US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

BoraTas said:

Considering the US record with production programs in the last 25 years, I say this plan is unlikely to become a reality.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

2 Virginias and a single Columbia per year will be a doubling of submarine production rate. And it seems even the Virginia program is not without problems. It is considered the best managed US Navy project of recent decades yet:

"Rucker said that the current number of SSNs in maintenance is too high and that sub maintenance is facing challenges in planning availabilities, work execution and keeping enough spares and materials for repairs on hand.

At the same conference, Rear Admiral Scott Brown said that the US Navy did not make sufficient investments in repair and maintenance capabilities when designing and acquiring the Virginia class SSN, resulting in the cannibalization of other boats to maintain operational numbers and delays waiting for parts and components that are often unavailable."

Click to expand...

Maikeru said:

$5.8bn per boat!! That is just not sustainable if USN wants to significantly increase its SSN fleet. As for the US industrial capacity issues, the only realistic way I can see out of that is to get Japan to build SSNs - AUKUS isn't the answer, Australia simply doesn't have the industrial or technological capacity to be anything other than a drain on UK & US submarine constructors.

Click to expand...

Hazardous substances detected at Yokosuka US Naval Base About 172 times more than Japan's guidelines​

September 30, 2022 22:11

Organic fluorine compounds, which have been pointed out to be harmful, were detected in May and July this year from the drainage of the US Navy base in Yokosuka City, Kanagawa Prefecture. When the US military investigated again, it was found that it was detected at a concentration 172 times higher than the Japanese guideline, which greatly exceeds the previous figures.

In May and July of this year, at the wastewater treatment facility at the U.S. Navy Yokosuka Base in Yokosuka City, 50 nanograms per liter of organic fluorine compounds, PFOS and PFOA, which have been pointed out to be harmful, is the government's provisional guideline value. was detected at a concentration about twice as high as the national provisional guideline value of 50 nanograms per liter.

According to the city, on the 29th of last month, when the U.S. military conducted the third survey, it was about 172 times the guideline value for domestic wastewater treatment facilities, and about 109 times the guideline value for industrial wastewater treatment facilities. This means that the concentration was significantly higher than the previous figures.

In addition, the US military reportedly told the Ministry of Defense that it will install activated carbon filters that absorb harmful substances in wastewater treatment facilities in November.

Through the Ministry of Defense, Yokosuka City asked the US military to investigate the cause, install an activated carbon filter as soon as possible, and stop draining water into the sea until it is installed.

It also calls on the government to conduct on-site inspections of bases and studies of impacts on fisheries.

Click to expand...

Maikeru said:

$5.8bn per boat!! That is just not sustainable if USN wants to significantly increase its SSN fleet. As for the US industrial capacity issues, the only realistic way I can see out of that is to get Japan to build SSNs - AUKUS isn't the answer, Australia simply doesn't have the industrial or technological capacity to be anything other than a drain on UK & US submarine constructors.

Click to expand...

SlothmanAllen said:

Sorry, this isn't exactly related to your post, but it is something that has bothered me...

What I would like to know is what is the advantage of the Columbia over the Ohio? The Ohio's have 24 tubes versus the 16 in the Columbia. According to Wikipedia, the Ohio costs $3.06 billion in 2020 dollars versus $9.15 billion (FY 2021 and again from Wiki) for the Columbia. The Columbia has a larger displacement, but I am not sure why considering it carries less weapons,

What is going on here? Why would you design a successor that from what I can tell has less capability than the predecessor despite costing considerably more?

Click to expand...

SlothmanAllen said:

If you check Wikipedia you can see that GD and HII launched 4-5 Burke’ per year at peak during early 90’s.

I wonder if they can rebuild that capacity again? I think the biggest issue is attracting workers, training and retaining them.
....

Click to expand...

Dragon of War said:

View attachment 98778



Supposed Render of the next generation US MBT:
Abrams X by General Dynamics.


Speculative Details:

Crew of 3.

Unmanned Turret.

120mm XM360 gun barrel
(auto-loader preinstalled).

M230 single-fire chain gun.

Commander and Gunner both have:
Panoramic CITV Thermal Optics.

Official Reveal to be at AUSA 2022.

Click to expand...

AbramsX: A main battle tank for the next generation, the AbramsX technology demonstrator features reduced weight for improved mobility and transportability, delivering the same tactical range as the M1A2 Abrams with 50% less fuel consumption. The AbramsX’s hybrid power pack supports the U.S. Army’s climate and electrification strategies, enhances silent watch capability and even allows for some silent mobility. With a reduced crew size and AI-enabled lethality, survivability, mobility, manned/unmanned teaming (MUM-T) and autonomous capabilities, AbramsX can be a key node in lethal battlefield networks and serve as a bridge from Abrams SEPv3 and SEPv4 to a future tank.

Click to expand...

A military court judge found 21-year-old Seaman Recruit Ryan Mays not guilty of setting the fire that destroyed the USS Bonhomme Richard in July 2020.

Captain Derek Butler ruled that prosecutors failed to present enough hard evidence that tied Mays to the arson and instead relied on a circumstantial case, buoyed by the strength of just a single eyewitness.

The July 2020 fire burned in San Diego Bay for more than four days before crews managed to put out the flames, however, not before gutting the ship at an estimated cost of $1.2 billion.

Click to expand...

Helius said:

So this hasn't been posted? Anyway there goes the Navy's attempt at finding themselves a scapegoat.

Click to expand...