US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Equation

Lieutenant General
Are the Bushmaster II 30mm turrets onboard LPD 17 class:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The same turrets as on armored vehicles:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Or is it only the canon that is similar?


I said only the cannon is similar. There is no way a tank or armored vehicle could handle that much weight w/o sacrificing speed and range. I also noticed the captain of that ship is a Green Bay Packers fan (logo on the anchor system).
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Austal lays Jackson (LCS 6) Keel, Third Independence-variant Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
First two (from the intial contract) of each variant now all launched (4 all together).

Both have now started on the first of the next ten each...which will bring them to twelve each and a total of 24.

Other contracts will follow.

But I would like to see them cut it off at about 18 vessels each (for 36 out of a planned 57) and then have the US Navy build a force of 24+ actual multi-mission frigates to replace the OH Perrys and support the carrier and phibron groups.
 
Last edited:

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Colt Again Blocks Army's Advanced M4 Plan
Military.com
The Army’s push to field Special Operations Command’s version of the M4 carbine hit another roadblock recently when the weapon’s designer, Colt Defense LLC, filed a second legal protest of the service’s attempts to select a new gun maker to build the compact weapon.
This is the second time in five months that Colt officials have protested the Army’s handling of its effort to upgrade the service’s fleet of M4s to M4A1 carbines. Colt won its first protest of the Army’s selection of Remington Defense to build its M4A1s and its miscalculation of royalties Colt would receive for contract awards on the M4 design.
The Government Accountability Office’s July 24 ruling forced the Army to rework the original solicitation so the vendors that fell into the competitive range could submit new price bids. All gun makers involved were forced to reveal their previous price bids for the $84 million contract to keep things fair.
Colt officials then filed an Oct. 9 protest with the GAO three weeks after the Connecticut-based gun maker received the Army’s amended Sept. 21 solicitation, according to industry sources and the GAO.

Colt officials declined to comment for this story and it remains unclear why Colt issued a second protest.
This is the latest wrinkle in the Army’s drawn-out effort to improve the carbine that most soldiers take into combat.
Army weapons officials launched its plan to radically improve the M4 carbine about a year after senior leaders announced a plan in November 2008 to search for a possible replacement for the M4.
In the beginning, the M4 Product Improvement Plan officials briefed to Congress included potential upgrades such as a heavier barrel for better performance during high rates of fire, replacing the current gas system with a more reliable design, improving the trigger pull, adding an improved rail for increased strength and ambidextrous fire controls.

Roughly three years later, the improved carbine that will emerge from the effort is the M4A1, a weapon that has been in the special operations inventory since the mid 1990s.
“We are modernizing the entire fleet of M4s to the M4A1 configuration, which includes a heavier barrel, a full automatic trigger assembly and ambidextrous fire controls,” said Col. Scott Armstrong, who runs Project Manager Soldier Weapons.
Right now, the Army has no plans to improve the reliability of the M4 platform’s gas system. Weapons officials looked at upgrading the bolt and bolt carrier group but abandoned the effort.
“There were 11 [vendors] that competed in that; they went through nearly a year of testing,” Armstrong said, explaining that plan was to down select a few candidates after one phase and make a selection at the end of the second phase.
“None of the offerers completed the first phase or outperformed the current bolt and bolt carrier group on the M4A1 configuration. Areas that the competitors really fell short in were reliability, durability as well as high temperature and low temperature conditions. The M4A1 bolt outperformed [the competition] in all of those areas,” Armstrong said.
He explained the decision to terminate that effort saved the Army $2 million.
The Army is also considering designs for an improved forward rail, or free-float rail system -- a design that has long been proven to increase accuracy. Weapons officials plan to down select to three vendors in early 2014 and could select a winner by fall of that same year, Armstrong said.
“If that technology is mature enough and outperforms the current M4A1 configuration, primarily in zero retention, then we would consider it and the Army would have to make a decision as to whether the performance improvement is worth the cost to the Army to further change the configuration of the M4A1,” Armstrong said.
The Army has fielded more than 6,000 M4A1s to soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) at Fort Campbell, Ky., this summer, Armstrong said, who added that the service plans to begin upgrading existing M4s to M4A1s with special conversion kits next summer.
It is unclear what Colt is protesting this round or how it will affect the future contract award date and fielding schedule for M4A1s. The potential loss of M4 and M4A1 sales would be a huge blow to Colt’s financial outlook.
“It’s a matter of Colt’s survival, so they are going to tie it up as long as they can,” said one small-arms industry source who asked to go unnamed.
Any company has the right to protest a government contract award. Once a protest is filed, the process is frozen until the GAO makes a decision. Additional protests involving the same issue typically don’t carry as much weight and do not prevent the process from moving forward, industry sources said.
But Army officials said the issue will likely have to be resolved before a new M4A1 contract will be awarded.
“Agencies do not normally award a contract prior to the resolution of the protest,” said Don Jarosz, a spokesman for the Army’s TACOM Life Cycle Management Command.
Colt is sadly not in a good position form a market standpoint. They have only a few products in the market and more or less pulled out of the Civilian Firearms market meaning most of there Income comes from US military contracts they in essence turned themselves into "Hartford" Armory. However they are not government owned and If the Army who awarded A contract too Remington gets that contract approved as it's likely too they will be in a heap of trouble. Frankly I think Colt needs too face the fire and restructure.
 

icbeodragon

Junior Member
Havn't seen this posted yet.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Boeing Announces Successful Test of Electronics Destroying Champ Missile
Shane McGlaun (Blog) - October 24, 2012 9:56 AM

Missile uses microwaves to destroy electronics

Boeing has announced the first ever test of a new missile system known as Champ. Champ stands for Counter-electronics High-powered Advanced Missile Project. The goal of the project is to create a missile that can defeat any electronic target with little or no collateral damage.

The missile test was conducted on October 16 at 10:32 AM at the Utah Test and Training Range. The Champ missile was launched, and as it approached its first target, it fired a burst of High Power Microwaves into a two-story building built on the test range. Inside the building were rows of personal computers and electrical systems that were turned on to help gauge the effects that the missile would have on the electronic equipment.

According to Boeing, seconds after the missile passed over its target the PC monitors went dark as Champ knocked out computer and electrical systems in the target building.




“This technology marks a new era in modern-day warfare,” said Keith Coleman, CHAMP program manager for Boeing Phantom Works. “In the near future, this technology may be used to render an enemy’s electronic and data systems useless even before the first troops or aircraft arrive,”

Boeing says that the television cameras that were set up to monitor the experiment were knocked off-line by Champ as well. The missile hit seven targets during the one-hour test that proved it was able to degrade and defeat electronics inside test buildings. The team working on the project is currently studying the data collected during the test.

“We know this has some capabilities and some impact, we’re really trying to engage the customer to see if there is a way we can actually get this fielded and implemented sooner than later,” Dodd said.

“Today we turned science fiction into science fact,” Coleman said.

The Champ missile had its first test in 2011.

[video=youtube;O-BukbpkOd8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=O-BukbpkOd8[/video]


curious about why the camera didn't get taken down (emp hardened?). Also :41 of the video made me laugh.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
Havn't seen this posted yet.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!




[video=youtube;O-BukbpkOd8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=O-BukbpkOd8[/video]


curious about why the camera didn't get taken down (emp hardened?). Also :41 of the video made me laugh.

I can imagine in the future someone will put this into a satellite or a scram jet platform and make it even more lethal.
 

delft

Brigadier
I can imagine someone launching such a missile from an ordinary shipping container. That would mean all shipping containers destined to the US or merely passing the US would have to be inspected either in the port of departure or at sea when coming within say 1000 miles from the US coast. This would mean trade with the US will become more expensive which would be bad for the US economy.
 

icbeodragon

Junior Member
I can imagine someone launching such a missile from an ordinary shipping container. That would mean all shipping containers destined to the US or merely passing the US would have to be inspected either in the port of departure or at sea when coming within say 1000 miles from the US coast. This would mean trade with the US will become more expensive which would be bad for the US economy.

Don't think any terrorist groups are going to have access to this sort of technology for a while now. :D Also this concern would probably apply to other countries before us, as we have been the first to demonstrate the capability.
 
Last edited:

delft

Brigadier
Don't think any terrorist groups are going to have access to this sort of technology for a while now. :D Also this concern would probably apply to other countries before us, as we have been the first to demonstrate the capability.
But the US is attracting the attention of terrorists all over the world by trying to murder them using drones, and by killing many non-terrorists acting as recruiting sergeant for the terrorists. They know they do it so they are probably even more afraid than warranted by the efforts of the terrorists.
 
Top