveries in the deteriorating diplomatic climate, the Pentagon and Congress are concerned about being forced to use the $400 million Delta-IV Heavy rocket for medium sized military payloads that would normally use the $150 million Atlas-V.

The MUOS-4 flight, on the most powerful version of the 206 ft. tall Atlas-V with five solid rocket motors, lifted off from Launch Complex-41 on 2.5 million lbs. of first stage thrust. The launch, delayed 3 days by tropical weather, came at 6:18 a.m EDT after a 19 minute delay early in the countdown caused by concerns about nitrogen purge gas flow. The second stage single engine Centaur then completed 3 firings until the 15,000 lb. spacecraft was released over Java, north of Australia, at 2 hours and 53 minutes after liftoff.

“The most dangerous part of a satellite’s life is launch and getting into orbit. I really want to thank our entire team whose hard work prepared MUOS-4 for this mission-critical event and the Atlas team who ultimately carried us safely to our transfer orbit,” said Iris Bombelyn, vice president of Narrowband Communications at Lockheed Martin. “We look forward to completing our on-orbit health checks and delivering this important asset to the U.S. Navy and these new capabilities to our mobile forces.”

The Atlas-V put on a spectacular show as it was fired eastward into early dawn lighting that illuminated a miles wide RD-180 octopus-shaped plume as the vehicle left the atmosphere after solid rocket motor separation. Unusual atmospheric conditions created a dramatic sight in the sky as MUOS-4 climbed into sunrise, with spectators up and down Florida’s “Space Coast” sharing their images all over social media and making #AtlasV the fourth most trending topic in the world this morning.

The first centaur upper-stage burn cut off above the mid Atlantic, followed by the second firing just off the West African bulge. The vehicle then coasted for 2.5 hours until the third burn north of Australia.

The satellite’s 19,322 x 2,067 nautical mile transfer orbit will later be raised to geosynchronous orbit over the Indian Ocean using about eight firings of the satellite’s hydrazine engines. MUOS-4 will complete near global narrowband coverage with three similar spacecraft already over the Atlantic, Pacific and CONUS. A fifth MUOS satellite spare will be launched no earlier than mid 2016.

Russia’s threat to America’s assured access to space is drawing very sharp criticism from U.S. Air Force leadership and the Senate Armed Services Committee. “The situation has gone from important, to imperative,” said Gen. John E, Hyten, who heads Air Force Space Command. Strategic subcommittee chairman Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) noted, “We are all in agreement that the use of the RD-180 is not in the national interest.”





_The ULA Atlas-V climbing into sunrise with MUOS-4 for the NAVY Sep. 2, 2015. Photo Credit: John Studwell / AmericaSpace_

ULA public affairs, and especially local Cape Canaveral media, treat the always spectacular Atlas-V launches as a celebration of rocketry, dutifully reciting over and over again the same Atlas-V specifications and performance figures over the last 13 years. Today’s launch marks the 56th successful Atlas-V flight, but there is a lot more now at stake with Atlas-V launch operations.

“The Atlas-V is the most beautiful rocket I have ever seen,” said Hyten. “But every time it clears the freaking launch pad, and I see the Russian engine on the bottom, it has torqued me off since the first day it flew in 2002,” he told the subcommittee. ”We we have needed to get off that engine for a decade, but we have not committed the resources until last year when the Congress committed the resources that allowed us to do that.”

According to Washington D.C. based analyst Marcia Smith who writes “Space Policy Online,” Secretary James and Gen. Hyten plan to use NASA’s “public private partnership” (PPP) model and adopt a four-step path that will “result in a commercially competitive domestic launch capability to replace the RD-180.” Smith said those steps are:


Step 1: Technology risk reduction, for which money being obligated now will be used.
Step 2: Investment in rocket propulsion systems with multiple providers “to partner in their ongoing investment in domestic propulsion systems.”
Step 3: Use the PPP approach and enter into agreements with launch system providers to provide domestically-powered launch capability.
Step 4: Compete and award contracts “with certified launch providers for launch services during the period 2018-2022.”
The years 2018-2022 would be a period of transition from the RD-180-powered Atlas-V to the new systems.

Hyten and James also continued to press their case that they do not want to replace one monopoly with another, with SpaceX replacing ULA in that role.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*Lockheed Martin contracted to deliver Block 3F software for F-35*
Lockheed Martin contracted to deliver Block 3F software for F-35 - IHS Jane's 360

Lockheed Martin has been contracted to deliver Block 3F software for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter for the US and UK militaries.

The USD311.4 million contract announced by the Department of Defense (DoD) on 1 September covers delivery of the aircraft's full combat software to the US Air Force (USAF) (46%), US Marine Corps (USMC) (27%), US Navy (20%), and the United Kingdom (7%). According to the notification, work is expected to be competed in September 2021.

The F-35's software and capability blocks are broken down into Block 1A - initial training, Block 1B - advanced training 1, Block 2A - advanced training 2, Block 2B (initial combat capability), Block 3i (initial full capability), and Block 3F (full combat capability).

The USMC recently declared initial operating capability (IOC) for its F-35B jets with the Block 2B software, enabling the fleet to conduct close air support, offensive and defensive counter air, air interdiction, assault support escort, and armed reconnaissance missions. Block 3i provides the same tactical capabilities as Block 2B, with the principal difference being the implementation of the updated Integrated Core Processor. The USAF will declare IOC for its F-35As, with one squadron of aircraft at the Block 3i standard in the third quarter of 2016.

Block 3F provides 100% of the software required for full warfighting capability, including but not limited to datalink imagery, full weapons, and embedded training. Mission Systems Block 3F software development is 98% complete and due to be rolled out in the third quarter of 2017. After Block 3F, further block upgrades will be developed and introduced. The DoD is currently balancing its future priorities with expected budgets as it looks to define its Block 4 requirements.

The USAF has a requirement for 1,763 conventional take-off and landing F-35As, the first of which was received at the Integrated Training Center at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB) in 2011. The USAF will declare IOC in 2016. The USMC has a requirement for 353 F-35Bs and 67 F-35Cs, with the first having arrived at Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River in Maryland in 2010. The service declared IOC of the F-35B in July. The US Navy has a requirement for 260 F-35Cs. It currently flies the variant at NAS Patuxent River and Eglin AFB. NAS Lemoore in California will be home to the service's first operational squadron, with IOC set for 2018-19.

The United Kingdom has a requirement for 138 F-35Bs for the Royal Air Force (RAF) and Royal Navy, with final numbers set to be announced at the Strategic Defence and Security Review planned for later this year. Parliament has authorised the procurement of the first 14 F-35Bs as part of the overall programme of record, the first eight of which have been contracted (including four training and test platforms). In February 2015 the RAF's 17 Reserve Squadron was designated the United Kingdom's operational test and evaluation squadron at Edwards AFB. In 2016 the first operational unit - 617 'Dambusters' Squadron - is to stand up at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort before transferring to the type's homebase of RAF Marham in 2018. This unit will be joined at the same location shortly after by 809 'Immortals' Naval Air Squadron.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fenrir

Joint US-RoK training:

*South Korea's Massive Live Fire Exercise Is Overwhelmingly Intense On Purpose*






South Korean and American forces are said to be at a readiness unlike any in the world, wound up to spring into all-out war if need be at the sound of a klaxon. This readiness in showcased during combined live fire drills, where the total force is brought together as much for show and intimidation as for training.






The latest event took place at Seungjin range in Phocheon-gun, some 50 miles north of Seoul, on August 24 right as the two countries seemed to be ready for war.

The setting for this live fire event, a mountainous valley among the lush terrain of the central Korean Peninsula, gives it an almost toy soldier-like appeal. But don’t let that fool you, the ordinances being launched and the weapons involved are very real, and the array of weaponry demonstrated is dizzying.

This video showcases nearly the full spectrum of land-combat capabilities: the E-7 Widget Airborne Early Warning And Control aircraft, KUH-1 helicopters inserting special forces, a whole assortment of armor, and much more.

This is not to say that the North does not possess potent if rudimentary combat capabilities in high numbers that could destroy large swathes of South Korea, but if the choice for war is left up to those in command in the North, the idea is this would be a taste of what they would be facing. 

Sometimes it is hard to put a finger on the idea of deterrence. But if you were Kim Jong Un or one of his generals, it may make you think twice about whether you’d be ordering your own destruction.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## F-22Raptor

Next Generation Jammer Prototype Powers Through Critical Test

MCKINNEY, Texas — In collaboration with the U.S. Navy, Raytheon Co. recently completed Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) testing for its Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) array prototypes at the Benefield Anechoic Facility at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.

“Raytheon and the Navy developed a realistic testing program designed to ensure that the NGJ electronic warfare system meets its 2021 initial operating capability commitment,” said Travis Slocumb, vice president of Electronic Warfare Systems at Raytheon’s Space and Airborne Systems business. “Completion of EIRP testing, while an early milestone, confirms our progress to date and that the program is successfully executing to both schedule and plan.”

The prototype testing, conducted over a six-week period, indicated that the NGJ will fulfill the U.S. Navy’s stringent requirements for EIRP, a prime indicator of the system’s range and capacity for reaching and affecting multiple targets simultaneously.

The NGJ is built on a combination of high-powered, agile, beam-jamming techniques and cutting-edge solid-state electronics to achieve two goals: meet the U.S. Navy’s electronic warfare mission requirements and provide a cost-effective open systems architecture for future upgrades. It is scheduled to replace legacy ALQ-99 tactical jamming pods, delivering new capabilities for the Navy’s EA-18G Growler.

SEAPOWER Magazine Online

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## F-22Raptor

SEWIP Block 3 Completes Preliminary Design Review

WASHINGTON — Block 3 of the Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Program on Aug. 25 successfully completed the preliminary design review (PDR) for the next-generation AN/SLQ-32 shipboard electronic warfare system, Naval Sea Systems Command announced in a Sept. 4 release.

Completed on schedule in conjunction with prime contractor Northrop Grumman, the review assessed the state of the system architecture and preliminary design. The PDR is a major program milestone, validating technology maturity and technical development plans.

“This ensures that the cutting-edge preliminary design is on track to meet necessary technology improvements to the AN/SLQ-32 family of electronic warfare systems through specific enhancements to threat identification, prioritization, defensive systems optimal assignment, and active engagement,” said RDML Jon A. Hill, program executive officer, Integrated Warfare Systems.

This system represents the Navy’s investment of nearly a decade in advanced electronic warfare through the Office of Naval Research Integrated Topside prototype program. By specifically augmenting and upgrading the current AN/SLQ-32(V)6, the AN/SLQ-32(V)7 it will deliver improved, fully integrated, threat detection and active radar-jamming capability, coupled with critical enhancements in coordinated electronic warfare defense. Critical Design Review is scheduled for 2016, and initial fielding is slated for 2019.

“This was a huge accomplishment for our SEWIP team,” said CAPT Seiko Okano, SEWIP program manager. “It is apparent that proliferation of advanced technology will continue to challenge our forces both at home and abroad. This upgrade will provide increased protection to both our ships and their crews, and the Navy is counting on us to deliver this critical electronic warfare capability improvement on schedule and cost.”

SEAPOWER Magazine Online

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*Potential cyber mission for EA-18G could lead to more orders*
Alert 5 » Potential cyber mission for EA-18G could lead to more orders - Military Aviation News

The Pentagon could task the EA-18G with a new role to hack into enemy computer networks, if so, the U.S. Navy will order more Growlers to meet the new demand, outgoing CNO Admiral Jonathan Greenert said.

*Large Displacement Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Program Achieves Acquisition Milestone*
SEAPOWER Magazine Online

WASHINGTON — Naval Sea Systems Command received a risk-reduction decision approval Aug. 17, known as a Milestone A decision, for the Large Displacement Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (LDUUV) program, the command said in a Sept. 3 release.

Milestone A approval grants the program the authority to move into the next phase of development, which will allow the Navy to commit resources to mature technology and reduce risks prior to production and fielding. 

The LDUUV is a new class of large-displacement unmanned undersea vehicles that will provide increased endurance, range and payload capabilities. The system is being designed for intelligence, surveillance and mine countermeasure missions, and is based on a modular, open architecture that will allow the Navy to incrementally develop new mission sets for the craft. 

LDUUV will be capable of being stowed, launched and recovered by multiple-host platforms, including littoral combat ships, Virginia-class submarines and Ohio-class guided-missile submarines. The craft is being developed by the Unmanned Maritime Systems Program Office, which is part of the Program Executive Office Littoral Combat Ships).

Following the successful Milestone A decision, a draft LDUUV request-for-proposals was released on the Federal Business Opportunities website. An industry day is scheduled for Sept. 14 in Washington, at which the Unmanned Maritime Systems Program Office will host a presentation and discussion for the industry community on LDUUV requirements.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*Northrop Grumman offers to accelerate JSTARS delivery*
Northrop Grumman offers to accelerate JSTARS delivery - IHS Jane's 360

*Key Points*

Northrop Grumman's JSTARS offering could be delivered to the USAF and enter service by 2021
The acceleration would avoid the 2022-28 time frame when the air force is scheduled to be procuring its three most costly recapitalisation efforts
Northrop Grumman's Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) offering could be delivered to the US Air Force (USAF) and in service by 2021, ahead of a six-year period of costly acquisition for the service, company executives said during a briefing at their platform provider Gulfstream's facility in Savannah, Georgia.





An artist's conception of the Northrop Grumman JSTARS offering based on the Gulfstream G550. (Gulfstream)

The USAF currently plans to begin replacing the legacy Northrop Grumman E-8C JSTARS with a new business jet-based solution by 2023.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

*Air Force Launches Competition for Revolutionary Turbine Engine *
Air Force Launches Competition for Revolutionary Turbine Engine
September 2015 

The Air Force is hoping that a prize contest will yield a revolutionary new engine that doubles the fuel efficiency of current systems.

The $2 million Air Force prize will go to the first team that is able to build a new turbine engine that meets the service’s specifications, said Air Force Lt. Col. Aaron Tucker, program manager of the prize.

“We want to energize research into topics that support the Air Force mission, and turbine engines provide power in a lightweight, low profile package for airborne systems,” he said at an Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International conference in Atlanta in May. “A prize excites and motivates talented people.”

The new engine must be big enough to power a medium-sized drone but more cost-effective than larger power plants, he said. A full list of criteria can be found on the contest website at Air Force Prize

Registration opened in May. As of press time, none of the participants’ engines had reached the verification testing stage, which is slated to take place at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.

Tucker said $2 million is the largest monetary prize ever offered by one of the military services. The contest was inspired in part by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s robotics competition, which used prize money to motivate civilian engineering teams to build cutting edge robots that could perform disaster response missions.

The engine contest is being administered by the Air Force Research Laboratory, which has a mission of developing technologies to boost U.S. airpower.

The AFRL has laid out challenging criteria for participants. The turbine engine must be in the 100 horsepower class, with a 2.0 brake-horsepower per pound (bhp/lb) or better power to weight ratio. It is also required to have a brake-horsepower specific fuel consumption of 0.55 pounds per brake-horsepower per hour (lb/bhp/hr) or less at maximum continuous power. Those standards would double the fuel efficiency of existing turbine engines of that class. The new engine would weigh a fraction of piston engines in the 100 horsepower class and have 10 times the life span, according to the Air Force.

“With this prize they’re trying to get inventors to develop a turbine engine that has the power density of a turbine and good power to weight [ratio] and … also has the specific fuel consumption of a piston engine. So in a sense they want a jet engine that gets better gas mileage,” said Mike Heil, president and CEO of the Ohio Aerospace Institute and former director of the Air Force Research Laboratory’s propulsion directorate. 

The AFRL wants the best of both engine worlds. William LaPlante, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, said the service wants to hit the “sweet spot” between the capabilities of turbine and piston engines. “It’s something that doesn’t exist right now, this class of engine,” he said in July at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank.

Jets can generate more power than piston engines, but they are less fuel efficient. “That’s why you don’t see many turbine-powered automobiles because their gas mileage would not be very good,” Heil said.

A key requirement for the new engine is that it must run on standard Jet A fuel.

“The other problem with piston engines is they require gasoline. … The Air Force and the military want to only deal with only one fuel when they’re deployed and operating — and that is Jet A jet fuel. So they want to get away from having to carry a secondary fuel with them,” Heil explained.

Tucker noted that relying on aviation gasoline in addition to jet fuel is “one of the major drivers of the specific logistical [tail] in combat operations, and we’d really like to remove that requirement.”

To succeed, engineers must improve performance when it comes to SWAP — size, weight and power. The Air Force is trying to reduce the weight and size of remotely piloted aircraft propulsion systems while maintaining the same power and reducing fuel consumption. Such a system would offer key advantages over the piston engines used by medium-sized drones like the MQ-1 Predator, aviation experts said.

“The turbine engines tend to have longer lifetimes and require less maintenance, so they’re trying to achieve some logistics advantages as well,” Heil said. “By going to a lighter, more compact engine with the same horsepower [and] with better fuel consumption, they will get more range and they will get more endurance. So there will be operational benefits through this improvement as well.”

Tucker said a lighter weight engine and decreased fuel fraction would enable UAVs to carry a heavier payload on their missions.

Whether any of the participants can pull off the design and engineering feat remains to be seen. Experts said meeting the contest’s technical requirements will be challenging.

“I haven’t seen anything quite as ambitious as that as far as the percentage of improvements go,” said Bill Storey, president of the Teal Group, a Virginia-based aerospace and defense market analysis firm. “I don’t quite know how they can do it. Usually the design goals are to reduce fuel consumption by 15 percent or increase durability and that sort of thing. That’s generally [a goal to promote] an evolutionary development in gas turbine engines rather than revolutionary.”

Tucker said recent advances in composite materials and manufacturing technologies, such as 3D printing, could facilitate development efforts and give smaller companies precision machining capabilities that were previously only available to larger firms.

Using a contest to spur R&D for ambitious engine advancement makes sense for the military, Storey said.

“It sounds like the Air Force is just sort of challenging industry to see what they would come up with and have a safe route to experiment with evolutionary technologies on the smaller end of things rather than incorporating it into a new fighter engine or something that would be very risky,” he said. “It’s less risk and less cost to play with new technology on a smaller program like this [which is] something that might bear fruit for the major programs down the line.”

Congress authorized the Pentagon to award prizes as an acquisition model in the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. Earlier this year, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James picked the turbine engine to be the focus of the service’s first contest.

“To me that shows the importance of propulsion and particularly propulsion for UAVs. So that shows that it’s a high priority for the Air Force and the Department of Defense,” Heil said.

However, the relatively small financial reward — when compared to the payoff for programs of record — may not be enough of an incentive to attract larger defense contractors. “As far as the jet engine business goes within DoD, this is pretty small potatoes,” Storey noted.

A spokesman for Pratt & Whitney said the company has no plans to participate in the contest because the award value is so low. As of press time, all of the registered participants were small companies, venture capitalists or individuals with engineering backgrounds. 

One such company is Volta Volaré, an Oregon-based aviation company. It found out about the Air Force Prize contest from a Twitter feed. Volta Volaré had not previously done any work for the U.S. military.

“This would be our first foray. And we’re so excited about it. It’s right up our alley … and I was so pleasantly surprised when we saw this opportunity come about,” said president and CEO Paul Peterson.

The company is tweaking the design of one of its existing engines and is optimistic that it will meet all of the prize criteria, he said.

“I hope that we’ll be able to make a better product and serve the warfighters,” he told National Defense.

Tucker said he understands that a $2 million prize might not even be enough to fully finance a team through the entire development process. But he’s hoping that the prestige factor and the potential opportunity to sell the engine in the civilian market will draw participants.

“We expect some motivation to be the cache associated with receiving the first Air Force Prize,” he said.

Winning the contest does not guarantee that the Air Force will buy the contestant’s turbine engine, Tucker noted. Participants own their engine and the rights to the design and intellectual property. The Air Force will own the data from the verification testing, but the contestants will have a perpetual, royalty free, non-exclusive license to use the test data for any purpose.

Although there is no current program of record for which the service is developing the engine, Tucker said the contest “will educate our judgment on the system and its technological approach for the development of a typical research-and-development contract as appropriate.”

“We see it as an important part of our turbine engine portfolio,” he added. “We’re always interested in innovative technology with direct impact. And there are other acquisition methods by which to acquire these beyond this Air Force prize.”

Despite the relatively low prize payout, experts see business opportunities for a company that is able to win the contest and mass produce its engine.

“Your larger UAVs like the Global Hawk, they already have a jet engine on them,” Heil said. “What they’re doing is they’re talking about the smaller class of UAV — Predator class and smaller — of being able to convert them from a piston engine … to a turbine engine. … So I think it would open up all those classes of smaller UAVs that the Air Force and the other services would be interested in operating.”

A next-generation turbine engine could potentially be used on a variety of platforms, not just drones. Air Force officials said they would be interested in using it to power small manned aircraft, cruise missiles and fixed power plants.

Tucker said soldiers could potentially use the engine to power all-terrain vehicles, vertical lift aircraft and generators when they are operating “off the grid” in austere environments.

“If this works … it has huge applications,” LaPlante said, noting that it could result in technology spillover to the civilian market for use on airplanes, ATVs, watercraft and other machines. 

Heil said the engine could also potentially be adopted for commercial UAVs, which are proliferating rapidly. 

“There are challenges,” he noted. “You’ve got to manage the noise and the vibration and the exhaust and all those kind of things. But I think if they’re successful with this prize and if an engine gets developed that is applicable for these unmanned aerial vehicle applications, there could be other markets in other areas for it.”

Storey said the engine would have to be cost competitive with existing technologies in order to penetrate the civilian market. “There are a lot of small engines out there, and a revolutionary design could certainly make some inroads into these applications,” he said.

Heil said the contest is a good way to get non-traditional players involved in advancing Air Force technology. But a small group that builds the winning engine would face choices about how to bring it to market.

“They may want to team with one of the bigger companies in doing this. But I suspect a lot of them will be off doing it on their own now,” he said. “If it’s a winning design with market potential, of course they will be of interest to the big companies that are in the business of building turbines. But who’s to say they won’t be like a SpaceX or some of these other companies that will go ahead and strike it out on their own and get some venture capital and start a whole new company?”

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## monitor

*As Industry Awaits Bomber Contract, New Details Emerge*
By Lara Seligman, Aaron Mehta and Andrew Clevenger 9:15 a.m. EDT September 5, 2015




(Photo: Staff Sgt. Steve Thurow/US Air Force)

95 CONNECT 37 TWEET 25 LINKEDINCOMMENTEMAILMORE
WASHINGTON — For months the defense industry has been held hostage, watching closely as the Pentagon weighs a decision that will shape the aerospace world for decades to come.

The Air Force is poised to announce who will build its next-generation bomber, and the competition is steep. The two teams represent three of the five top defense contractors in the country: Northrop Grumman, builder of the B-2 stealth bomber, and a teamed Boeing and Lockheed Martin. A contract was due first in the summer, then early fall. But now there are whispers it could slip into October.

New information shared last week reveals what is behind the delay. The Air Force is using an unusual acquisition strategy, led by a shadowy office, to procure the bomber. Meanwhile, the competing designs are vastly more mature than previously known, to a level nearly unheard of in a pre-award program.


The Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) program remains shrouded in mystery, but these revelations helped paint a clearer picture of a capability that will project power and deter threats well into the 21st century. We now know the new aircraft will be significantly stealthier than the B-2, capable of carrying conventional and nuclear weapons, and optionally manned. Initial operating capability is slated for the mid-2020s, with nuclear certification planned two years after that.

In anticipation of the award, the Air Force has begun revealing additional details. During a Sept. 1 meeting, officials confirmed the service has two robust designs in hand that are complete down to the level of individual access panels, according to a Congressional Research Service analysis by J.J. Gertler.

The next challenge will be integrating the mature technologies, the officials apparently said. They pointed to integration of the engines and the placement of antennas onto the airframe as areas of potential risk, according to one source who attended. The officials apparently did not elaborate but are likely worried these components, which typically give off signatures, could compromise the aircraft's stealth.

The Air Force has not disclosed concrete plans for the aircraft’s range, payload or size. Bombers are traditionally large aircraft with much longer unrefueled range than fighters, which enables rapid strikes on targets on the other side of the globe. But with advances in aerial refueling technology, does the new bomber really need organic long range? Will the aircraft be as large as the B-2, which weighs more than 300,000 pounds loaded? And what is the range vs. payload trade-off?

Retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula, former deputy chief of staff for ISR, said he sees an LRS-B with an unrefueled range radius of 2,500 nautical miles. This provides “sufficient range capability to counter any of the anti-access capabilities that are emerging from the Russians or the Chinese,” Deptula said.

As to size, the briefers were apparently cagey during the meeting. However, they indicated a UCLASS-size design was too small and the B-2 design was too large. Cost could also constrain the size of the aircraft, one source said.

No mention was made of speed during the briefing, although the combination of long range, large payload and cost constraints strongly suggest LRS-B will be subsonic.

The advanced testing, unusual this early in the acquisition process, is in part because the bomber program is being handled by the Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO), a small group inside Air Force acquisitions that handles secretive programs. As its name implies, the RCO follows a different acquisition path than the rest of the service, with more freedom in how it procures technologies.

The officials also revealed details about the procurement roadmap during the briefing, Gertler wrote. Initial acquisition will take place in five low-rate production lots totaling about 20 aircraft, and two to three test aircraft will precede the production lots.

The target price is $550 million a copy in 2010 dollars. That unit cost is a key performance parameter for the program, meaning that a company can be disqualified if its price fails to reach that goal.

To help achieve that price point, the Air Force is looking to draw on available mature technologies rather than launching new developments. At the same time, the Air Force will use an open architecture approach, similar to that already being demonstrated on the F-22, U-2 and B-2 programs, to design a plane that can be easily upgraded with new technologies over its lifetime.

But the credibility of the Air Force when it comes to cost has recently been called into question. The service has scrambled to do damage control after reports emerged last month of massive cost discrepancies in its 10-year cost estimates for the bomber. Members of Congress, including Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., have raised concerns over the errors; the Air Force says they should have no impact on the bottom line.

Despite recent challenges, top service officials emphasize the need to begin recapitalizing the Air Force’s aging B-1 and B-52 bombers — and fast. The B-52 was designed in the late 1940s and built in the early 1960s, while the B-1s began flying in the 1980s. The Air Force also builds the younger B-2 but only has 20 in inventory. Consequently, the average age of the bomber force is roughly 39 years.

The Air Force has said it is targeting a production line of 80 to 100 planes to replace the B-52s and B-1s, which the service plans to retire in the mid-2040s. With proper maintenance and modernization the Air Force can operate these planes until 2044, but as the aircraft age it will be increasingly difficult and costly to ensure they can carry out their missions.

“The idea that we would run a Formula One or a NASCAR race with a car built in 1962 is ridiculous, but we're going to war with airplanes built in 1962,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said during an Aug. 24 press conference. “We have got to modernize the Air Force. It's just an imperative.”

*Industry Fallout*
Whatever the outcome, some foresee dramatic implications for the industry. If Northrop wins, Boeing potentially exits the combat aircraft manufacturing market. Most of the company’s products are commercial derivatives, like the KC-46A tanker, and its two remaining military aircraft lines are coming to a close. The last Navy F/A-18 will be delivered in 2018, and the final Air Force F-15 will be delivered in early 2019. After that, the company’s St. Louis factory may be shuttered.

Boeing must win LRS-B to survive long enough to compete for the Sixth Generation Fighter program, some analysts said. Winning a contract to build the Air Force’s new fleet of trainers could keep St. Louis afloat, Teal Group analyst Richard Aboulafia said, but as one of several competitors, Boeing can’t bank on a positive outcome.

The Navy could opt to extend the F/A-18 line for as long as 10 years, suggested Jerry Hendrix, senior fellow with the Center for a New American Security. For St. Louis, this could bridge the gap between now and the sixth-gen fighter, he said.

On the other hand, if Boeing wins, Northrop’s investors may push to break up the company. Northrop has a stake in several major military aircraft acquisition programs, including the F-35 joint strike fighter, but is not prime on any.

“They would say, ‘this thing is worth more than the sum of its parts,’” Aboulafia said. “Raytheon would love radars; Boeing would probably love that share of the joint strike fighter.”

Another potential scenario if Northrop wins: Boeing tries to buy Northrop’s aerospace unit. Once Northrop has completed the LRS-B design, divesting the business to another party might make sense to investors.

Conversely, some analysts said the LRS-B decision would not cause immediate shockwaves across the industry.

No matter who wins, the losing team is unlikely to be shut out of the business of designing and producing combat aircraft, said Byron Callan, an analyst with Capital Alpha Partners, noting UCLASS, T-X and the Sixth Generation Fighter programs are in the pipeline.

None of the firms involved need an LRS-B victory to stay in business, and none have signaled they would want to rethink their business strategies based on the outcome, he said.

“I sincerely doubt that the DoD would approve a Lockheed Martin or Boeing buy of Northrop Grumman Aerospace," Callan said. "They’re getting the benefits of competition in LRS-B, and I think they most certainly want to preserve the benefits of competition on some of these programs going forward.”

Still, analysts are divided as to how much weight the service is giving to the health of the industrial base in its final decision.

Northrop could have the industrial base argument on its side: A Northrop win would spread the Air Force’s top three priorities — Lockheed Martin’s F-35, Boeing’s tanker and the new bomber — among the three contractors. In contrast, a Lockheed-Boeing win would mean Lockheed essentially controls all Air Force combat aviation production.

But Mark Gunzinger, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said it’s unlikely the Air Force will make the final cut based on industrial base concerns.

“I think that considering the health of the defense industrial base writ large is an important factor," Gunzinger said. "That said, I don’t think they are going to make a decision on this capability based on the industrial base.” 

*What’s Next?*
Given the significance of the LRS-B to both Northrop and Boeing’s future in defense aerospace, a bid protest seems inevitable. The Air Force is doing all it can to insulate the contract award from a protest, which could not only delay the program’s start, but also set up a nasty public relations fight. In addition to the ongoing testing, sources said the Pentagon has been trying to protest-proof the contract, adding to the delay.

However, some say the Air Force may not have much to worry about. Hendrix and Aboulafia indicated the loser may be less likely to protest due to the highly classified nature of the program.

Northrop and Boeing-Lockheed have been tight-lipped about their offerings as well as contingency plans, with Boeing-Lockheed citing an Air Force wish to keep the program under wraps.

"‎Boeing and Lockheed Martin have produced and supported essential US airpower capabilities since the earliest days of military aviation,” a spokesperson said. “We believe that all adds up to the expertise in design, production and support that would make LRS-B successful, from day one to the end of its service life many decades from now.”

A Northrop representative was more succinct: “As the only company to ever design, build, field and sustain a stealth bomber, Northrop Grumman is well positioned on this program.”

Going forward, the Air Force will have to do a better marketing job for the program, explaining why LRS-B is worth the cost and resources, Callan said.

“Inevitably, it’s going to be a lightning rod, and it’s going to compete for dollars against other Air Force and DoD program priorities,” Callan said. “I’m not sure if the Air Force has fully sold this, DoD fully sold this to Congress, and taxpayers at large.”

Email: lseligman@defensenews.com | amehta@defensenews.com | aclevenger@defensenews.com

Twitter: @laraseligman | @aaronmehta | @andclev

95 CONNECT 37 TWEET 25 LINKEDINCOMMENTEMAILMORE

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*Lockheed Martin Offers Advanced Electro-Optical Targeting System for the F-35 Lightning II*
SEAPOWER Magazine Online

ORLANDO, Fla. – Lockheed Martin has introduced Advanced EOTS, an evolutionary electro-optical targeting system that is available for the F-35’s Block 4 development, the company announced in a Sept. 10 release.

Designed to replace EOTS, the F-35’s current electro-optical targeting system, Advanced EOTS incorporates a wide range of enhancements and upgrades, including short-wave infrared, high-definition television, an infrared marker and improved image detector resolution. These enhancements increase F-35 pilots’ recognition and detection ranges, enabling greater overall targeting performance.

“In today’s environment, threats to our warfighters continue to evolve,” said Paul Lemmo, vice president of Fire Control/SOF CLSS at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. “With significant capability and performance enhancements, Advanced EOTS ensures that F-35 pilots can stay ahead of these threats, detecting targets faster and at greater distances while remaining unseen.”

Due to its similarity in shape and size to EOTS, Advanced EOTS can be installed with minimal changes to the F-35’s interface. It will be housed behind the same low-drag window, maintaining the F-35’s stealthy profile. Advanced EOTS production will be completed on the current EOTS line.

Advanced EOTS and EOTS are the first sensors to combine forward-looking infrared and infrared search and track functionality to provide precise air-to-air and air-to-ground targeting capability. Advanced EOTS was developed jointly through significant Lockheed Martin and supplier investment, with team members drawing on proven experience in electro-optical sensor design and manufacturing.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

*AQS-24B Mine Hunting System Sets New Standard for Synthetic Aperture Sonar*
SEAPOWER Magazine Online

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — In a U.S. Navy field test, Northrop Grumman Corp.’s AQS-24B mine-hunting system successfully demonstrated the ability to perform synthetic aperture sonar processing at 18 knots in real time, the company announced in a Sept. 14 release.

The AQS-24B was developed at Northrop Grumman’s Undersea Systems campus in Annapolis. The field testing took place at the U.S. Navy Central Command in Bahrain, May 19-28. The AQS-24B finished 12 for 12 in successfully executing missions during the test exercise. During separate Tactics Development trials in Panama City, Fla., the AQS-24B achieved a record long single sortie tow duration of 16.25 hours from a surface ship.

Northrop Grumman has three decades of in-fleet airborne mine countermeasure experience with 27 systems fielded. The company was the first to field electro-optic mine identification, and developed the first long-range synthetic aperture sonar for mine warfare, the first mine warfare unmanned surface vessel (jointly with the Naval Undersea Warfare Center) and the first mine warfare unmanned underwater vehicle. The AQS-24B has significantly improved image resolution, as well as the speed of real-time sonar processing.

“The AQS-24B represents a significant advancement of the U.S. Navy’s mine hunting capability, on both the MH-53E helicopters as well as the Mine Hunting Unmanned Surface Vessels (MHUs),” said Alan Lytle, vice president, Undersea Systems business unit, Northrop Grumman. “With the AQS-24B, Northrop Grumman and the Navy have worked together to effectively advance the state of the art in undersea synthetic aperture sonar.”

The U.S. Navy can detect, classify and localize modern-day mine threats through the AQS-24B’s enhanced mine hunting sonar.

*'Human-Machine Collaboration' Could Be Key to Offset Strategy*
'Human-Machine Collaboration' Could Be Key to Offset Strategy

LONDON — In the midst of Britain’s Strategic Defense and Security Review, US Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work let a European audience in on the thinking behind the US response to the rise of potential adversaries armed with increasingly sophisticated weapons using both conventional and non-conventional approaches.

"The third offset strategy will be based on increased human-machine collaboration and combat-teaming,” Work declared.

The increasing effectiveness of unmanned systems, he noted, particularly autonomous systems capable of learning, will result in increasingly dynamic operations.

“When combined with human-machine combat learning, these smaller dynamic systems will be even more agile, lethal and effective,” he said Sept. 10 during an address at the Royal United Services Institute. Some of these comments are taken from a late draft provided by the Pentagon.

“The margin of technological superiority the West has enjoyed for the past 25 years — particularly in guided munitions — is eroding,” he said, explaining the need for a strategy to offset enemy strengths. “Addressing this challenge is one of the most important strategic tasks facing our militaries,” Work said.

"It is undoubtedly true that we face new methods of hybrid warfare, and we need new operational concepts to confront it. But nothing can match the lethality and destruction of high-end conventional warfare, and we must do everything in our power to prevent it from happening.

“That helps explain why the United States is now pursuing a Third Offset Strategy — new combinations of technologies, operational concepts and organizational constructs to once again bolster a weakened conventional deterrence.”

Work acknowledged that the human-machine collaboration term could be intimidating.

“There's a lot of people that say, oh my gosh, you're going to have killer robots, you're going to have to turn everything over to machines.”

Then he gave the example of humans and machines collaborating in the game of freestyle chess.

“What you have is a computer that runs through possibilities and presents them to the human and the human then uses them. And what it shows is in 70 percent of the time a human and machine working together will routinely beat humans and routinely beat machines alone. That's what we want to shoot for.”

The goal, Work explained, is for “human-centered autonomy so that we make good decisions on the battlefield. And then human-machine teaming, which allows us to do different concepts of operation that we haven't ever seen before.”

Work harkened back to the innovative thinking of Air Chief Marshal Hugh Dowding who, before the start of World War II, developed innovative tactics to defend Britain against the powerful German Luftwaffe.

“We need to actively look for visionary thinkers like Dowding who have the ability to see the potential of new technologies and use them in innovative ways to produce real operational advantages,” Work said. But unlike the situation in previous offset strategies, “the emerging competitive environment will be much more of a level playing field than in the Cold War.”

To defeat future adversaries, Work noted, two problems emerge.

“The first involves winning the emerging guided munitions salvo competition,” he said. “We need ‘raid breaking technologies’ that provide lower cost counters to enemy missile salvos, including non-kinetic ‘left of launch’ approaches coupled with directed energy weapons, electromagnetic rail guns and hypervelocity projectiles fired from powder guns

“I believe these capabilities will allow us to dominate missile salvo competitions, and thus our ability to blunt early attacks and position our forces to reverse any losses of territory.

“But we can’t stop there,” Work continued, and pointed to two earlier Cold War offset strategy elements.

“Once we shift to maneuver, we’ll be fighting on highly lethal battlefields swept by short-range guided munitions, cyber attacks, and EW weapons. What we need is another doctrinal revival like that of the early 1980s. My message to US Army and Air Force audiences is that we need an AirLand Battle 2.0. My message to every NATO country is we need modern concepts as game-changing as Follow-on Forces Attack.”

The Pentagon, Work said, has carried out a new “Long-Range Research and Development Planning Program” similar to a 1973 effort, “to survey the technology landscape, look for technological opportunities, identify ways to leverage commercial technologies and practices, and better tap into the incredible innovation that’s happening in DoD’s labs and the commercial sector.”

The effort, he said, “tells us that large units are simply too vulnerable to guided munitions attack. They must disaggregate into smaller units that still operate together to deliver combined effects.”

Work noted the importance of NATO and allied participation, but acknowledged that not all partners bring the same level of capability to the table. Some, like the UK, “have the wherewithal to join the US military in high-end operations.”

Other allies may innovate, he added, “by adopting new operational concepts or leveraging lower-cost and asymmetric technology.”

Work noted the coordinated role-sharing among many NATO members, and pledged US support to “collaborate to seek nation-specific roles and contributions.”

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

*Army surges cyber team development*
Army surges cyber team development

The Army’s cyber evolution continues with the fielding of cyber protection teams: highly trained groups of soldiers that will target emerging threats — including some that already have reached initial operating capability.

The cyber protection teams, or CPTs, are part of a broader, military-wide directive to fill out cyber ranks under U.S. Cyber Command’s umbrella of operations. Barely a year into the process, the Army is making consistent strides, and that progress will undergo constant measurement and scrutiny to determine the best ways forward.

Eventually, the Army will have 20 CPTs assigned to the cyber protection brigade located at Fort Gordon, Georgia. Currently, those teams are in varying stages of development, including some that have reached initial operating capability, and others that will reach full operating capacity next year, according to MG John Morrison, commander of Army Network Enterprise Technology Command.

“There’s a lot of capability with our cyber protection teams that is coming online,” Morrison said in a recent interview with C4ISR & Networks. “And now, what we’re really working towards is that integrated concept of operations on how do we employ them across the very broad mission set.”

The teams will serve a variety of missions — some supporting combatant commands, some supporting national requirements, some supporting U.S. Cyber Command and seven teams dedicated to service-specific areas of focus.

“The brigade itself is under the operational control of Army Cyber, and then what we do is, we’re responsible for training men for the team and the brigade,” Morrison said.

Eventually the different teams may take on different areas of specialty, but for now — early on in the process — all of the teams are being trained to a uniform standard.

“The teams are all comprised the same right now, because we are just now [in] the initial throes of building combat power,” he said. “We’ve only been building combat power for a little over a year-plus at this point. But there is a standard structure to the teams. However, as we’re starting to employ capabilities, I’m sure that you’ll see the structure, and the capabilities that we provide the teams change over time.”

Once operational, the CPTs likely will be serving emergent needs in cyber operations, augmenting the regional cyber centers that handle day-to-day network maintenance and security.

“These safety teams are very highly trained teams and they are much more threat-focused, whereas the RCCs are sort of like your terrain owners from our perspective,” Morrison said. “They are sort of like the folks that own the ground like a brigade combat team would. The CPTs are much more specialized; they can come in and address a [more] specific threat.”

The Army’s cyber build-out

The changing dynamics of cyber training aren’t limited to the cyber protection teams. Across the Army a widescale shift in the focus on and approach to training and education serves to emphasize a spinoff from cyber as an ancillary skillset to a dedicated discipline with its own elite corps dedicated to the cyber domain.

“We just commenced the first cyber officer leader course on July 29. That’s a historic moment for us,” said MG Stephen Fogarty, commander of the Army Cyber Center of Excellence and Fort Gordon. “We have 30 officers from West Point and 30 from [the Reserve Officers Training Corps]. This is a remarkable group of young men and women … the bar to get into this branch is exceptionally high and they are exceptionally qualified.”

A significant element of the CPTs will be composed of Army Reserve and National Guard troops, a component that will augment the Army’s cyber mission force — another key piece of the Army cyber mission. The CMF, too, is under development in various stages of completion and currently part of “exponential” growth in the area, according to LTG Edward Cardon, commander of Army Cyber Command.

“We are on track to have all 41 CMF teams established and operating by the end of fiscal year 2016. However, they will not all be fully operationally capable until FY17,” Cardon told Congress earlier this year. CMF teams are allocated to combatant commanders, where they provide defensive and offensive cyber capabilities.

Cardon added that earlier this year the Army approved special-duty assignment pay, assignment incentive pay and bonuses for soldiers serving in operational cyber assignments, and that Army leadership is implementing a Cyber Career Management Field for enlisted personnel by the end of fiscal 2015.

The career-field changes reflect a larger shift in how the Army educates and classifies its cyber professionals. That’s one area that currently is being assessed in an end-to-end review by the CIO/G-6 that could integrate some cyber, signal and electronic warfare military operational specialties.

“I think we’ve come to the conclusion that there was a period of time where having 17 specific MOSs … that probably made sense,” Fogarty said. “As we look to the future, based on models we’ve seen in the special operations forces, we think we can combine some of those skills.”

Fogarty also said signal and cyber will see integration in other areas as well — including in training at the senior professional development school at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and at the Army War College in Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania.

This cyber build-out has evolved considerably in the past five years, and most Army leaders agree that the approaches to education, training and operations could continue to change in the future as the services figure out what works — and what doesn’t.

“I think this is going to be very much a learning journey,” Morrison said. “And as we employ these new capabilities, we will learn what we got right, and what we need to adjust. And then we’ll make the smart adjustments.”

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

Air Force Could Speed up Acquisition of T-X Trainer, JSTARS

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — The Air Force may not be doing a technology risk reduction phase with its upcoming T-X jet fighter trainer program, the service’s chief acquisition official said Sept. 15 at the Air Force Association annual conference.

That could speed up the schedule of replacing the 50-year-old plus aircraft the service currently uses to train its jet fighter pilots.

“Schedules” has been the buzzword at this year’s conference. Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James on the first day introduced its new acquisition strategy dubbed “should-schedule.”

The should-schedule approach will work in a similar manner to an acquisition management tool the service has been using called “should-cost,” said James.

Unlike should-cost, the new should-schedule strategy will focus on delivery time, James said. “We asked ourselves, ‘Can we develop a structure that challenges us and our industry partners to deliver faster than the schedule determined as part of the independent cost estimate?’”

“If we can collectively beat the historical developmental schedules and reward behavior in government and industry that speeds things up, we have a real chance to make a difference,” James said.

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition Bill LaPlante noted the service has loads of data saying that it is saving money on programs through new acquisition strategies. What isn’t changing is the problem of schedule delays. They aren’t becoming worse, but they aren’t improving, either, he said in a speech and later to reporters.

Industry wants the Air Force to be transparent as to what the requirements are as far in advance as possible, and to give it time to work on them. “That’s what we’re trying to do with T-X,” he said. The Air Force has published the requirements and is now gathering comments. It’s working on a cost capability analysis. “We are being extremely open with industry as we approach the release of the [request for proposals], which will be in about one year,” he said.

Since potential competitors have aircraft that are far along in their designs, the Air Force is “probably” going to skip an early risk reduction phase, he said. It may go directly to a first round of awards to build potential aircraft.

The question was then asked of LaPlante if the schedule could be sped up for the Joint Surveillance Targeting Attack Radar System, another rapidly aging aircraft that the Air Force must replace in the coming years. Two major industry competitors have said they could deliver aircraft several years ahead of the Air Force schedule.

“We would all like to do that with the caveat that we want to keep the competition. We would like to have things faster. We always want things faster,” he said.

The should-schedule strategy is starting out with lesser-known, smaller programs. “There is no reason we can't start using that philosophy in how we do acquisition in our bigger programs,” LaPlante said.

The Air Force has three JSTARS industry teams on contract to do risk reduction. The idea is to end up with a mature design, do a downselect, “Then hopefully move fast,” he said.

“We always have a bias of optimism in acquisition,” he said. Independent cost estimates that look at historic data usually throw cold water on those who are overly positive, but the “should-cost” system challenges them to beat the auditors’ predictions, he said. It is similar to those who can say they can move a schedule to the left, he said.

“If they say, ‘I can do that program faster,’ I say ‘you might have a chance. Prove it,’” he said.

“I will say it very directly. I would love to pull … [JSTARS] to the left and see if we can get that [initial operating capability] as left as possible,” LaPlante said. But until there is a Milestone A or Milestone B decision on the program, no IOC is set in stone, he said.

Talking about initial operating capability before such milestone decisions is like talking to a one-year-old child about their college plans, he said. “It’s interesting, but not terribly meaningful.” Once there is a contract award and milestone B is passed, then you have more knowledge, he said.

“We are working hard to get the JSTARS recap into a milestone A decision,” he added. There will be a meeting about it on Sept. 18 at the Pentagon, he said. 

The new “should-schedule” movement will give incentives to industry and program managers, he added. “But you’re going to have to prove it. You can’t just show us a brochure that says, ‘I can do it.’ You’re going to have to actually see it happen as the program develops.”

“Industry will always say things they think they can do and should. We should give them an opportunity. But what we want to do is give them a competition. I would like to get to a point in general where we get industry teams on contract, do risk reduction … and then fire a starting gun.”

LaPlante gave some insight into the highly secretive long-range bomber program. An award is expected “soon,” he said. Those who give a more exact timeline don’t know what they are talking about, he said.

“The people that are talking don’t know what’s going on. And the people that know what’s going on aren’t talking,” he said.

Risk reduction was carried out on the program for several years, he said. The industry teams will have brought the level of designs to a maturity that is “almost unprecedented,” he said. They were well thought through, fixed requirements. “We are going to have a very good execution plan,” he said.

One of the few data points on the long range bomber that the Air Force has spoken about publicly was the $550 million per aircraft price tag. Making that known was an incentive for those working on the program behind the scenes to keep requirements fixed and not to add anything that would raise that figure, he said.

“It’s going to be done soon. Everything is going extremely well,” he added.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

*USAF seeks ‘interim’ CHAMP, longer-range air-to-air missiles*
USAF seeks ‘interim’ CHAMP, longer-range air-to-air missiles

The US Air Force plans to introduce Boeing and Raytheon’s “CHAMP” high-power-microwave emitting cruise missile into the combat force on board the 1990s conventional air-launched cruise missile as an “interim capability” while the technology transitions to Lockheed Martin’s JASSM-ER.

Air Combat Command chief Gen Hawk Carlisle says the computer-killing capability, which knocks out electronic equipment with bursts of high-frequency electromagnetic energy, is a “great capability” that will be fielded in small numbers initially with US Global Strike Command – the air force’s nuclear combat force.

“We’ve talked about the transition of that capability for Global Strike Command, but that will probably be small numbers because what we really want to do is get CHAMP into next-generation missiles, so JASSM-ER,” Carlisle said at an Air Force Association event in Washington.

“[Global Strike commander Gen Robin Rand] and I are talking about how to transition some number, an interim capability that’s on the current [CALCM] system and then how do we move to even an improved capability into the next generation air-to-surface cruise missiles we’re producing today.”

The weapon has been in development with the Air Force Research Laboratory since 2009 and was successfully demonstrated at a test range in Utah in 2012. The technology has been deemed ready for development and fielding, and is already being improved and adapted to new platforms such as the JASSM-ER and possibly even reusable unmanned aircraft.

AFRL has been pursuing the Counter-electronics High Power Microwave Advanced Missile Project (CHAMP) as a niche capability that is difficult and expensive to harden against.

In terms of air superiority weapons, Carlisle says the development of next-generation air-to-air missiles is also “an exceptionally high priority”.

Raytheon’s AMRAAM is the current go-to Western weapon for beyond-visual-range air combat, but new long-range missiles being fielded by Russia and China are a significant concern to the Pentagon.

Carlisle says outmatching the Chinese PL-15 air-to-air missile in particular is an “exceedingly high priority”.

“The PL-15 and the range of that missile, we’ve got to be able to out-stick that missile,” he says.

The air force is currently exploring a range of next-generation weapon concepts as it also pursues a sixth-generation fighter aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

*Navy Developing Shipboard Cyber Protection System*
http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20150917-rhimes.html

ARLINGTON, Va. — For most people, the term “cyber security” calls to mind stories of data theft like the recent hacks of the Office of Personnel Management database, or network spying like the 2012 breach of the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet. 

But in this networked world, hackers might also try to disable or take control of machines in our physical world-from large systems like electric power grids and industrial plants, to transportations assets like cars, trains, planes or even ships at sea.

In response, the U.S. Navy is developing the Resilient Hull, Mechanical, and Electrical Security (RHIMES) system, a cyber protection system designed to make its shipboard mechanical and electrical control systems resilient to cyber attacks, the Office of Naval Research reported in a Sept. 17 release.

“The purpose of RHIMES is to enable us to fight through a cyber attack,” said Chief of Naval Research RADM Mathias Winter. “This technology will help the Navy protect its shipboard physical systems, but it may also have important applications to protecting our nation’s physical infrastructure.”

Dr. Ryan Craven, a program officer of the Cyber Security and Complex Software Systems Program in the Mathematics Computer and Information Sciences Division of the Office of Naval Research, said that RHIMES is designed to prevent an attacker from disabling or taking control of programmable logic controllers-the hardware components that interface with physical systems on the ship.

“Some examples of the types of shipboard systems that RHIMES is looking to protect include damage control and firefighting, anchoring, climate control, electric power, hydraulics, steering and engine control,” Craven said. “It essentially touches all parts of the ship.”

Attacks on mechanical systems that are operated by computers have happened before. Stuxnet, the famous industrial “computer worm” discovered in 2010 was designed to attack controllers of Iranian centrifuges, causing the centrifuges to run at very high speeds, effectively tearing themselves apart.

“Another powerful example is the hacking of a German steel mill in 2014,” Craven said. “The hackers reportedly got in and overheated a blast furnace, and even made it so that the plant workers couldn’t properly shut down the furnace, causing massive damage to the system.”

Traditionally, computer security systems protect against previously identified malicious code. When new threats appear, security firms have to update their databases and issue new signatures. Because security companies react to the appearance of new threats, they are always one step behind. Plus, a hacker can make small changes to their virus to avoid being detected by a signature.

“Instead, RHIMES relies on advanced cyber resiliency techniques to introduce diversity and stop entire classes of attacks at once,” Craven said. Most physical controllers have redundant backups in place that have the same core programming, he explained. These backups allow the system to remain operational in the event of a controller failure. But without diversity in their programming, if one gets hacked, they all get hacked.

“Functionally, all of the controllers do the same thing, but RHIMES introduces diversity via a slightly different implementation for each controller’s program,” Craven said. “In the event of a cyber attack, RHIMES makes it so that a different hack is required to exploit each controller. The same exact exploit can’t be used against more than one controller.”

This work aligns with higher level strategic guidance to protect against cyber threats, like the U.S. Navy’s “Cyber Power 2020,” but the technology may also have benefits outside of the Navy.

“Vulnerabilities exist wherever computing intersects with the physical world, such as in factories, cars and aircraft,” Craven said, “and these vulnerabilities could potentially benefit from the same techniques for cyber resilience.”

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

*Rockwell Collins Wins DARPA Contract To Develop GPS Backup Technologies For Contested Environments*
Rockwell Collins Wins DARPA Contract To Develop GPS Backup Technologies For Contested Environments

Rockwell Collins has won a contract from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to develop technologies that could serve as a backup to GPS.

The research is being conducted as part of DARPA’s Spatial, Temporal and Orientation Information in Contested Environments (STOIC) program. Further, the research aims to reduce warfighter dependence on GPS for modern military operations, the company announced Thursday.

Under the terms of the agreement, Rockwell Collins will develop innovative architectures and techniques to enable communication systems that will support time transfer and positioning between moving platforms independent of GPS, with no impact on primary communications functionality.

“STOIC technology could augment GPS, or it may act as a substitute for GPS in contested environments where GPS is degraded or denied,” said John Borghese, vice president of the Rockwell Collins Advanced Technology Center.

“The time-transfer and ranging capabilities we are developing seek to enable distributed platforms to cooperatively locate targets, employ jamming in a surgical fashion, and serve as a backup to GPS for relative navigation.” Borghese added.

The goal of the STOIC program is to develop positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) systems that provide GPS-independent PNT, achieving timing that far surpasses GPS levels of performance.

The program is comprised of three primary elements. When integrated, they have the potential to provide global PNT independent of GPS, including long-range robust reference signals, ultra-stable tactical clocks, and multifunctional systems that provide PNT information between cooperative users in contested environments.

For this third technical element, Rockwell Collins is tasked with developing multifunction communication system solutions that yield DARPA STOIC objective picosecond-accurate time transfer and enable GPS-levels of relative positioning accuracy in contested environments.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

*DARPA demonstrates prototype Persistent Close Air Support*
DARPA demonstrates prototype Persistent Close Air Support - UPI.com






NELLIS, Nev., Sept. 18 (UPI) -- DARPA's recent demonstration of its prototype Persistent Close Air Support system showed that future airstrikes can be ordered with as few as three clicks on a handheld tablet.

The system was tested on an A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft, also known as the Warthog, conducting 50 successful sorties near the Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. This marked the system's debut on a U.S. Air Force platform. The system is designed to deliver airborne munitions to support ground forces in combat.

DARPA's program aims for the technology to evolve to become more accurate and easier to use, keeping stressful operational conditions in mind.

This development in close air support technology could change how airstrikes on the battlefield are ordered and conducted. Currently, strikes are done through a coordination of pilots, forward air controllers, and joint terminal attack controllers (JTACs). To deliver a strike, all parties involved must be focused on one target at a time, with the process involving voice directions and paper maps. PCAS systems, however, can digitally link aircraft to drastically reduce the amount of time it takes to call in an airstrike, and improve support for ground units.

"We have shown that a flexible architecture and extensible technology toolsets are the key to making groundbreaking improvements in air-ground coordination," DARPA program manager Dan Patt said in a statement, "these and other tests results suggest PCAS-like approaches have the potential to provide an unprecedented synchronized understanding of the active battlefield."

DARPA is an agency of the U.S. Department of Defense, and is responsible for researching, developing, and testing new technologies for military use. It has an annual budget of about $2.8 billion.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

AMDR said:


> *Lockheed Martin Offers Advanced Electro-Optical Targeting System for the F-35 Lightning II*
> SEAPOWER Magazine Online

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

*Pentagon designing cyber 'scorecard' to stay ahead of hackers*
Pentagon designing cyber 'scorecard' to stay ahead of hackers| Reuters

The U.S. Defense Department is building a massive, electronic system to provide an overview of the vulnerabilities of the military's computer networks, weapons systems, and installations, and help officials prioritize how to fix them, the deputy commander of U.S. Cyber Command said on Thursday.

Air Force Lieutenant General Kevin McLaughlin told Reuters officials should reach agreement on a framework within months, with a goal of turning the system into an automated "scorecard" in coming years.

The effort, being led by the Pentagon's chief information officer, grew out of a critical report about cyber threats released earlier this year by the Pentagon's chief weapons tester, and escalating cyber attacks by China and Russia.

The report by Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon's director of testing and evaluation, warned that nearly every major U.S. weapons system was vulnerable to cyber attacks.

Initial data entry would be done by hand, but the goal was to create a fully automated system that would help defense officials instantaneously detect and respond to cyber attacks, McLaughlin said after a speech at the annual Billington Cybersecurity Summit.

McLaughlin told the conference that Cyber Command had already set up about half of 133 planned cyber response teams with about 6,200 people, and all of them would achieve an initial operational capability by the end of 2016.

He said the initial focus of the new scorecard would be on the greatest threats, including weapons systems fielded 30 years ago before the cyber threat was fully understand, as well as newer systems that were not secure enough.

"There’s probably not enough money in the world to fix all those things, but the question is what’s most important, where should we put our resources as we eat the elephant one bite at a time," he said.

McLaughlin said the scorecard was initially intended to look at weapons and networks, but the Pentagon was now looking at a broader and more sophisticated approach that also accounted for how data was moved among agencies within the military.

U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force officials, who also spoke at the event, mapped out their own cybersecurity efforts, citing new levels of communication and collaboration among the services around these issues.

McLaughlin said U.S. military commanders were far more attuned to cyber threats than in earlier years. He said Cyber Command spot checks and inspections were now being flagged to the command's top leader, Admiral Mike Rogers, which had spurred greater accountability than in earlier years.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

*AFSOC’s AC-130s will soon be able to deploy tube-launched UAVs*
Alert 5 » AFSOC’s AC-130s will soon be able to deploy tube-launched UAVs - Military Aviation News

U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) has initiated one quick concept-demonstrator program to employ a tube-launched small unmanned aerial vehicle from the AC-130 gunship.






The Raytheon-Sensintel Coyote UAV was selected for this demonstrator program. A longer term project will seek to find a UAV with an endurance of one hour.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AMDR

*Undersea Warfighting Development Center Holds Ribbon Cutting Ceremony*
Undersea Warfighting Development Center Holds Ribbon Cutting Ceremony
Story Number: NNS150921-18Release Date: 9/21/2015 3:00:00 PM
By Kevin Copeland, Submarine Force Atlantic Public Affairs

GROTON, Conn. (NNS) -- The ceremonial opening of the Undersea Warfighting Development Center (UWDC) occurred during a ribbon cutting ceremony, Sept. 21, at U. S. Naval Submarine Base New London. 

Under the command of Rear Adm. Jeffrey E. Trussler, the UWDC became operational, Sept. 1.

Featured speakers were Vice Adm. Joseph E. Tofalo, Commander, Submarine Forces, and Rear Adm. Trussler.

"The Undersea Warfighting Development Center will integrate our "undersea concept of operations and tactics, techniques and procedures in support of theater, anti-submarine warfare forces; prepare submarine crews to conduct all combat missions; and prepare carrier strike groups and independently deploying surface ships to perform integrated anti-submarine warfare," said Tofalo. "Our undersea forces have always been about being first: first to the fight and first to come to grips with the enemy. RDML Trussler and his people will ensure we stay poised to do that. This is crucial work and UWDC are the right people to do it."

UWDC will be responsible for training the submarine force in advanced tactics, techniques, and procedures for Anti-Submarine Warfare. The center has assumed the training missions, tasks, and functions for Theater and Integrated Strike Group Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) from the Naval Mine and Anti-Submarine Warfare Command (NMAWC), based in San Diego.

"The establishments of Warfighting Development Centers have been several years in the making," said Trussler. "The stand-up of the UWDC is one of the last pieces of that puzzle to come together. As we move forward to support the undersea forces and undersea effort, our organization will be committed to being innovative, adaptive, and responsive."

In calendar year 2014 the Chief of Naval Operations ordered the establishment of Warfighting Development Centers (WDCs). The CNO approved Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces and Commander, Pacific Fleet in establishing WDCs for air, undersea, surface, and expeditionary forces. WDCs will conduct integrated advanced tactical training under the administrative control of supported Type Commanders now assigned responsibility for theater-to tactical-level warfare mission areas.

WDCs will provide advanced warfighting tactical training across air, sea, and space domains. This will enhance warfighting effectiveness by creating cohesiveness across all warfare communities.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## AMDR

*Drones Armed With High-Energy Lasers May Arrive In 2017*
Drones Armed With High-Energy Lasers May Arrive In 2017 - Defense One

*Flying military robots armed with high-energy *lasers? It’s a future that is exciting, terrifying — and perhaps just two years away.

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc., or GA-ASI, the San Diego-based company that makes the Predator and Reaper drones, is undertaking a privately funded study to integrate a 150-kilowatt solid-state laser onto its Avenger (née Predator-C) drone. If the company succeeds, a drone with a high-energy laser will be a reality at some point in 2017, company executives told_Defense One._

“We’re funded right now to develop a laser module compatible with the aircraft and study putting it on the Avenger,” Michael Perry, Vice President for Mission Systems at GA-ASI, told_Defense One_. “We hope to be funded to do that,” he said.

The company is far better known for its MQ-1s and MQ-9s — the backbones of the Pentagon’s drone strike force — than for its work with lasers. But in June, the company delivered a 150-kilowatt liquid laser to the Pentagon for extensive testing at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. For comparison, the 30 kw laser (output) currently on the Ponce in the Persian Gulf has more than enough output to destroy an enemy drone or blow a hole in a boat. In addition to 5 times the power, the significant increase in beam quality provides significantly higher lethality than the system on the Ponce.

Bringing these two technologies together involves a lot more than strapping a laser cannon under the drone’s wings. Hitting a target with a laser mounted on a vibrating platform moving quickly through air laden with dust and water vapor is tougher than launching a Hellfire at a moving vehicle.

“Before you spend any money on a laser you better darn well show that you can acquire, ID, and track the objects of interest so that you could put a laser on them,” said Perry. “You have to be able to compensate for aero-optic distortion.”

After you solve the targeting problem, the laws of physics present their own challenges. Lasers in the 150-kilowatt range are big, heavy, and power-hungry. Shrinking size-weight-and-power, or SWAP, scores to workable levels remains the biggest obstacle to arming aircraft with lasers. Weight alone will likely bar 150 kw lasers from the MQ-1; engineers have set their sights on building weapons for the Predator-C and its 3,000-pound payload capacity.

GA-ASI has designed a power system for drone lasers that works almost like a hybrid car, the non-plugin kind. “You use the aircraft power to charge an intermediate storage system, and then that runs the laser when it’s doing laser shots,” said Perry.

He said the current design can get off five or six shots before needing to recharge, which happens in the air, over the course of several minutes.

“If there’s enough time between shots you never have to recharge at all. It depends on how much time you have to re-target,” said Perry.

While GA-ASI is underwriting the current research, the military is keen get lasers onto aircraft. The Missile Defense Agency, orMDA, has funded research on tracking and targeting capabilities for drones.

“The work that we’re doing with the General Atomics Reaper and the work that we did with the Boeing Phantom Eye starts to show it can be done, in terms of these long-range sensing and tracking capabilities that we need,” MDA director Vice Adm. James Syring told reporters last month.

“We’ve been funded for years to develop high-energy laser systems. The maturity of our approach is further along than others because we’ve been working on it for a long time, for 15 years. [high-energy laser research is] coming out of the laboratory in a leakage-type way” GA-ASI’s Perry said.

The company has another advantage over its competitors in the race to build laser-armed drones: they make the ground control stations, including the next generation ground control station that the Pentagon hopes will improve the dreary job of drone operation. This gives them an advantage when it comes to creating the virtual gunsights and trigger for the laser.

“What we’ve shown is that the laser control is compatible with the new ground station,” he said. ”From a hardware standpoint, all the hardware exists to control it inside the station.”

However, Perry says that laser drones will require an entirely new software load, and that’s not all: “You’ll have a whole new concept of operations. Completely new training will be required,” he said.



If GA-ASI — or someone else — succeeds in making lasers into a practical wing-mounted weapon, it will usher in a new battlefield role for medium-sized tactical drones. Perry imagines a completely different mission than simple loitering and striking targets, one more geared toward protecting U.S. forces from enemies that are firing on them.

“You would have a capability for close-air support, aircraft defense, counter-air, and even some types of non-lethal actions. You would really be expanding the mission space… The focus at this point is principally defensive missions,” he said.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## AMDR

*U.S. Navy Naval Air Warfare Center puts the ‘next generation’ in Next Generation Jammer*
U.S. Navy Naval Air Warfare Center puts the ‘next generation’ in Next Generation Jammer

Big things are happening in the world of electronic warfare at Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCWD) Point Mugu. NAWCWD is bulking up its electronic warfare capabilities to make Raytheon’s Next Generation Jammer the most effective device in the Navy’s electronic warfare arsenal, relayed Jeff Anderson, technical lead for Jammer Technique Optimization (JATO), late August aboard Naval Base Ventura County, California.






_The schematic above highlights an EA-18G Growler flying with Next Generation Jammers, fully loaded with preprogrammed electronic warfare measures developed at Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division Point Mugu. (U.S. Navy illustration)_
 
“The Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) is exactly the tool that we need to continue supporting the warfighter on the next level,” Anderson said. “This new system is essentially software loaded, which means that our aircrews can more readily use the wide spectrum of electronic countermeasures developed here at Point Mugu.”

According to Anderson, the NGJ gives operators the ability to load a broader variety and higher capacity of electronic attacks with ease and flexibility.

“It used to take up to 90 days for a contractor to manufacture the design of one of these application specific integrated circuits (ASIC) chips,” Anderson said. “Now we can program our jammer to go against it within hours.”





_Next Generation Jammer model showcased by Raytheon during Paris Air Show 2015_
* 
*
Around the 1990s, jamming technique types were burned into unmodifiable ASICs. Previous mission preparation required operators to load a limited number of parameters for a fixed set of jamming waveform types into the aircraft’s ALQ-99 jamming pod - based on inferences made by analysts studying an adversary’s capabilities.

“Radar technologies are quickly advancing,” Anderson said. “They’re faster and smarter, sensing interference on other frequencies and automatically switching to frequencies and waveforms with less interference.”

Keeping up with those improvements can be challenging, but the JATO group at Point Mugu, in conjunction with JATO personnel at the Naval Research Lab and Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab, specializes in jamming technology and other electronic warfare methods.

Raytheon reports active testing for NGJ at China Lake, California, and Weapons Division authorities say there are joint plans to integrate the new design into the EA-18G Growler, a variant of the F/A-18F Super Hornet.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## T-55

First sboros KAB external suspension assembly F-35C




23 September. Dropping GBU-12 "Paveway II"
Первый сборос КАБ с внешнего узла подвески F-35C.: sandrermakoff

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## T-55

F-35C Lightning II Arrival Aboard USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) - October 2, 2015





























Видео первых посадок F-35 на Айка.: sandrermakoff

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## T-55

American escort carrier USS Charger; June 1942












В защитном окрасе - 477768

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*$460M CYBERCOMContract Will Create Digital Munitions*
$460M CYBERCOM Contract Will Create Digital Munitions - Defense One

*The first job under a forthcoming $460 *million U.S. Cyber Command contract to outsource all mission support involves, among other activities, a lot of digital munitions-making.

An 84-page draft task order released Sept. 30 runs the gamut of hacking and counterhacking work, plus traditional ITsupport activities.

The proposed solicitation was accompanied by a 114-page draft of the full 5-year contract. In May,CYBERCOM officials cancelled a similar $475 million project announced earlier that month. At the time, officials explained a reorganized request for bids with more details would be out in the fall. 

The initial work order will support “cyber joint munitions effectiveness” — by developing and deploying — “cyber weapons” and coordinating with “tool developers” in the spy community, the documents state. In addition, the prospective vendor will plan and execute joint “cyber fires.” 

CYBERCOM is in the midst of recruiting 6,200 cyberwarriors for teams positioned around the world. The command’s duty is to thwart foreign hackers targeting the United States, aid U.S. combat troops overseas and protect the dot-mil network. 


In the past, some military academics have voiced concerns about the unintended outcomes of such maneuvers. Malicious code released into networks could backfire and harm U.S.individuals or allies, they warned.

“Due to the ‘system of systems’ nature” of cyberspace, it is very difficult to know exactly what effect” defensive or offensive actions will have on U.S. and ally assets “since we can’t be sure exactly how far out the cyber action might spread,” Dee Andrews and Kamal Jabbour wrote in a 2011 article for Air Force Space Command’s Journal for Space & Missile Professionals. “The difficulty in doing a damage estimate before cyber action is taken makes cyber friendly fire difficult to identify and mitigate.” 

There are dozens of bullet points on training support work in the contracting documents.

For example, the hired contractor will run exercises on “USCYBERCOM Fires processes” with the Joint Advanced Cyber Warfare Course, the Army Cyberspace Operations Course, the Air Force Weapons School, the Joint Targeting School and other outside groups, the documents state. 

Certain contract personnel supporting these so-called cyber fires will be subjected to additional background reviews and will have to comply with “need-to-know” classification rules, according to officials. 

Beyond unleashing malware, the chosen contract employees will help repel attacks on Defense Department smartphones housing sensitive data, according to the government. This assignment involves analyzing forensics reports on hacked mobile devices and conducting security assessments of mobile apps, among other things. 

There also is some cyber espionage work entailed. The selected contractor will aid the “fusion,” or correlation of clues, from “reliable sources,” network sensors, network scans, open source information, and “situational awareness of known adversary activities,” the documents state 

The professionals hired will probe lurking, well-resourced threats inside military networks and identify ”signatures” of the hacker footprints discovered, they add. The signatures, such asIP addresses and strings of code, will be used to determine if there is malicious activity elsewhere inside Pentagon and defense industry networks, according to officials. 

Another CYBERCOM duty will be proposing procedures for facilitating “all-source intelligence analysis of the foreign threat picture” — information collected from spies, data surveillance, public information and other inputs. 

A final comprehensive solicitation and task order are scheduled to be released later this month. The government is accepting questions about the drafts from companies until Oct. 7.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Navy Resurrects Mine Countermeasures Training Squadron*
SEAPOWER Magazine Online

ARLINGTON, Va. — The Navy has reactivated a helicopter mine countermeasures (HM) squadron to assume training of crews and maintenance personnel for its MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopters.

HM-12 was reactivated in Oct. 1 ceremonies at Naval Station Norfolk with five MH-53Es. The squadron, disestablished in 1994, will train crews for HM-14 and HM-15, two operational squadrons also based at Norfolk. These squadrons also maintain reserve components formed when Reserve squadrons HM-18 and HM-19 were shut down.

HM-12 assumes the training role from the Airborne Mine Countermeasures Weapon System Training School, which used helicopters from HM-14 for training crews. Prior to that, training for the MH-53E was conducted by Marine Helicopter Training Squadron 302 at Marine Corps Air Station New River, N.C., where it flies the CH-53E Super Stallion helicopter.

The Navy plans to fly the MH-35E through 2025. It recently acquired two MH-53Es from Japan to alleviate shortages through attrition. HM-14 and HM-15 deploy detachments overseas, to the Republic of Korea and Bahrain, to provide mine countermeasures support and vertical on-board delivery.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*USAF to integrate SDB I and Laser SDB onto AC-130W/J gunships*
USAF to integrate SDB I and Laser SDB onto AC-130W/J gunships - IHS Jane's 360

The US Air Force (USAF) is looking to integrate the Boeing GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb (SDB I) and GBU-39B/B Laser Small Diameter Bomb (LSDB) on board its special operation forces aircraft, it was disclosed on 23 September.

A notification posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website by the Department of the Air Force requests information on integrating and fielding the SDB I and LSDB on board its Lockheed Martin AC-130W Dragon Spear/Stinger II and AC-130J Ghostrider gunships.

The request for information (RfI) covers integration, test, training, and sustainment of the SDB I and LSDB weapon systems on the AC-130W and AC-130J, including clearance of the SDB and LSDB systems from the BRU-61/A launcher rack at 150 to 200 kt, 10,000 to 25,000 ft, and with an aircraft bank of up to 30°.

As set out in the notification, flight trials will include eight captive carry sorties out of Eglin Air Force Base (AFB) in Florida, four guided test-vehicle missions at Eglin AFB, and two live-fire demonstrations at the White Sands Missile Range and the Pacific Missile Range Facility.

Responses to the RfI are due no later than 15:00 (Central Standard Time) on 23 October.

The US Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) currently fields 12 AC-130W and 17 AC-130U Spooky gunships, and has received the first of 37 AC-130Js. Once all the AC-130Js have been received by about the mid-2020s, the AC-130Ws will revert back to their baseline MC-130W Combat Spear special mission configuration, and the AC-130Us will be retired.

The AC-130Ws and AC-130Js are both equipped with the same palletised Precision-Strike Package (PSP), which comprises a single 30 mm Mk44 Bushmaster cannon, precision-guided munitions, as well as a 105 mm cannon. The SDB I and LSDB are precision, low-cost and lightweight munitions that are intended to combine the destructive effect of much larger bombs with a stand-off range afforded by pop-out wings.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMDR

*US Navy and Raytheon test Tomahawk missile in flight*
US Navy and Raytheon test Tomahawk missile in flight - Naval Technology

The US Navy and Raytheon have tested a network-enabled Tomahawk Block IV cruise missile, successfully demonstrating that it can take a reconnaissance photo and follow orders to re-target in mid-flight.

Launched from the guided missile destroyer USS Gridley (DDG 101), the missile used its onboard camera to capture battle damage indication imagery during the test.

In addition, the missile was able to transfer the image to fleet headquarters through its two-way UHF SATCOM datalink.

Raytheon Tomahawk senior programme director Dave Adams said: "We have once again proven the flexibility and utility of the Tomahawk Block IV missile, which has an unprecedented record of reliability and combat success."

As part of the test, strike controllers at the US Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain retargeted the missile to a new aim point on the navy's range at San Nicolas Island, off the coast of southern California.

According to Raytheon, the missile performed a vertical dive and struck the designated target.

The latest test was aimed to demonstrate that the missile's strike controllers can control and redirect multiple missiles simultaneously.

Adams added: "Tomahawk continues to be the weapon of choice for combatant commanders requiring very long range, precision strike, with the flexibility to loiter and re-direct after launch.

"No other weapon has this capability."

The test used only one of the large salvo of missiles for a live launch to reduce the cost. However, the remaining were flown through computer simulation.

In August, the US navy and Raytheon conducted a flight test of Tomahawk Block IV, demonstrating the mission missile recording a direct hit on its target.

The flight test proved that the missile can operate with an improved, more flexible mission planning capability

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

not news but spotted a cool commercial

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Osmanovic

@AMDR @jhungary @LeveragedBuyout @Hamartia Antidote @Transhumanist @SvenSvensonov
Found this new forum when browsing twitter

American Military Forum

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AMDR

Osmanovic said:


> @AMDR @jhungary @LeveragedBuyout @Hamartia Antidote @Transhumanist @SvenSvensonov
> Found this new forum when browsing twitter
> 
> American Military Forum


Thanks for the link ! I will definitely join it and be posting, it looks relatively new

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## T-55

Assembling ICBM "Titan" in front of the Capitol; Washington; March 1959




















Демонстрационно-показательное - 477768

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## TechnoFox

Osmanovic said:


> American Military Forum



Thanks for the link, I've joined

@Nihonjin1051 I know you're getting a bit miffed with some of the discussions here, especially in the China & Far East section, so come join us at AMF!

I'm already a member, we could use another quality person.

***Follow the link in Osmanovic's post, since this account can't post links yet due to a low post count.

****Probably should add this too. I'm AMF's Sven, AMF's Technofox is @Transhumanist / @Technogaianist

Since AMF names are less than 12 characters, both my SvenSvensonov and her names wouldn't fit.

*****LeveragedBuyout, AMDR, Myself, Technogaianist and F-22Raptor are all members, we could use you too @Nihonjin1051



T-55 said:


> Assembling ICBM "Titan" in front of the Capitol; Washington; March 1959



I really appreciate your contributions to this thread. If I still had my account credentials, (my primary account SvenSvensonov) I'd give you a positive rating. You deserve one.

Please keep up the good work!

...

@AMDR I see you in the "users viewing this thread" bar, does my explanation make things easier. I hope so. People here already confuse Maddy and I, I don't want AMF to do the same.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Aepsilons

TechnoFox said:


> Thanks for the link, I've joined
> 
> @Nihonjin1051 I know you're getting a bit miffed with some of the discussions here, especially in the China & Far East section, so come join us at AMF!
> 
> I'm already a member, we could use another quality person.
> 
> ***Follow the link in Osmanovic's post, since this account can't post links yet due to a low post count.
> 
> ****Probably should add this too. I'm AMF's Sven, AMF's Technofox is @Transhumanist / @Technogaianist
> 
> Since AMF names are less than 12 characters, both my SvenSvensonov and her names wouldn't fit.
> 
> *****LeveragedBuyout, AMDR, Myself, Technogaianist and F-22Raptor are all members, we could use you too @Nihonjin1051
> 
> 
> 
> I really appreciate your contributions to this thread. If I still had my account credentials, (my primary account SvenSvensonov) I'd give you a positive rating. You deserve one.
> 
> Please keep up the good work!
> 
> ...
> 
> @AMDR I see you in the "users viewing this thread" bar, does my explanation make things easier. I hope so. People here already confuse Maddy and I, I don't want AMF to do the same.




Im signing up now. See you all there, buds!



Osmanovic said:


> @AMDR @jhungary @LeveragedBuyout @Hamartia Antidote @Transhumanist @SvenSvensonov
> Found this new forum when browsing twitter
> 
> American Military Forum




Thanks!!!!!


----------



## T-55

TechnoFox said:


> Please keep up the good work!



Thank,i will tray.


----------



## TechnoFox

*The Navy Finally Says Goodbye To The Tubby Little T-2 Buckeye Jet Trainer*







It has served the Navy for 56 years, the vast majority of those years working as the service’s intermediate jet trainer. Thousands of Naval Aviators and Naval Flight Officers were introduced to jet operations in the T-2 over the years, with many pilots making their first carrier landings in the jet. Now, with just a few remaining in service at Naval Station Patuxent River, the T-2 Buckeye is finally leaving the inventory once and for all.

The T-2 Buckeye has never been considered a beautiul airplane. North American didn’t design it to be the sleekest thing in the sky. Instead they made it simple, reliable, and extremely tough so that it could take merciless beatings as students figured out their way around an aircraft carrier in a jet. It’s name was fairly straight forward, as all the T-2 Buckeyes, some 529 in total, were constructed at Air Force Plant 85 near Columbus, Ohio. 






The jet came in three primary configurations over the years, with the T-2A having just one Westinghouse J34 engine. The B model introduced the two engine design, but it would not be until the C model, with its non-afterburning J85 engines (similar to those used in the Air Force’s T-38 Talon), was introduced in the late 1960s that the ultimate T-2 configuration would be established. 

Not only did North American design the Buckeye to be tough, but they also designed it to be extremely stable and forgiving. This garnered the straight-winged T-2 a special place when it came to advanced spin training. Even today, the Air Force’s Test Pilot School at Edwards Air Force Base contracts one of the few Buckeyes in private hands for this use from time-to-time. 






The T-2’s cockpit was designed to closely mirror that of the T-28 Trojan, also a North American product, which was the Navy’s primary trainer up until the mid 1980s. The aircraft are actually quite similar in their design philosophy, which is not a surprise considering their pedigree and mission. 

For the last 2o years of its career, the T-2 served alongside the T-34C Turbo Mentor and the TA-4J Skyhawk, and later the T-45 Goshawk, when it came to training Naval Aviators and Naval Flight Officers that found themselves in the strike fighter training pipeline. 






By the 2000s the Navy was well on its way to paring down the types of aircraft in their trainer fleet and replacing old aircraft with newer ones that would better represent what they would fly in the fleet. The T-6 Texan II JPATS and the T-45 Goshawk alone would train future Navy jet crews. By 2008 this vision was finally fulfilled, with the last T-2C Buckeye training flight occurring that year.

A small handful of Buckeyes soldiered on for test duties, including executing chase flights and supporting weapons trials. Seven years after its retirement from training students, the Navy is now finally saying goodbye once and for all to the Buckeye.

September 25, 2015 will mark its final operational flight with the Navy. VX-20, which has operated a trio of Buckeyes in recent years, will fly the last sortie, with the Buckeyes being replaced by C-38 Courier business jets.






The Buckeye was exported to just two customers, Venezuela and Greece. Venezuela no longer flies the type but Greece still does, with about three dozen of the jets in service. The vast majority of those were T-2Es that were purpose-built for Greece, while there are also about a half dozen ex-Navy T-2Cs augmenting the T-2E fleet. Yet even Greece’s Buckeye days are numbered as the Hellenic Air Force is prioritizing the procurement of a new jet trainer to replace it, budget permitting. 






It is always sad to see old aircraft finally leave the sky once and for all, especially one that built so many pilots carrier flying abilities, but the Buckeye and its screeching turbojet engines had a good long run. 

Still, if there were ever a tubby little jet that would be missed, this is it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## T-55

American bombers Convair B-36 Peacemaker is an American airbase in Okinawa; August 1953, the yearindicate that this is the first bombers of this type, who arrived at the Far Eastern theater
































В дальневосточной командировке - 477768

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## T-55

Two more

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## T-55

"Pegasus"
The flight on October 8-9, the prototype of a new tanker KC-46A "Pegasus"












"Пегас" впервые развернул в полете заправочные приспособления.: sandrermakoff

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Jäger

SvenSvensonov said:


> US Special Forces
> 
> Ranger
> View attachment 143344
> 
> 
> FAC
> View attachment 143345
> 
> 
> SEAL Team 2
> View attachment 143346
> 
> 
> 4th Military Information Support Group
> View attachment 143347
> 
> 
> Special Operations Weather Technician
> View attachment 143348
> 
> 
> 10th special warfare group
> View attachment 143349
> 
> 
> Pararescue
> View attachment 143350
> 
> 
> Combat Control and US pararescue
> View attachment 143351
> 
> 
> SDVT 1
> View attachment 143352
> 
> 
> Special Warface Combatant Craft Crewmen
> View attachment 143353


Awesome imagery


----------



## T-55

*50th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg.*
*



*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Oldman1

Raytheon Unveils New Mini Missile for Special Forces, Infantry | Defense Tech





Raytheon Co., the world’s largest missile maker, unveiled a new miniature laser-guided missile for Special Forces and infantry troops.

The Waltham, Massachusetts-based company displayed a model of the so-called Pike precision-guided munition on Monday at the Association of the United States Army’s annual conference in Washington, D.C.

“What’s enabled this is the miniaturization of electronics,” James R. “J.R.” Smith, director of advanced land warfare systems at Raytheon’s missile systems unit in Tucson, Arizona, said during an interview with Military.com.

Measuring just 17 inches long and 1.5 inches wide and weighing just 1.7 pounds, the projectile has a range of about 2 kilometers and is designed to be fired from existing rocket-propelled grenade launchers, such as the M203 and ELGM, Smith said.

While the munition will cost more than a unguided rocket-propelled grenade, it would be orders of magnitude cheaper than the FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missile some troops now carry, he said.
“A lot of what our Special Forces teams are dealing with when they’re engaging someone at range right now … they’re sitting there and they’re using a .50-caliber machine gun or firing rocket-propelled grenades, they’re not hitting the target and they’re being out shot by a lot of these bad guys,” Smith said. “So how do they deal with that now?

“They pull out a Javelin, which is a pretty expensive weapon,” he said. “Whereas you could take one of these. I guarantee you this will be a tiny fraction of the cost of a Javelin.” The Javelin is made by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin Corp. And while the Pike will have less stopping power than the Javelin, it will feature a blast-fragmentation warhead sufficient for taking out two people behind a wall, he added.

Smith wouldn’t say how much internal research and development funding the company spent on the project, but he said the effort has been underway for about three years. In May, Raytheon successfully tested two Pike munitions with dummy warheads at a private range in Texas, he said. The technology is compatible with any kind of properly coded laser designator, he said.

“It sees the reflection of laser energy off the target,” he said. “It’s looking for that laser energy. As it hits its apogee and it starts coming downhill, it will see its laser spot … You don’t even have to start by lasing. You can launch it, just as long as you get the laser on it before it hits its apogee and starts coming down. For a long shot like that, you could probably lase 15 seconds after launch.”

An M203 launcher beneath an M4 rifle would need to be modified to accept the round, Smith said. “The ones that are underneath the M4 carbines now, they can’t swing out far enough to slide it in,” he said. “It only sticks out so far. So they would have to modify that.”

Raytheon officials are talking to Army personnel about helping to fund additional testing of the design to include live-fire exercises, Smith said.


Read more: Raytheon Unveils New Mini Missile for Special Forces, Infantry | Defense Tech 
Defense.org

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## monitor

* Boeing X-48C *

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transhumanist

*How the US Marines would invade a beach today*






This intense footage shows an amphibious landing exercise performed by the US Marines and South Korea’s Marines at Dogue Beach in Pohang, South Korea. You see the ships swarming from the sea. You see hovercrafts landing on the beach. You see explosions. You’re basically seeing how the US Marines would invade a beach today.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## monitor

A Boeing 314 Clipper flying over San Francisco, 1940.



Dornier Do X in New York, 1931.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## T-55

The aircraft carrier-based aircraft naval forces of the USA during the flight; ~ 1980
F-14 Tomcat,F-18 Hornet,A-6 Intruder, S-3 Viking, AWACS aircraft E-2 Hawkeye,electronic warfare EA-6B Prowler


----------



## Jäger

Since i introduced myself to the French and British brothers now its my turn to introduce to American bros
F-16 Fleet formation





Soldier Guarding A-10





F-15 and F-22 flying together

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## yugocrosrb95

Transhumanist said:


> *How the US Marines would invade a beach today*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This intense footage shows an amphibious landing exercise performed by the US Marines and South Korea’s Marines at Dogue Beach in Pohang, South Korea. You see the ships swarming from the sea. You see hovercrafts landing on the beach. You see explosions. You’re basically seeing how the US Marines would invade a beach today.



Try doing that in Croatia... Get blasted.


----------



## Carach Angren

SEAL


----------



## Carach Angren

United States Army

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Carach Angren

United States Army

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Carach Angren

United States Army.

People say Afghanistan not want America in country. Picture says they do want America.


----------



## Carach Angren

United States Army

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Carach Angren

@James Jaevid says not enough United States Army in the thread, so I give 40 pictures for him

United States Army

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Carach Angren

United States Marine Corp

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Carach Angren

United States Special Forces

When I was in Afghanistan, I see American Special Forces. They come visit us. Very professional. The best soldiers I ever seen.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Carach Angren

United States Special Forces

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## James David

Carach Angren said:


> @James Jaevid says not enough United States Army in the thread, so I give 40 pictures for him
> 
> United States Army


Ohhhh.. You didn't have to buddy!!! Thanks!!!


----------



## Carach Angren




----------



## Carach Angren




----------



## Carach Angren




----------



## Carach Angren



Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
2


----------



## T-55

Inside The Big E(sorry if repost)




and some old posters

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Carach Angren

493rd Fighter Squadron “Grim Reapers”










































Photo credit: Rich Cooper

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Carach Angren



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Carach Angren



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## James David

Carach Angren said:


>


Flyboys!!! Someone has to do the easy job I suppose... Nice post keep 'em comin buddy!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## T-55

Experimental Demonstration of arms and equipment for the "soldier of the future" of the US Army;August 1959

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## T-55

F-35

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

Bell, Sikorsky Showcase Different Concepts for Army Helo | Defense News: Aviation International News

Helicopter manufacturers showcased their competing concepts for a future Army rotorcraft at the Association of the U.S. Army (AUSA) conference in Washington, D.C., this week—one a tiltrotor and the other a compound helicopter. Both aim to meet the Army’s demanding specifications for its future medium-class rotorcraft to replace the UH-60 Black Hawk, including 230-knot cruising speed and the ability to hover in “hot and high” conditions.

Bell Helicopter featured a mock-up of the V-280 Valor tiltrotor, which is contending for the Army’s joint multi-role technology demonstration (JMR-TD) phase 1 effort to develop and fly a medium-class demonstrator by 2017. Sikorsky Aircraft brought the second of two flight-test prototypes of its S-97 Raider, which it describes as a technology demonstrator for the larger SB-1 Defiant rotorcraft that Sikorsky and Boeing are developing for the JMR-TD phase 1 requirement. The industry-funded Raider is a compound helicopter with coaxial, counter-rotating main rotors and a pusher propeller; so too will be the Defiant.

The Army’s Aviation Technology Directorate chose the Bell and Sikorsky-Boeing teams to build JMR TD demonstrators in August 2014, eliminating two other industry contenders. Lockheed Martin serves as a major partner on the Bell team, and with its planned $9 billion acquisition of Sikorsky, announced in July, Lockheed Martin now spans both teams. Speaking at the AUSA conference, Bell CEO John Garrison said Lockheed Martin’s ownership of Sikorsky shouldn’t complicate his company’s JMR-TD development, although it has caused their contractual relationship to change.

When the acquisition was announced, “the team at Lockheed called me and they said, ‘Listen this is the world that we operate in. We can put in firewalls,’” Garrison said. “We actually had a contractual change where they committed to a lot of the things that they were in fact doing as part of the program. Lockheed has been a great teammate. They’ve done everything we have asked—plus. We believe they are going to continue to do that.”

Mark Miller, Sikorsky vice president of research and engineering, had a similar response when asked if Lockheed Martin’s involvement as mission-system provider on the V-280 Valor affects the SB-1 Defiant program. There is “zero complication from that arrangement,” he said.

Otherwise, Bell and Sikorsky see their JMR-TD prospects differently. Garrison said the V-280 Valor will benefit from more than 300,000 flight hours of experience the Marine Corps and Air Force have accumulated with the V-22 tiltrotor. The V-280 design differs, however, in that its proprotor engines will remain fixed in the horizontal plane instead of rotating. Last month, Spirit AeroSystems delivered the composite fuselage for the future Valor, which is now being assembled at Bell’s facility in Amarillo, Texas.

“This isn’t version one,” Garrison said. “The fact that the tiltrotor technology has got 300,000-plus hours, and the simple physics of being able to have a wing, provide significant advantages [for] speed, payload and range. We think the physics are in our favor for a tiltrotor design. We’ve got proven technology that we’re taking to the next level, and we think that’s going to be the winning combination.”

Sikorsky experimental test pilot Bill Fell was bullish about a compound helicopter design, which for Sikorsky traces to its record-setting X2 technology demonstrator. “The hallmark of X2 technology is that these aircraft go fast,” Fell said during a walkaround of the S-97 Raider. “This is 220-to-230-knot machine depending on what configuration you have in terms of drag, whether you have weapons on the side or you don’t. But beyond that, it does things that traditional helicopters do well also. Ten thousand feet [altitude], 95 degrees, hover out-of-ground-effect capability at mission gross weight is what we’ve designed for.”

Miller said the 11,500-pound Raider serves as a technology demonstrator for the Defiant, which will be a 30,000-pound-class aircraft. “It’s a tech demonstrator for our offering in the JMR medium [competition], a 30,000-pound-plus vehicle,” he explained. “A lot of what’s coming out of here from a technology perspective, the demonstration in flight, systems integration…are going into risk reducing that program.”

The Raider might also be advanced for the Army’s Future Vertical Lift (FVL) light rotorcraft requirement, Miller suggested. “This is clearly targeted at an armed scout configuration, and it can [also] be an FVL light,” he said.


----------



## T-55

Record Osprey Flight - 6165 Miles Miramar To Rio

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## T-55



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## T-55

Some posters
World War II




















World War I


----------



## T-55

"Operation Sandy" - experimental launch of a ballistic missile German "V-2" from the deck of an aircraft carrier. The launch was carried out on 6 September 1947, from the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Midway in the area south of Bermuda

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## monitor

Image Credit: Lockheed Martin
*US B-52 Bombers to Get New Long-Range Cruise Missile*
The B-52 “Stratofortress” will be armed with a new conventional long-range cruise missile.





By Franz-Stefan Gady
November 25, 2015



The B-52H long-range heavy bomber will be armed with Lockheed Martin’s AGM-158B Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile – Extended Range (JASSM-ER) in a deal announced this November estimated to be worth $9.1 million, _Flight Global_ reports.

According to the article, the B-52H long-range heavy bomber will be outfitted with a new digitized rotary launcher to carry the turbofan engine-powered cruise missile internally as well as externally on its pylons.

The B-52H bomber is already configured to carry the shorter-range standard JASSM on its pylons. Adding the extended range variant will more than double the bomber’s JASSM strike distance to 500 nautical miles (926 kilometers), _Flight Global_ explains.

“JASSM-ER has more than two-and-a-half times the range of the baseline AGM-158A JASSM, meaning it can be launched from outside of defended airspace and the coverage of long-range surface-to-air missiles, and is intended for use against high-value, well-fortified, fixed and re-locatable targets,” according to_IHS Jane’s Defense Weekly_.

The new 2,000-pound conventional, air-to-ground, precision standoff missile is powered by the Williams International F107-WR-105 turbofan engine and armed with a penetrating blast-fragmentation warhead. The U.S. Air Force has approved full-rate production of the new missile in December 2014. Under a October 2015 contract Lockheed Martin will build 140 baseline JASSMs and 140 JASSM-ER missiles.

“JASSM and JASSM-ER have an important role in the United States’ and its allied partners’ long-term strategic defense plans,” said Jason Denney, program director of long-range strike systems at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in a press release. “The missiles (…) will provide an effective and more affordable capability against Anti-Access/Area Denial threats, thus providing a strategic deterrent for U.S. and international warfighters.”

The integration of the JASSM-ER on the B-52H bomber should be completed by 2018. According to _Flight Global_, “Boeing-led Combat Network Communications Technology improvement will further allow B-52s to update their missions plans via satellite and retarget weapons in flight – as most other combat aircraft have been doing for decades.”

Dozens of B-52H bombers are currently stripped of their nuclear weapons as part of a new strategic arms limitation agreement with Russia and reassigned conventional warfighting roles. Only the H model of the 54-year-old aircraft is still in service.

Among other things, the B-52H can perform strategic attack, close-air support, air interdiction, offensive counter-air and maritime operations, according to the U.S. Air Force website. The aircraft, with an unrefueled combat range in excess of 8,800 miles (14,080 kilometers), is expected to remain in service at least until the 2040 when it will be replaced by the new Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## neolithic

White Americans Did the Same Thing (burning alive) to Black People by the Thousands


----------



## CIABurnerAccount




----------



## CIABurnerAccount

UJLU JU D EBGVCS ELRIGU KG ARW DCQ UPNYG UJH OFUVIF KON SGVQPF WQ ZQX


----------



## T-55

American, English and French fighters on the trilateral exercises in the USA

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## T-55

F-35: 2015 Year in Review

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## T-55

Attack helicopters Bell AH-1S Cobra from the 1st Battalion, 140th Aviation Regiment, included in the composition of the National Guard of California; May 1992

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## T-55



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## mike2000 is back

*This is why the U.S is by far the most formidable Naval force in the World.*









Here's a rare sight: four out of the ten Nimitz-class aircraft carriers—the largest warships ever built—plus an Enterprise-class carrier docked together. They are resting at Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia, which coincidentally is the largest naval base in the world. Look at all that engineering and firepower. And it's only half of the Nimitz fleet!* *









Battleship salvo fire. Now there's your BIG BANG!*  *A salvo from the U.S.S Iowa’s 16 inch and 5 inch guns would displace around 100,000 tons of water and move the ship sideways approximately 9 feet
*
*

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## T-55

Which aircraft are most mission ready

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Azeri440

T-55 said:


> Which aircraft are most mission ready




349 KC-135Rs?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Osmanovic

http://www.*********************.com/forums/threads/allied-spirit-iv-nato-exercise.479/


----------



## Nattmara

Americans in Norway


----------



## bidonv

By:thediplomat.com
*Why the US Needs Conventional Submarines
*


> The U.S. Armed Forces operate a wide array of sophisticated weaponry, in many cases superior to anything else in the world. But while the new destroyers, carriers, or the F-22 might have no equal, the U.S. Armed Forces face a significant gap in their capabilities: the total lack of any conventional submarines.
> 
> The United States hasn’t produced any conventional submarines since the Barbel-class in the late 1950s; every submarine class since then has been nuclear powered. This might have made sense in the context of the Cold War, where Soviet nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines had to be shadowed, but times have changed.
> 
> While previously conventional submarines had to snorkel roughly at least every two days of time under water to recharge their batteries, air-independent propulsion (AIP) has changed the game. German Type 212 submarines can stay under water without snorkeling for up to three weeks, traveling 1,500 miles (2,400 kilometers) or more. Without emitting heat and with no need for constant cooling due to the lack of a nuclear reactor, these German submarines and comparable designs are more than a match for nuclear-powered submarines in terms of stealthiness.
> 
> Whereas the Soviet Union had submarines cruising the globe’s waters, the next big naval challenge for the United States isn’t a revitalized Russian navy, but the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s subs and ships lurking in the South China Sea and East China Sea. These submarines could play a key role in trying to enforce China’s A2/AD (anti-access/area denial) strategy against a superior USN, with the goal of preventing the United States from intervening in any conflict involving the Spratly Islands, the Paracel Islands, the Senkaku Islands, and Taiwan.
> 
> With the PLAN’s mostly conventional submarine force, the USN’s superior anti-submarine warfare capabilities will continue to severely hinder any Chinese submarine operations outside the first island chain and outside of China’s land-based air cover. This limits the theater of operations to a high degree and puts it well into range for conventional submarines using only their AIP based in Okinawa, Singapore, Subic Bay, Guam, or possibly Zuoying Naval Base on Taiwan.
> 
> Whereas China can and will create a bigger subsurface fleet than the USN by mixing conventional submarines with nuclear powered ones, the financial burden of matching hull with hull is practically impossible for the United States, at least as long as it limits the USN to SSNs. Conventional submarines might change this.
> 
> While one Virginia-class submarine costs roughly $2.7 billion per unit, the same money could buy six to seven conventional submarines of the German Type 212 class. While U.S. nuclear-attack submarines are superb, many examples have shown that sophisticated conventional submarines aren’t just a match for surface fleets but also for older SSNs under the right circumstances.
> 
> In case of a conflict with China, the majority of naval combat will happen well within the first island chain, where a purely nuclear-powered fleet seems like a waste of assets. Neither their range nor their speed will be needed in most cases. As conventional submarines will be able to handle most tasks, the dramatically more expensive SSNs could stay out of the first island chain concentration on shadowing the PLAN’s SSBNs and SSNs outside this area, while keeping enough in reserve and out of harm’s way to maintain a credible deterrence against Russia at the same time. Additional conventional subs would also prevent the projected sub shortfall starting in 2021.
> 
> But going back into the business of building conventional submarines for the USN wouldn’t just make sense from an fiscal point of view for a navy that has limited resources. It would also offer various economic and political options for the United States.
> 
> President George W. Bush promised Taiwan eight conventional subs in 2001, which were never delivered. If the United States were to start building conventional submarines again, the pledge to Taiwan could finally be fulfilled. Moreover, the market for conventional submarines is gigantic. Most Asian nations are looking to establish, increase, or modernize their submarine fleets; Germany and France have both enjoyed particular success marketing their submarines to countries like South Korea, Indonesia, India, and Malaysia. Many of these nations are close U.S. allies or friends. The market for modern conventional submarines built in the United States would probably amount to several dozen hulls within the next two decades.
> 
> Built in the U.S., employing U.S. workers, and spreading the development costs over ever more hulls, Washington could seriously consider subsidizing some of those submarines for navies which are direly in need for a naval deterrence against an ever more aggressive China. If the United States doesn’t want to hand Asia over to China on China’s terms, a price might have to be paid in the end. It’ll be either money or blood. Subsidized submarines for the Philippines and Taiwan might just be what it takes to show the steadfast commitment for the status quo and the support for those two nations, which are under heavy pressure from the Middle Kingdom.
> 
> Conventional submarines with AIP wouldn’t just bolster the USN’s capabilities in this crucial theater for a comparative bargain, they would also allow the U.S. to enter a sizable weapons....................Read more







_The Norwegian ULA class submarine Utstein (KNM 302) participates in NATO exercise Odin-One.
_


----------



## monitor

*House Lawmakers Want Air Force To Consider Buying More B-21 Bombers*


Lara Seligman, Defense News 10:12 a.m. EDT April 20, 2016





(Photo: US Air Force)

172 CONNECTTWEET 115 LINKEDIN 2 COMMENTEMAILMORE
WASHINGTON — As advocates call on the Pentagon to buy as many as 200 next-generation bombers to counter growing threats, House legislation released this week urged the Air Force to take another look at how many B-21s commanders really need.

Both top military officials and experts outside the Pentagon have recommended the Air Force buy more than the 100 planned Northrop Grumman B-21 bombers to ensure enough aircraft are available to meet combatant commander requirements, according to the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee’s markup of the 2017 defense policy bill, released Tuesday.

The sweet spot is between 174 and 205 B-21s, independent experts told the committee, according to the legislation. Meanwhile, Air Force Global Strike Commander Gen. Robin Rand said the 100-bomber number should be treated as the lower limit of the requirement, lawmakers noted.




DEFENSE NEWS

Advocates Call For 200 Next-Generation Bombers 




DEFENSE NEWS

USAF Wants To Buy 100 Long Range Strike-Bombers

The legislation would direct the secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by Feb. 1, 2017, estimating the number of B-21s needed to meet the demand signal. The report should also include a detailed transition plan that integrates the B-21 into the current bomber fleet out to 2040, according to the language.

Lawmakers also expressed concern that Congress does not have sufficient ability to track cost and schedule of the highly classified development effort. The legislation would direct the secretary to submit an initial “B-21 Development Progress Matrix” to the congressional defense committees, including milestones and metrics for measuring the program’s progress.

“The committee is pleased to see progress on this program and believes that this program has stable requirements in place,” according to the legislation. “However, the committee is concerned that, given the length of time associated with the [engineering, manufacturing and development] phase and the amount of resources planned for this phase, the congressional defense committees need an improved ability to track annual progress and cost throughout the development.”

The legislation comes on the heels of a recent Congressional Research Service report urging Congress to take a look at whether it has enough oversight of the bomber program. The Pentagon is procuring the B-21 via the Air Force’s secretive Rapid Capabilities Office, a small group inside Air Force acquisitions that handles classified programs such as the X-37B spacecraft. The RCO is exempt from many of the rules and regulations Congress usually imposes on a normal acquisition program.

Congress must determine whether the advantages gained through using the secretive RCO outweigh the challenges of adequately overseeing a highly classified program, according to the CRS report.




DEFENSE NEWS

Does Congress Have Enough Oversight of the B-21?

Email: lseligman@defensenews.com

Twitter: @laraseligman


----------



## bidonv

By:abcnews.go.com
*Trailblazer Becomes Army's First Female Infantry Officer*


> Already a trailblazer, Army Captain Kristen Griest became the Army’s first female infantry officer when, on Monday, the Army approved her request to transfer from the military police unit she had been serving in.
> 
> Griest became well-known last year after she became one of the first three women to successfully complete the Army's elite Ranger School course.
> 
> “Like any other officer, male or female, that wants to transfer their branch, she took the opportunity and applied for an exception to the Army policy to transfer her branch from Military Police to Infantry,” said Bob Purtiman, a spokesman at Fort Benning, Georgia. Purtiman confirmed to ABC News that Griest's transfer request was approved by the Army on Monday and she became immediately eligible to serve in an Army infantry unit.
> 
> After successfully completing Ranger School last year, Griest returned to service at her home base at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. The participation of women in the Ranger School course was part of the Army's research into whether women should be integrated into combat units. The other military services also conducted similar programs that were presented to Defense Secretary Ash Carter last fall. .....................*See more*







_Capt. Kristen Griest waits at Lawson Airfield for the Airborne Assault exercise to begin during U.S. Army's Ranger School at Fort Benning, Ga., April 25, 2015._


----------



## bidonv

By:www.defenseworld.net
*DARPA Awards Research Contract For Future Armored Vehicles*



> Future Armored vehicles will be able to deflect incoming threats by moving their armor plates up, down or sideways, be light, agile and have greater situational awareness than the steel behemoths of today.
> 
> The US Defence Advance Research projects agency has awarded contracts to Carnegie Mellon University, Honeywell, Leidos, Pratt & Miller, QinetiQ Inc., Raytheon, Southwest Research Institute and SRI International.
> 
> “We’re exploring a variety of technologies, all of which are designed to improve vehicle mobility, vehicle survivability and crew safety and performance without piling on armor,” said Maj. Christopher Orlowski, DARPA program manager.
> 
> GXV-T is pursuing research in the following four technical areas, Radically Enhanced Mobility—Ability to traverse diverse off-road terrain, including slopes and various elevations. Capabilities of interest include revolutionary wheel/track and suspension technologies that would enable greater terrain access and faster travel both on- and off-road compared to existing ground vehicles.
> 
> Survivability through Agility—Autonomously avoid incoming threats without harming occupants through technologies that enable, for example, agile motion and active repositioning of armor. Capabilities of interest include vertical and horizontal movement of armor to defeat incoming threats in real time.
> 
> Crew Augmentation—Improved physical and electronically assisted situational awareness for crew and passengers; semi-autonomous driver assistance and automation of key crew functions similar to capabilities found in modern commercial airplane cockpits. Capabilities of interest include high-resolution, 360-degree visualization of data from multiple onboard sensors and technologies to support closed-cockpit vehicle operations.
> 
> Signature Management—Reduction of detectable signatures, including visible, infrared (IR), acoustic and electromagnetic (EM).
> 
> Capabilities of interest include improved ways to avoid detection and engagement by adversaries...................*See more*


----------



## bidonv

By:www.naval-technology.com
*
USS Montogomery completes acceptance trials of US Navy*


> The Austal-built eighth Independence-variant Littoral combat ship (LCS 8), USS Montgomery, has completed acceptance trials conducted by the US Navy.
> 
> The four-day trial involved comprehensive testing of the vessel's major systems and equipment by the US Navy, including
> of the propulsion plant, ship handling, and auxiliary systems.
> 
> The vessel also conducted launch and recovery operations of the 11m rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB), and undertook a full power run for a duration of four hours.
> "The successful completion of acceptance trials is a significant milestone for Austal and demonstrates how the LCS programme is progressively maturing."
> 
> USS Montgomery also took part in surface and air self-defence detect-to-engage exercises, and exhibited the ship's maneuverability by performing tight turns and achieving speeds of more than 40k.
> 
> Austal CEO David Singleton said: "The successful completion of acceptance trials is a significant milestone for Austal and demonstrates how the LCS programme is progressively maturing.
> 
> "LCS 8 incorporates most of the modifications that have been identified to date following delivery of LCS 6, our first as prime contractor."
> 
> The US Navy had earlier awarded a $3.5bn contract to construct and deliver ten more LCSs.................Read more


----------



## bidonv

By:nationalinterest.org
*The U.S. Navy's Dangerous Nuclear Attack Submarine Shortage*


> The U.S. Navy hopes to continue to build two Virginia-class attack submarines per year while also building the Ohio Replacement Program ballistic missile submarine starting in 2021. But does the United States still have the industrial capacity to build more than two nuclear submarines at a time?
> 
> The increased build rate would help to alleviate a severe shortfall in the number of available attack submarines in the Navy’s inventory—which is set to drip to 41 boats by 2029. But moreover, with the growing threat from a resurgent Russia and an increasingly hostile China, the service is recalibrating its stated requirement for 48 attack submarines.
> 
> It has become clear that the service needs more than 48 attack submarines. Even with 52 boats currently in service—four more than the stated requirement—the Navy is not able to meet the worldwide demand for submarine capability. “We have a compelling need for additional attack submarines,” Sean Stackley, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition told the Congress in late February. “Today, we have 52 boats, a requirement for 48, we have a valley of 41 boats in the 2030s, we start falling below the line in the late 2020s.”
> 
> The Navy is working on reducing the costs of the Ohio Replacement Program to pay for an additional Virginia-class boat when the new ballistic missile submarine enters production in 2021. “We’ve got to nail down what it’s going to cost to add a second Virginia in 2021 in POM 18.....................*Read more*


----------



## monitor

*Step inside the cockpit of the legendary SR-71 Blackbird*






Behold the cockpit of one of the finest spy planes ever built, the SR-71 Blackbird. The Blackbird, created by Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works division, was a revolutionary platform for its time. Described by a former pilot as "107 feet of fire-breathing titanium," the Blackbird's groundbreaking construction made the spy plane unique among aircraft.

A pilot and a recon officer would take detailed photos of hundreds of thousands of miles of terrain as stealthily as they could. The incredible speed of the SR-71, as high as 2,200 mph, meant the protocol for evading enemy missiles was simply to outrun them.

To get a look at how this truly revolutionary plane worked, see a brief explainer on the cockpit we put together aided by commentary from former SR-71 pilot Richard Graham.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## T-55



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## T-55

F-35B 25mm GAU-22 Gun Pod Test


----------



## Olaf One-Brow

B-1B in an anechoic chamber during electronic warfare systems testing evaluations of the ALQ-161 Threat Protection System.











I intend to revive this thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Anubis

monitor said:


> *Step inside the cockpit of the legendary SR-71 Blackbird*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behold the cockpit of one of the finest spy planes ever built, the SR-71 Blackbird. The Blackbird, created by Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works division, was a revolutionary platform for its time. Described by a former pilot as "107 feet of fire-breathing titanium," the Blackbird's groundbreaking construction made the spy plane unique among aircraft.
> 
> A pilot and a recon officer would take detailed photos of hundreds of thousands of miles of terrain as stealthily as they could. The incredible speed of the SR-71, as high as 2,200 mph, meant the protocol for evading enemy missiles was simply to outrun them.
> 
> To get a look at how this truly revolutionary plane worked, see a brief explainer on the cockpit we put together aided by commentary from former SR-71 pilot Richard Graham.








I saw the Oxcart last Sunday.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Olaf One-Brow

United States Navy Combatant Crewman































The boats are the Swedish designed Stridsbåt 90 H. These are designated 'Riverine Command Boat' by the USN.


----------



## Olaf One-Brow

United States Air Force Pararescue men


----------



## Olaf One-Brow




----------



## Olaf One-Brow

Mack 1250 GPM donated to Nicaragua under the Denton Program. They were flown 3700 miles from New Jersey to Managua via a US Air Force Reserve C-5 Galaxy.











13 sets of boots, six jackets, and 1,200 feet of 2 ½-inch hose were also donated.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Olaf One-Brow

Heavies at Andersen Air Force Base in Guam.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## T-55

"Assault Group" of police during the arrest of the armed criminal; New York; 1955.




















http://477768.livejournal.com/4062166.html


----------



## Olaf One-Brow

You may have thought the F-4's life in the US military was over long ago. It lived on as the QF-4:






But now its days are truly over.

The Phantastic QF-4 Phantom Full-Scale Target Drone Takes its Phinal Unmanned Phlight

20 years after it was fully retired from combat duty by the Pentagon, the F-4 Phantom Full Scale Aerial Target (FSAT) has taken its last unmanned flight. The bitter-sweet milestone was marked on August 17 at Holloman AFB in New Mexico, now the QF-4’s only home. The jet was shot at during a weapons test by a pair of AIM-120 AMRAAM slinging F-35s.

Apparently the QF-4 was not lost in the test, which is not uncommon as often times these drills feature missiles without warheads. Since the AIM-120 is proximity fused and uses a continuous-rod blast fragmentation warhead, as long as the missile gets close enough to the target it is considered a kill. This allows for the possibility of the FSAT to live another day without significantly impairing test data while also providing telemetry on the missile's own end-game performance. 

Now, Detachment One of the 82nd Aerial Targets Squadron (ATRS) will only enjoy a few more months of manned QF-4 operations before the type is finally retired in full this December. Taking over the FSA's duties will be the more adaptable and far more nimble QF-16 Viper, which has been flown for two years by the 82nd ATRS at Tyndall AFB. The last QF-4 flew from Tyndall last May. This awesome video commemorates the winding-down of operations of the iconic aircraft at the Florida base.






Lieutenant. Colonel Ryan Inman, the former 82nd ATRS commander, stated in a Air Force press release:

_"The aging fleet of the QF-4s and their limited capabilities against modern fighters have rendered the aerial target workhorse, Phantom II, at its technological limit. The QF-16 initiates the next chapter in advanced aerial targets, predominantly in support of more technologically superior air-to-air weapons test and evaluation programs. The QF-16 will enable our leaner and more efficient Air Force to continue operations at maximum mission effectiveness while maintaining air superiority and global reach for decades to come."_






Lieutenant Colonel Ronald Kind, the current commander of the 82nd ATRS, added:

_“It’s certainly bittersweet. The F-4 served faithfully in Vietnam and as late as the Gulf War. So, for it to be pulled out of the boneyard to continue serving its country is a testament to this airplane -- to the designers, the test pilots who first flew it, to the maintainers who’ve worked on it all these years—what a testament to what they’ve been able to do, and what a great airplane it was. Forty-five years later, we are still flying these airplanes to test the latest and greatest equipment we have.”_

The F-4 still serves around the globe, in the armed forces of Turkey, Greece, Iran, South Korea and Japan. But the next decade will likely be the type’s final operational hurrah. In its better part of a century of service the F-4 has participated in countless battles, executed many heroic feats by some of the bravest and most talented pilots at her controlls, flown for the Blue Angels and the Thuderbirds, as well as the USAF, USMC and US Navy simultaneously. It has also made some ridiculously awesome solo displays, and has been dreamed up in seemingly an endless number configurations and produced under license around the globe with a whopping 5,195 having been built in total.

...

Godspeed mighty Phantom

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## monitor

* New USAF Trainer Boeing TX revealed (Boeing-Saab) *






























You might also like:


----------



## Norge Stronk

Quite a few F-35s at Luke AFB. There's a few Norwegian ones in these photos too.


----------



## Norge Stronk



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hindustani78

Remains of Maj. Troy Gilbert on Oct 03 2016 , Gilbert was killed on Nov 27 2006 after his F16C crashed 20 miles from Baghdad.


----------



## T-55

Aggressor Forces - The Big Picture


----------



## wiseone2

most of america wars are more like skirmishes



T-55 said:


> Aggressor Forces - The Big Picture


what is the big picture ?


----------



## T-55

^^^
The Big Picture is an American documentary television program which aired from 1951 to 1964. The series consisted of documentary films produced by the United States Army Signal Corps Army Pictorial Service.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Picture_(TV_series)


----------



## Penguin

maroofz2000 said:


> Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar Al-Abadi announced early on Monday that the co*America Has Been At War 93% of the Time – 222 Out of 239 Years – Since 1776.*
> *The U.S. Has Only Been At Peace For 21 Years Total Since Its Birth*


Yawn. What does any of this prove?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_wars_and_battles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_People's_Republic_of_China

Heck, even my dinky toy country has an arm-long list....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Netherlands

And so does our dinky toy neighbour Belgium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Belgium





*Boeing Unveils Amazing, Slightly Terrifying New Electromagnetic Pulse Weapon*
*With pinpoint accuracy, this electronic warfare drone can black out opposing forces at will.*

Rich Smith
(TMFDitty)
May 24, 2015 at 9:13AM
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/05/24/boeing-unveils-electromagnetic-pulse-weapon.aspx


----------



## Hindustani78

U.S. President Barack Obama participates in a wreath-laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery on Veterans Day in Arlington, Virginia.


----------



## T-55

Lightning Carrier Proof of Concept Demonstration B-Roll


----------



## Fenrir

*Meet The Biggest And Baddest Ships In the US Army*

*The US Navy doesn’t have a monopoly on big boats.*






When you think of the US Army, large seagoing vessels don’t come to mind. Maybe they should; the service has its own expansive fleet of boats and ships, and the USAV _SSGT Robert T. Kuroda _and its sister ship the USAV _Major General Robert Smalls _are the biggest of them all.

While the Marines have their own specialized high-end armada of Navy ships, sometimes referred to as the “Gator Navy,” to support their amphibious operations, the Army has no such luxury. But what the Army _does_ have is a far more understated beach landing and logistics naval force that relies on a simpler sea-bound logistics concept.

At the heart of this concept are the Army’s largest class of ships, the Logistic Support Vessels (LSVs) of the _General Frank S. Besson_ class. Eight of these ships are in service with Army, six of which were built between 1987 and 1994. Following the retirement of the _Newport_ class Landing Ship Tank (LST), they are now the largest of their kind within the Pentagon's inventory and are reminiscent of Russia's massive amphibious landing ships.






These first six ships are 273 feet long, 60 feet wide, and displace 4,200 tons. They were designed to convey cargo and vehicles, and can be loaded and unloaded by crane right onto their decks, or by ramps on the stern and on the bow of each vessel. The bow ramp in particular is designed for direct beach/shoreline access, with ships pulling right into the surf for loading and offloading.






These ships are capable of carrying any of the Army’s land vehicles, including the massive M1 Abrams main battle tank. In fact, it can haul up to 15 of the Abrams at a time. It can also carry a maximum of 82 double-stacked 20-foot long ISO containers, a big tugboat—even a Boeing C-17 fuselage.






The maximum load for the early _Besson_ class is 2,000 short tons spread over the vessel’s 10,500 square-feet of deck area. It's an extraordinary accomplishment for a ship with a draft of just 13 feet. Drawing so little water helps for expeditionary operations when docks are not available.






n the early 2000s a subclass of the type was launched consisting of two ships, USAV _SSGT Robert T. Kuroda _(LSV-7) and its sister ship USAV _Major General Robert Smalls _(LSV-8). These are the largest ships in the Army’s inventory, with 42 feet added to the earlier _General Frank S. Besson_ class design.






This increased length is largely due to a modification of the ship’s bow. Instead of having the flat, shovel-like front dictated by the ship’s forward ramp, a “visor” is fitted that can lift up and down. When in the lowered position, this fairing makes the ship much more hydrodynamic, and capable of handling rougher seas than their predecessors.






This modification, along with the ability to generate large quantities of fresh water, double the horsepower, and expanded internal volume for creature comforts, gives the subclass the ability to take on global missions better than its six forebeares. With a range of nearly 6,500 miles, these ships can reliably self-deploy to hotspots on short notice. These modifications come with the penalty of increased mass. The two $26 million ships displace an extra 1,800 tons each compared with the other ships in their class.

The _General Frank S. Besson_ class of ships, like other US Army vessels, are crewed by a little-known cadre of soldier-sailors (they prefer the name Army Mariner). Each of these ships has roughly eight Warrant Officers, and between 14 and 24 enlisted crew. Unlike most other parts of the service, Army vessels don’t run on rank structure necessarily, instead they run on a license-type hierarchy.






In general, it seems that morale aboard these ships and crew retention is exceptionally high, and let’s face it, saying that you are assigned to a ship in the Army is a great conversation starter—so that’s one big perk. Also, these crews work as small, close-knit units, and many get to see exotic ports around the globe—some of which big Navy ships don’t even get to call on.

...

Continued Below.


----------



## Fenrir

Continued from above

...

A further two variants of the same class were built for the Philippine Navy in the early 1990s, and are configured as multi-role patrol ships. Dubbed the _Bacolod City_ class, these vessels are adaptable to different mission sets and are very inconspicuous. A helicopter pad is fitted to the rear of the variant’s superstructure, and small boats can deploy from the ship’s rear ramp area. These vessels can also still be used in a material transport role when needed and are up-gunned with 20mm cannons and enhanced sensors.






The multi-role light helicopter carrier configuration—which the _Bacolod City _class is a version of—was one of a handful of alternative uses for the _General Frank S. Besson_ class design. Semi-submersible and troop carrier variants were also put forward, but never fully developed.






The US Army’s small fleet of _General Frank S. Besson_ class logistics vessels are gaining a whole new level of prominence as the Pentagon attempts to pivot away from sandy land warfare in the Middle East and towards the watery and remote challenges of Pacific.






While the Navy, Air Force, and Marines have a front row seat at the table when it comes to fighting in a combined manner over the vast distances in the Pacific Theatre, the Army has struggled to find its place in this new strategic order. These LSVs, especially the more deployable two latter ships in the class, could be just the bridge the service needs to make itself more relevant.






The Navy is spending big bucks on creating huge mobile sea bases, and even Special Operations Command is getting in on the action by creating their own afloat mobile staging base. It would only seem logical for the Army’s LSVs to play a strong role in this growing sea basing and Pacific theatre expeditionary fighting strategy. If anything else, they represent an affordable bridge between small and rudimentary landing craft with localized reach and the Joint High Speed Vessels that are growing in number within the Pentagon’s war-fighting portfolio.






With all this in mind, expect these little-known but capable and proud ships to become a much more “visible” Army capability,—and don’t be too surprised if the service decides to order more of them in the future.


----------



## Banglar Bir

*Pentagon is Now Deploying Reservists and Refusing to Pay Promised GI Bill Benefits*
Jack Burns November 27, 2016 Leave a comment

October, the Pentagon recalled millions in reenlistment bonuses it paid to Gulf War veterans. The decades-old bonuses were paid to U.S. soldiers who would reenlist for the Iraq and Afghanistan war efforts. Understandably, many veterans felt betrayed upon learning they’d have to repay what they’d considered money owed to them for signing up to fight again. One of the reasons many potential servicemen join the armed forces, in the first place, is the promise of future educational benefits. Now, it seems, the government is at it again, and it appears many reservists are finding out the hard way that what they’ve been promised, they may never receive.

According to Task and Purpose, an “obscure deployment code, a measure the Pentagon created in 2014 to scale back spending on benefits,” deployed reservists have been prevented from earning credit towards their GI Bill educational benefits. In other words, the soldiers’ deployments won’t get them any educational benefits when they get home. “By law, reservists involuntarily mobilized under Title 10, section 12304b, do not receive credit for the GI Bill while they are activated,” Task and Purpose reported.

Marine Sgt. William Hubbard, currently deployed overseas in Honduras, isn’t just any reservist. He’s also a soldiers’ advocate and serves in his civilian role as the Vice President of Government Affairs at Student Veterans of America, a national veterans advocacy group focusing on education policy. Hubbard said, fellow Marines in Honduras are stunned as the word has slowly spread through the ranks. Most incorrectly believed they would receive seven to nine months’ worth of credit for GI Bill benefits, including Hubbard, a benefits legislation expert, Task and Purpose writes.

Hubbard said, “Reservists serve their country like any other component, and they have to balance civilian employment, education and the military…And to say they don’t rate the full benefit? It doesn’t add up.”

Under Title 10, section 12304b, at least 1,780 reservists have been deployed and will not receive GI Bill benefits for their service time overseas. A Marine reservist from Cleveland, Ohio, Sgt. Mark Wong, said he was frustrated after learning his service to his country did not deliver full benefits. He said, “Once I heard about the exemption, it blew my mind. We work the same hours as active duty people doing the same job. The government is saying our sacrifice isn’t worth as much as it is for those on active duty. But we leave behind families and our civilian careers too.”

Wong needed those benefits in his civilian role in criminal justice, explaining he’d planned on getting an advanced law degree to further his career and earn bonuses.

Hubbard, too, like Wong, had planned on earning an advanced degree, desiring to get an MBA. Now he says, “At this point, I have to take a step back to assess the financial viability. This would make the difference between doing it or not…Now I have to decide between starting a family or my education, and not both.”

Apparently, the Pentagon is attempting to tighten up its defense spending. According to Task and Purpose, the Pentagon’s 2017 budget called for doubling reserve mobilizations, in part to ease the strain of operations across the globe, from the fight against the Islamic State group to ramped-up deployments in Europe in the face of growing Russian aggression.

Some members of Congress are aware of the problem and have introduced bills to re-institute the stripped benefits. According to Task and Purpose, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., proposed the National Guard 12304b Benefits Parity Act in May. The bill would grant GI Bill benefits to reservists along with health care and retirement benefits, according to Michael Dale-Stein, a spokesman for Franken. But it has not moved from the Senate’s Armed Services Committee since its introduction.

Franken reportedly issued the following statement to Stars and Stripes, “The men and women who serve our country lay everything on the line to protect us, and in return, they deserve access to the support and benefits that they’ve rightfully earned…But unfortunately, too many members of the National Guard in both Minnesota and across the country who served on active duty came home and couldn’t get important health care and education support.”

We at the Free Thought Project find the Pentagon’s demand of veterans repaying signing bonuses and deployment codes which deny GI Bill educational benefits to deployed reservists, quite incredulous. It’s even more astounding when one considers the recent revelation the Pentagon itself cannot account for 6.5 trillion dollars in missing taxpayer funds for which it was entrusted.

It’s one thing to misplace a few thousand, or even a few hundred thousand dollars, but when 6.5 trillion goes missing, and you ask your veterans to repay their signing bonuses, you’ve just stooped to a new low, and transformed yourself into a five-sided bucket of scum, no longer worthy of the respect your organization once enjoyed.

The Pentagon’s financial accountability problems go way back, even to just before 9/11/01, when then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said 2.3 million Pentagon funds went missing. More recently, lawmakers on Capitol Hill have decided to apply proverbial screws to the Pentagon.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have introduced legislation to impose penalties on the Pentagon if it fails to meet the legally mandated goal of being ready for a full audit by September 30, 2017, CNN reported.

But here’s a stupid question. Why would it take almost a year for the Pentagon to find out where the money is? Could it be that the missing monies are funding the “moderate rebel” proxy war against Syria’s Bashar al Assad? At any rate, it appears the Pentagon is all too willing to balance its trillion dollar budget shortfalls on the backs of American servicemen, many of whom are not from the same wealthy backgrounds as some of the nation’s congressional members.

Breitbart and 60 Minutes helped expose how lavishly congressmen and congresswomen can live, simply by using certain loopholes regarding how they choose to spend their reelection and PAC campaign funds.

A 60 Minutes investigative report by veteran CBS reporter Steve Kroft and Government Accountability Institute (GAI) President and Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer revealed how leadership PAC loopholes allow members of Congress to convert campaign cash into lavish lifestyle upgrades for themselves and their family members. “It’s another example, unfortunately, where the rules that apply to the rest of us, don’t really apply to the members of Congress,” said Schweizer on 60 Minutes. The report, which contained selected material from Schweizer’s forthcoming book Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes, and Line Their Own Pockets, revealed embarrassing and outlandish instances of cronyism and self-enrichment by members of Congress. Despite the fact that funds from leadership PACs are supposed to go to help elect fellow members of one’s own political party, lax campaign laws allow lawmakers to turn their leadership PACs into private slush funds to fund just about anything.

Taken as a whole, the request for veterans to repay enlistment bonuses, the refusal to pay GI Bill benefits for deployed reservists, the decades-old mismanagement of Pentagon funds, and the lavish spending by lawmakers, may lead some to believe the warmongers will not answer to anyone and will extort money from those who most likely cannot afford to pay.

All the while, the very same lawmakers who’ve been sent to Washington to hold accountable government entities (like the Pentagon), are living it up by lavishly spending slush funds meant to help get them reelected. What a jacked up, indulgent, oppressive regime this nation’s government has become! Let’s change it up a bit and demand that when funds go missing in the State Department or in the Pentagon, then all the members of Congress, the Supreme Court justices, the president and his cabinet won’t get their paychecks. Only then will 6.5 trillion dollars not simply vanish from government coffers. That makes more sense than balancing the government’s budget on the backs of soldiers and denying them benefits to which they’ve traditionally been entitled.


Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/u-s-military-reservists-pentagon-gi-bill/#Ae6jyFXceOTJv8Fq.99


----------



## خره مينه لګته وي

*Artist's illustration of Raytheon's Standard Missile 3, a current defensive weapon system designed to destroy short- to intermediate-range ballistic missiles.
Credit: Raytheon*

Defensive weapons that can intercept and destroy enemy missiles before they can harm the United States or its allies have been a key part of military strategy for decades, but the rules of the game are changing.

More countries have or are developing long-range missile technology, including systems that can carry multiple warheads, known as Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicles (MIRVs) and/or decoys.

"Both China and Russia possess the MIRV capability for their ballistic missiles. In 2014, reports confirmed that Iran too had developed Multiple Re-entry Vehicles (MRVs) for their ballistic missiles. Cold War literature suggests that MIRVs are first strike weapons and could be strategically destabilizing," independent consultant Debalina Ghoshal wrote in a June 2016 report for the Federation of American Scientists.

"The United States realizes these threats and is working towards a robust missile defense system," she said.

*RELATED: The Outer Space Treaty Promised Peace In Space*

Last year, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency awarded contracts to Raytheon, Lockheed-Martin and Boeing to begin designing what is known as a "Multi-Object Kill Vehicle" or MOKV, which could destroy several objects in space with a single launch.

"Ten years ago, we had a single kill vehicle on a single interceptor. Kill vehicles today are the size of a toaster … This MOKV program is the latest iteration," John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, told Seeker.

Raytheon's plan, which is scheduled for a concept review in December, is to load multiple MOKVs onto a single missile for launch. Each MOKV would be outfitted with sensors, a steering and propulsion system and communications equipment that will allow them to zero in on an individual target and hit it, destroying the object by sheer kinetic forces.

The impacts would take place beyond Earth's atmosphere, but on a trajectory that would send the resulting cloud of debris back into the atmosphere, where it burn up, Pike said.

*RELATED: Is Russian Mystery Object a Space Weapon?*

A major technological challenge is figuring out how to differentiate between bombs and decoys, such as balloons that look like they might have a hydrogen bomb aboard.

The military hopes to begin proof-of-concept demonstrations late next year and a non-intercept flight test in 2018. If successful, the Missile Defense Agency would conduct an intercept test in 2019.

_Originally published on Seeker.

shared on space_

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## T-55

Work and play on USS Saratoga (CV-3) - 1942


----------



## monitor

pretty impressive, this shot of a pair of #*CH*-53Es carrying a pair of #*Hummers* each while



refueling behind a #*MC*-130P Combat shadow .


----------



## Fenrir

US armor from the 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division arrived in Poland earlier this week and immediately got to work.


----------



## Fenrir

Poland's not the only country to have recently received US forces. A contingent of US Marine from 2nd Battalion was deployed to Norway for a 6 month training period.


----------



## T-55

USS Recruit: The Battleship That Sprang Up In The Middle of New York City,1917.

































http://edward-210.livejournal.com/2298393.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## F-7




----------



## BetterPakistan




----------



## Sunny4pak




----------



## Trailer23

That's how you give a 'Shaka'...
















@Hodor : You're the first person that came to mind when I saw this image/video.

@araz @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Dazzler @fatman17 @Knuckles @Windjammer
@airomerix @Falcon26 @HawkEye27 @HRK @khanasifm @GriffinsRule @Haris Ali2140 @mingle @Signalian @Starlord @Stealth @StormBreaker @TOPGUN @ziaulislam

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Raider 21

Trailer23 said:


> That's how you give a 'Shaka'...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Hodor : You're the first person that came to mind when I saw this image/video.
> 
> @araz @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Dazzler @fatman17 @Knuckles @Windjammer
> @airomerix @Falcon26 @HawkEye27 @HRK @khanasifm @GriffinsRule @Haris Ali2140 @mingle @Signalian @Starlord @Stealth @StormBreaker @TOPGUN @ziaulislam






Still being flown around Groom Lake. No particular squadron, probably some testing unit. Fascinating stuff.


----------



## Talon

Trailer23 said:


> That's how you give a 'Shaka'...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Hodor : You're the first person that came to mind when I saw this image/video.
> 
> @araz @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Dazzler @fatman17 @Knuckles @Windjammer
> @airomerix @Falcon26 @HawkEye27 @HRK @khanasifm @GriffinsRule @Haris Ali2140 @mingle @Signalian @Starlord @Stealth @StormBreaker @TOPGUN @ziaulislam


Why me?


----------



## Trailer23

Hodor said:


> Why me?


Not too long ago you had that Avatar with Pilot with the



.


----------



## MastanKhan

Look where the Germans were training---.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sunny4pak

*The US Needs a Hi-Tech Revolution to Combat China: General Mark Milley *


----------



## MastanKhan

When you are the US NAVY---have billions to burn---have no clue what you are wanting---billions and billions of dollars of naval vessels sidelined within 6 years of manufacture due to bad design choices.


----------



## Proud 2 Be a Pakistani

*Why F15ex is Important for USAF.*

The F15EX is based primarily on the F15QA of Qatar. But it has a number of improvements, which were not offered to export customers. Boeing has been able to make a number of improvements in the F15, taking advantage of the more than 5 billion it has received from export customers. Boeing claims that the F15EX has undergone five major upgrades that make it more lethal, reliable and affordable than previous versions.


Complete Article: https://www.currentaffairs.com.pk/why-f-15ex-is-important-for-usaf/


----------



## Trailer23

Now this is how a promotional video is done...






I have again & again asked *someone* at _PAC_ to do a proper video to promote the* JF-17 (Thunder)*, but sadly it just falls on deaf ears.

Our Pavilion at the DxB Air Show has been the same for the past decade, which means they take it at all the other events.

It truly look pre-historic. The video that runs on the screens looks cheap and certainly not the type that attracts anyone. CATIC is always next to us & we still can't take a page off of them.

How hard is it for them to order a *Portable 3D Holographic Projector*? I would gift them one if I had the JF-17B in a 3D file.





@araz @airomerix @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Hodor @Windjammer @The Eagle @Akh1112 @GriffinsRule @HRK @ziaulislam @PradoTLC

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## FuturePAF

For anyone that wants to see or remember how the Afghan war was covered by CNN when it started; an interesting piece of history, on this the 20th anniversary of the start of the war.


----------

