US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Jura The idiot
General
Jura The idiot
General
had been thinking of the Titanic while reading
“However, the DDG-51 hull form is quite good at moving through ice,” Webster added. “This is without addressing limitations for hull structures. There’s sufficient power for the ship to move through up to 0.8 meters of ice; however, the structure would not withstand more than 0.3 meters of ice.”
inside
Arleigh Burke Destroyers Are Most Viable Option for Near-Term Navy Presence in Arctic
“However, the DDG-51 hull form is quite good at moving through ice,” Webster added. “This is without addressing limitations for hull structures. There’s sufficient power for the ship to move through up to 0.8 meters of ice; however, the structure would not withstand more than 0.3 meters of ice.”
inside
Arleigh Burke Destroyers Are Most Viable Option for Near-Term Navy Presence in Arctic
Jura The idiot
General
Sep 10, 2019
Bolton unloads on Trump’s foreign policy behind closed doors
The recently fired national security adviser made little secret of his disagreements with the president.
follow the link if interested, inside I noticed ()
Trump Names Robert O’Brien as National Security Adviser
so now I'll take a look who's that
and
Bolton unloads on Trump’s foreign policy behind closed doors
The recently fired national security adviser made little secret of his disagreements with the president.
follow the link if interested, inside I noticed ()
Trump Names Robert O’Brien as National Security Adviser
so now I'll take a look who's that
Jura The idiot
General
haven't heard of him before
Meet Robert C. O'Brien, Trump's new national security adviser and a former hostage negotiator who monitored A$AP Rocky's trial in Sweden
let's wait and see if the negotiator survives the situation in the WH
LOL!
Meet Robert C. O'Brien, Trump's new national security adviser and a former hostage negotiator who monitored A$AP Rocky's trial in Sweden
- tapped hostage negotiator Robert C. O'Brien as his new national security adviser on Wednesday.
- O'Brien is replacing John Bolton, who was abruptly ousted from the position last week.
- O'Brien made his public splash earlier this summer when Trump sent him to Sweden to monitor rapper A$AP Rocky's trial for assault charges.
- The Washington Post O'Brien is perceived as "a team player" with "affable demeanor," a stark contrast with Bolton's hard-edged and confrontational approach.
- Here's how O'Brien went from being a State Department official, Trump's chief hostage negotiator to his new national security advisor.
let's wait and see if the negotiator survives the situation in the WH
LOL!
Jura The idiot
General
Jura The idiot
General
interesting The following is the Sept. 17, 2019 Congressional Research Service report, Hypersonic Weapons: Background and Issues for Congress.
From the report:
The United States has actively pursued the development of hypersonic weapons—maneuvering weapons that fly at speeds of at least Mach 5—as a part of its conventional prompt global strike program since the early 2000s. In recent years, the United States has focused such efforts on developing hypersonic glide vehicles, which are launched from a rocket before gliding to a target, and hypersonic cruise missiles, which are powered by high-speed, air-breathing engines during flight. As current Commander of U.S. Strategic Command General John Hyten has stated, these weapons could enable “responsive, long-range, strike options against distant, defended, and/or time-critical threats [such as road-mobile missiles] when other forces are unavailable, denied access, or not preferred.” Critics, on the other hand, contend that hypersonic weapons lack defined mission requirements, contribute little to U.S. military capability, and are unnecessary for deterrence.
Funding for hypersonic weapons has been relatively restrained in the past; however, both the Pentagon and Congress have shown a growing interest in pursuing the development and near-term deployment of hypersonic systems. This is due, in part, to the growing interest in these technologies in Russia and China, both of which have a number of hypersonic weapons programs and are expected to field an operational hypersonic glide vehicle—potentially armed with nuclear warheads—as early as 2020. The United States, in contrast to Russia and China, is not currently considering or developing hypersonic weapons for use with a nuclear warhead. As a result, U.S. hypersonic weapons will likely require greater accuracy and will be more technically challenging to develop than nuclear-armed Chinese and Russian systems.
The Pentagon’s FY2020 budget request for all hypersonic-related research is $2.6 billion, including $157.4 million for hypersonic defense programs. At present, the Department of Defense (DOD) has not established any programs of record for hypersonic weapons, suggesting that it may not have approved either requirements for the systems or long-term funding plans. Indeed, as Assistant Director for Hypersonics (Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering) Mike White has stated, DOD has not yet made a decision to acquire hypersonic weapons and is instead developing prototypes to assist in the evaluation of potential weapon system concepts and mission sets.
As Congress reviews the Pentagon’s plans for U.S. hypersonic weapons programs, it might consider questions about the rationale for hypersonic weapons, their expected costs, and their implications for strategic stability and arms control. Potential questions include the following:
From the report:
The United States has actively pursued the development of hypersonic weapons—maneuvering weapons that fly at speeds of at least Mach 5—as a part of its conventional prompt global strike program since the early 2000s. In recent years, the United States has focused such efforts on developing hypersonic glide vehicles, which are launched from a rocket before gliding to a target, and hypersonic cruise missiles, which are powered by high-speed, air-breathing engines during flight. As current Commander of U.S. Strategic Command General John Hyten has stated, these weapons could enable “responsive, long-range, strike options against distant, defended, and/or time-critical threats [such as road-mobile missiles] when other forces are unavailable, denied access, or not preferred.” Critics, on the other hand, contend that hypersonic weapons lack defined mission requirements, contribute little to U.S. military capability, and are unnecessary for deterrence.
Funding for hypersonic weapons has been relatively restrained in the past; however, both the Pentagon and Congress have shown a growing interest in pursuing the development and near-term deployment of hypersonic systems. This is due, in part, to the growing interest in these technologies in Russia and China, both of which have a number of hypersonic weapons programs and are expected to field an operational hypersonic glide vehicle—potentially armed with nuclear warheads—as early as 2020. The United States, in contrast to Russia and China, is not currently considering or developing hypersonic weapons for use with a nuclear warhead. As a result, U.S. hypersonic weapons will likely require greater accuracy and will be more technically challenging to develop than nuclear-armed Chinese and Russian systems.
The Pentagon’s FY2020 budget request for all hypersonic-related research is $2.6 billion, including $157.4 million for hypersonic defense programs. At present, the Department of Defense (DOD) has not established any programs of record for hypersonic weapons, suggesting that it may not have approved either requirements for the systems or long-term funding plans. Indeed, as Assistant Director for Hypersonics (Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering) Mike White has stated, DOD has not yet made a decision to acquire hypersonic weapons and is instead developing prototypes to assist in the evaluation of potential weapon system concepts and mission sets.
As Congress reviews the Pentagon’s plans for U.S. hypersonic weapons programs, it might consider questions about the rationale for hypersonic weapons, their expected costs, and their implications for strategic stability and arms control. Potential questions include the following:
- What mission(s) will hypersonic weapons be used for? Are hypersonic weapons the most cost-effective means of executing these potential missions? How will they be incorporated into joint operational doctrine and concepts?<./li>
- Given the lack of defined mission requirements for hypersonic weapons, how should Congress evaluate funding requests for hypersonic weapons programs or the balance of funding requests for hypersonic weapons programs, enabling technologies, and supporting test infrastructure? Is an acceleration of research on hypersonic weapons, enabling technologies, or hypersonic missile defense options both necessary and technologically feasible?<./li>
- How, if at all, will the fielding of hypersonic weapons affect strategic stability?<./li>
- Is there a need for risk-mitigation measures, such as expanding New START, negotiating new multilateral arms control agreements, or undertaking transparency and confidence-building activities?<./li>
Jura The idiot
General
Jura The idiot
General
Boeing is analyzing the structure of the B-1B for the USAF, but no conclusions have been reached yet, says USAF Materials Command’s General Arnold Bunch. However, preliminary results appear to have the service thinking that the Cold War-era supersonic bomber would be too expensive to maintain.
Cirium fleets data indicate that USAF has 61 in-service B-1Bs with an average age of 32 years.
“The discussion we're having is there are some number of B-1s that would be so cost prohibitive to be able to get back to a code one status and that we should retire those,” says Goldfein. “Then, flow that money into doing some key things within the bomber portfolio.”
Key considerations are pushing money towards moving up the delivery date of the B-21 as well as buying more examples of the next-generation stealth bomber.
“I will tell you that the 100 B-21 requirement, as a minimum, there are a number of analyses that have been done that indicate that we need more than that [quantity],” says Goldfein. “And, I'm 100% in lockstep with those analyses.”
Thus far, the B-21 is on schedule and the service is pleased with Northrop Grumman’s work, says Goldfein. The aircraft is scheduled to first fly in December 2021.
Goldfein lauded Northrop Grumman’s performance in the programme, but expressed uncertainty about accelerating production when deliveries commence: “I don't know that we're going to be able to accelerate in time [of delivery]. I'm hoping we can accelerate in numbers.”
To counter growing threats from adversarial regimes in China and Russia, the US military needs to rearrange it priorities, says Goldfein.