US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

The Liberian-flagged, Greek-owned bulk cargo carrier M/V Tutor was struck by an Iranian-back Houthi uncrewed surface vessel (USV) while sailing in the international waters of the Southern Red Sea, June 12. The attack caused severe flooding and damage to the engine room. One civilian mariner remains missing.

A helicopter from Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron (HSM) 74 airlifted 24 civilian mariners from Tutor to Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Philippine Sea (CG 58). From there, helicopters from Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 7 transported the group to USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69). After being medically checked on IKE, the mariners were flown ashore for follow-on care.

“It’s humbling to watch the Strike Group provide assistance and rescue the crew of M/V Tutor,” said Rear Adm. Marc Miguez, commander, IKECSG, Carrier Strike Group 2. “We are always prepared to help; it is the right thing to do."

“Despite these senseless attacks on innocent mariners just doing their job, the Philippine Sea crew stand ready to help preserve safety of life at sea, always,” said Capt. Steven Liberty, Philippine Sea’s commanding officer.

On June 13, HSM-74 aircraft from Philippine Sea medically evacuated a severely injured civilian mariner from M/V Verbena to a nearby partner force ship for medical attention. Palau-flagged, Ukrainian-owned Verbena was sailing in the Gulf of Aden when it was struck by two anti-ship cruise missiles fired from Houthi-controlled territory in Yemen.

IKECSG is operating in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations to support maritime stability and security in the Middle East region.

Yes, MOAR giant laser planes!

Mark Lewis, who served as the Pentagon’s senior scientist in 2020 and now is CEO of the Purdue Applied Research Institute (PARI), gave MDA a thumbs up for taking a new look at the concept, noting that the technology has come a long way since 2014. Not only are there new power sources for lasers, but also improvements have been made to technologies for beam stabilization and cutting through the Earth’s atmosphere, he explained.

Click to expand...

I know the Boeing YAL-1 was a failure, but the fact that they put this giant chemical laser in an airplane and actually tested it for interception is really cool! Just a neat experiment.

SlothmanAllen said:

Yes, MOAR giant laser planes!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I know the Boeing YAL-1 was a failure, but the fact that they put this giant chemical laser in an airplane and actually tested it for interception is really cool! Just a neat experiment.

Click to expand...

A space based laser system to melt satellites would probably be one of the best use of that type of weapon.

I don’t really have any actual data to back up this speculation, but I think it seems like US Navy ships are doing a better job at keeping the ships looking cleaner? This comes just from browsing WarshipCam on twitter over the last decade or whatever, but I swear it looks like you see ships doing a better job with cleaning running rust and that sort of maintenance. I know people have talked about the state of the ships as they are out and about sailing, and this was just something I have noticed. I still feel like you can examples of ships not doing so well, but overall I feel they seem to be looking better.

The LRHW has failed several tests since 2021, some of which were attributed to problems with the missile itself. In 2023, two tests were canceled after problems were found in the launcher and launch sequence, the GAO said.

Admittedly I have not kept up with the F-35 program for many years now (more or less since it became a fait accompli for both USAF and RAAF), but a casual observation in a by Bill Sweetman piqued my interest:

Even two F414s – a 1990s engine with 1980s technology – would weigh less, cost less, and produce more power than the 6500-pound F135, and a twin layout logically allows system runs and weapon bays to be grouped on the centerline.

Click to expand...

This is altogether at variance from what I recall as the widely accepted premises that underlay public discussions some 15 years ago, where the F135 engine was said to deliver thrust comparable to a pair of F414s at lower weight. After briefly consulting Google, it seems that this 6500lb weight figure for F135 is quite recently in the public domain, tracing to 2020 technical manual concerning transport arrangements for the F135 engine which, in Table 6-4 "Engine Shipping Weights", quotes an "engine weight" of 6422lb (2913kg!) for the F135 variants fitted to F-35A and -C, and 7260lb for the variant fitted to F-35B. The same table also lists "gross weights" some several thousand pounds greater again, which would seem to exclude the notion that the "engine weight" figure of 6422lb includes the shipping/storage apparatus.

I don't know if it really means anything for the F-35 that, so far as the public is concerned, the F135 engine has recently gained... *ponders the various weights given for the engine over time, counts on fingers* ... a lot ... of weight, but the inversion of that basic relationship with F414 strikes me as both relatively uncommon in public discourse and potentially relevant in informing how we evaluate these and other powerplants and their applications going forward. An analogy that occurs to me is if we were to suddenly learn that Type 055 is actually slightly smaller than DDG-51.

Relatedly, has anyone read Bill Sweetman's ?

Yes I read and learned from his book. Can't say I enjoyed his book as I worked closely with Navy ship acquisition offices and saw all too closely the behaviors he described.

Early in the F-35 program I was asked about its operations aboard ships and I replied I couldn't speak to the airframe but ALIS wasn't going to work with our already over-subscribed SATCOM. And I hadn't known about the USAF background for ODIN.

The biggest surprise to me was how detrimental the USMC was to the airframe. Their requirements were put on a pedestal and never to be questioned. Which got me thinking about other USMC-driven acquisition failures: V-22, EFV (and soon ACV), perhaps CH-53K. And then there's Force Design 2030 and its LSM. I'm sure more than once Navy acquisition leadership wished the USMC was part of the Army when it came to platforms and weapons procurement.

As to CAIV (Cost As an Independent Variable) you can make it work (we did several times but on ACAT IVs only) but you have to move fast and produce incremental results rapidly to keep the momentum up. Slow down and all sorts of folks come out of the woodwork to drag you down. And the F-35 acquisition was slow.

So yeah his book was a bit pricey per page but high content value per page. Well worth it for me.

B52J program pushed back to 2033 IOC:


There's a lot of chatter about looming US military funding and program cuts in the 2026 budget. Anyone know anything more substantive on that?

Maikeru said:

B52J program pushed back to 2033 IOC:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

There's a lot of chatter about looming US military funding and program cuts in the 2026 budget. Anyone know anything more substantive on that?

Click to expand...

Don't know about more substantive, but numerous higher-ups have refused to commit to funding NGAD in public recently.

SlothmanAllen said:

Don't know about more substantive, but numerous higher-ups have refused to commit to funding NGAD in public recently.

Click to expand...

And down the drain goes uncrewed CCA and DepSecDef's Replicator for anything beyond "demonstrators."

The unbounded costs of F-35's acquisition and operational failures are blighting the "air dominance" future, just as Bill Sweetman explained.