US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Must... resist... urge to post DS9 video....
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!

Here is a updated version form the Ares Defense Technology Blog New Helos At AUSA back in the Year of our lord 2011
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Love it. Bad looking son of a gun.

Now I wanna know all the specs. How fast, how high, how far, how bad?

Very good looking indeed. Maybe even climb up on top of the Ka-52K on my baddest looking attack helicopter list.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
on that I cant help much, We know its supposed to have a cruise speed of 230 kn (260 mph; 430 km/h). JMR requires hover at 10,000 ft and cruise at 30,000 ft. we know that the Army is looking for a 424KM range and for the medium lift class a internal payload of 2721 KG to 9072 KH with sling of 4536 to 9072 KG and a capasity of 11-24 troops.
How that would translate for the Gun ship is hard to say.
We have to remember The Army hopes to sell these to the other rotary fleets as replacements for there existing platforms. that means transport versions replacing USAF PaveHawk, USMC Venom, USN SeaHawks and maybe even Whitehawks.
For a gunship though that would be Army Apache Guardian and Longbows as well as Marine Vipers and Super Cobras.
So for armament we have to take the difrent flavors of the Army and Marines, First Glance says Commanche like weapons load, But I would imagine the Army would dictate that the Gunship cannot have a warload inferior to the AH64E Although the gun in the turret looks to be a gattling cannon, one thought might be a 20mm but that would be such a down grade I doubt the Army would go for it. The Marines might approve, but I figure best case would be a 25mm cannon maybe a variant of the GAU-22/A that would be a upgrade for the Marines ( would also mean some degree of system comminality between F35B and JMR Attack) and only a minor step down form the Apache.
It's likely that Hellfire and Hydra 70 have been retired by the time these hit the skys so Joint Air to ground missiles and Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System, DAGR or Low-Cost Guided Imaging Rocket systems. compatibility with Sidewinder or stinger or possible sucsessor missiles.
 

navyreco

Senior Member
I am in DC for AUSA

KlctvuZ.jpg

EsYDPEZ.jpg

od589t8.jpg

xg3tdks.jpg

iAV7Ikv.jpg


[video=youtube;u1-rjUXw8EA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1-rjUXw8EA[/video]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Future uncertain for Ground Combat Vehicle, Armed Aerial Scout
October 22, 2013

By David Vergun
Army.mil
WASHINGTON (Army News Service, Oct. 22, 2013) -- As a result of fiscal "belt tightening, the Ground Combat Vehicle and the Armed Aerial Scout could be delayed, continued or terminated," said the Army's top acquisition professional.

"We're lurching" ahead with deciding which programs stay, are postponed, canceled or not started "because our budget is lurching," said Heidi Shyu, assistant secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology.

Shyu, along with Gen. Dennis Via, commander, Army Materiel Command, spoke Oct. 21, at a modernization press conference at the Association of the United States Army Annual Meeting and Exposition.

It's especially hard on the Army's industry partners, Shyu acknowledged, but it's been a "perfect storm of continuing resolutions, sequestration and government shutdown" with no end in sight and the impacts will be even greater next year.

Deciding which capability is most important, what's good enough and what to sacrifice "is not an easy one. It's a decision not taken lightly," she continued. "We're in a belt-tightening mode."

The Army is looking closely at every one of its portfolios and is receiving input from U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command to determine the future status of each of its programs as sequestration in 2014 and beyond will have a significant impact on all of them, she continued.

Last year, the Army was criticized by Congress for its Program Objective Memorandum, or POM.

"Last year we were blamed for having just one POM," she said, indicating there was no backup POM. The POM provides the Army with budgetary decisions over several years.

"This year, the Army's producing two POMs," based on what the budget might or might not look like. "One is a good POM and the other is a bad POM," the latter being a worst-case budget scenario or lack of a budget.

It's not just portfolios that are affected, she said. So are science and technology, research and development and operation and maintenance of equipment. On top of that, "we can't get the force structure down fast enough" to keep up with cuts to readiness and modernization.

Shyu said the "budget morass" is so significant, she wouldn't be surprised if the force structure is brought down below the planned 490,000 target.

The budget woes also threaten to disrupt "our efforts to regain expeditionary capability," said Via.

The Army had large, fixed bases with infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan. Future operations "may not have that luxury and may be austere," he explained. As forces draw down from Afghanistan and become more U.S.-based, that expeditionary capability becomes critical from "kinetic to disaster-relief" missions.

Besides future threats, the Army still has a war on its hand in Afghanistan, Via reminded the audience. Logistical support is still needed there as well as the need to retrograde equipment from Afghanistan to the U.S. where it needs to be reset and delivered to units so they're prepared for future contingencies.

To address these growing concerns, Shyu said the Army has four logistical strategies:

First, since the force structure is coming down, the Army will purchase less equipment.

Second, existing legacy equipment not needed and too expensive to maintain will be eliminated.

Third, any new equipment purchases will likely be done using more efficient contracts such as multi-year contracts, since these have the greatest discounts that will drive cost savings.

And fourth, the Army will continue to incrementally improve and modernize its aging systems and platforms like the Apache, Chinook and Black Hawk helicopters; Bradley Fighting Vehicles; M113 Armored Personnel Carriers, which will be upgraded to Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicles; Paladins; and Abrams tanks.

"We also have to prepare ourselves to fight in a much more contested environment," she said.

To do this will cost money, but it's a necessary investment, she continued, giving some examples such as better integrating sensors, missiles and manned and unmanned aviation assets together so they're networked and visible across the battle space.

Another example would be providing special capabilities to pilots so they can navigate and land in "degraded visual environments such as smoke, fog sandstorms and whiteout conditions."

Science and technology investments will also continue, she said. For example, if the enemy jams GPS, Soldiers would need a reliable backup system, since its weapons and people are so reliant on satellite positioning.

Another program that will continue through its testing phase is the Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System, which is a signals intelligence gathering system used on aircraft.

The Army is also interested in keeping tabs on the underlying sensor technology that drives systems like EMARSS, so it will continue to invest in science and technology, she said, noting that systems become obsolete in just a few years as they keep evolving at a rapid-fire fashion.

On a different topic, Via provided some good news on current equipment retrograde efforts in Afghanistan, which had sometimes bogged down over the long, tortuous road through Pakistan over the last few years.

"Retrograde is proceeding on plan," he said. "The Pakistan ground lines are open so each week there's an increasing throughput and velocity in pushing equipment back. We don't know what the final security agreement will look like or how many forces will remain, so we're watching that."

Via added that the Army is using lessons learned in Iraq to do a smarter drawdown in Afghanistan, not just for retrograde procedures, but for disposing of excess gear. For instance, some countries have expressed an interest in acquiring it, he said. And some of it that's not economically feasible to bring back is being scrapped and dismantled in ways that will make it difficult for anyone who wants to do harm to use.

(For more ARNEWS stories, visit
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, or Facebook at
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)

Improvements to Army's new 5.56mm production lines help save government more than $20 million
October 22, 2013

By Picatinny Public Affairs Office
PICATINNY ARSENAL, N.J. (Oct. 22, 2013) -- The Program Executive Office for Ammunition's Enhanced Performance Round program shaved off more than $20 million dollars in a value engineering project aimed at renovating the bullet production lines and improving the program's purchasing strategies.

The M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round, or EPR, is the newest member of the Army's small-caliber family of munitions fired from the 5.56mm family of weapons. It is replacing the M855 cartridge.

The M855A1 EPR's new bullet design provides Soldiers with better hard-target penetration and more consistent soft-target performance at increased distances. Additionally, because it is lead-free, the M855A1 allows training exercises to occur on ranges where lead projectiles are no longer permitted.

The M855A1 5.56mm EPR ball cartridge costs have been reduced by incorporating low cost component manufacturing methods, improving production efficiency to the high speed SCAMP (Small Caliber Ammunition Modernization Program) cartridge production line, and enhancing purchasing strategies and competitive buying.

Many of the modifications began in fiscal year 2011 and continued until all improvements were realized in the fiscal year 2013 contracts. The changes reduced cost while maintaining the desired performance and quality of the cartridge.

The savings will further support the M855A1 program.

MANUFACTURING

Manufacturing improvements helped reduce the round's cost. Because the bullet assembly production equipment was aging, several units were rehabilitated to restore the equipment back to near original capability. These renovations improved the manufacturing quality.

The M855A1 has a reverse drawn jacket with an exposed penetrator projectile which is different than every other projectile in mass production at Lake City Army Ammunition Plant.

This projectile configuration, with complex and tight tolerances, required significant engineering work by engineers at the Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center at Picatinny Arsenal, and Alliant Techsystems contractors at Lake City, Mo., to facilitate large scale manufacturing.

Another key in the low cost manufacturing of the bullet was the implementation of the M855A1 projectile onto the SCAMP line, which is able to assemble projectiles at a high rate. This included the refinement of the tooling package and changes to the in-process handling. Currently, the SCAMP process now manufactures the same projectile as the bullet assembly presses with the same performance capability.

In the fiscal year 2013 PEO Ammunition's assigned VE goal was $10 million. This project helped PEO Ammunition exceed its organization goal with a total savings of $43.599 million.

AF nuclear officers napped with blast door left open
Oct. 22, 2013 - 06:00AM
By Robert Burns
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Twice this year alone, Air Force officers entrusted with the launch keys to nuclear-tipped missiles have been caught leaving open a blast door that is intended to help prevent a terrorist or other intruder from entering their underground command post, Air Force officials have told The Associated Press.

The blast doors are never to be left open if one of the crew members inside is asleep — as was the case in both these instances — out of concern for the damage an intruder could cause, including the compromising of secret launch codes.

Transgressions such as this are rarely revealed publicly. But officials with direct knowledge of Air Force intercontinental ballistic missile operations told the AP that such violations have happened, undetected, many more times than in the cases of the two launch crew commanders and two deputy commanders who were given administrative punishments this year.

The blast door violations are another sign of serious trouble in the handling of the nation’s nuclear arsenal. The AP has discovered a series of problems within the ICBM force, including a failed safety inspection, the temporary sidelining of launch officers deemed unfit for duty and the abrupt firing last week of the two-star general in charge. The problems, including low morale, underscore the challenges of keeping safe such a deadly force that is constantly on alert but is unlikely ever to be used.

The crews who operate the missiles are trained to follow rules without fail, including the prohibition against having the blast door open when only one crew member is awake, because the costs of a mistake are so high.

The officers, known as missileers, are custodians of keys that could launch nuclear hell. The warheads on the business ends of their missiles are capable of a nuclear yield many times that of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945.

“The only way that you can have a crew member be in ‘rest status’ is if that blast door is shut and there is no possibility of anyone accessing the launch control center,” said Lt. Gen. James Kowalski, the commander of Air Force Global Strike Command. He is responsible for the entire force of 450 Minuteman 3 missiles, plus the Air Force’s nuclear-capable bombers.

The written Air Force instruction on ICBM weapon safety, last updated in June 1996, says, “One crewmember at a time may sleep on duty, but both must be awake and capable of detecting an unauthorized act if ... the Launch Control Center blast door is open” or if someone other than the crew is present.

The blast door is not the first line of defense. An intruder intent on taking control of a missile command post would first face many layers of security before encountering the blast door, which — when closed — is secured by 12 hydraulically operated steel pins. The door is at the base of an elevator shaft. Entry to that elevator is controlled from an above-ground building. ICBM missile fields are monitored with security cameras and patrolled regularly by armed Air Force guards.

Each underground launch center, known as a capsule for its pill-like shape, monitors and operates 10 Minuteman 3 missiles.

The missiles stand in reinforced concrete silos and are linked to the control center by buried communications cables. The ICBMs are split evenly among “wings” based in North Dakota, Wyoming and Montana. Each wing is divided into three squadrons, each responsible for 50 missiles.

In neither of the two reported violations was security of the crews’ missiles compromised, the Air Force said in response to questions from the AP, “due to the multiple safeguards and other protections in place.” But these were clear-cut violations of what the Air Force calls “weapon system safety rules” meant to be strictly enforced in keeping with the potentially catastrophic, consequences of a breach of nuclear security.

In the two episodes confirmed by the Air Force, the multi-ton concrete-and-steel door that seals the entrance to the underground launch control center was deliberately left open while one of two crew members inside napped.

One officer lied about a violation but later admitted to it.

Sleep breaks are allowed during a 24-hour shift, known as an “alert.” But a written rule says the door — meant to keep others out and to protect the crew from the blast effects of a direct nuclear strike — must be closed if one is napping.

In an extensive interview last week at his headquarters at Barksdale Air Force Base, La., Kowalski declined to say whether he was aware that ICBM launch crew members had violated the blast door rule on multiple occasions.

“I’m not aware of it being any different than it’s ever been before,” he said. “And if it had happened out there in the past and was tolerated, it is not tolerated now. So my sense of this is, if we know they’re doing it they’ll be disciplined for it.”

It is clear that Air Force commanders do, in fact, know these violations are happening. One of the officers punished for a blast door violation in April at the 91st Missile Wing at Minot Air Force Base, N.D., admitted during questioning by superiors to having done it other times without getting caught.

Both officers involved in that case were given what the military calls non-judicial punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, rather than court martialed. One was ordered to forfeit $2,246 in pay for two months and received a letter of reprimand, according to Lt. Col. John Sheets, spokesman for Air Force Global Strike Command. The other launch officer, who admitted to having committed the same violation “a few” times previously, was given a letter of admonishment, Sheets said.

Kowalski said the crews know better.

“This is not a training problem. This is some people out there are having a problem with discipline,” he said.

The other confirmed blast door violation happened in May at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont. In that case a person who entered the capsule to do maintenance work realized that the deputy crew commander was asleep with the door open and reported the violation to superiors. Upon questioning, the deputy crew commander initially denied the accusation but later confessed and said her crew commander had encouraged her to lie, Sheets said.

The crew commander received a letter of reprimand and was ordered to forfeit $3,045 in pay for two months, Sheets said. The deputy crew commander was given a letter of reprimand. Punishment of that sort does not require the officer to leave the service but usually is a significant obstacle to promotion and could mean an early end to his or her career.

The AP was tipped off to the Malmstrom episode shortly after it happened by an official who felt strongly that it should be made public and that it reflected a more deeply rooted disciplinary problem inside the ICBM force. The AP learned of the Minot violation through an internal Air Force email. The AP confirmed both incidents with several other Air Force officials.

Sheets said the Minot and Malmstrom violations were the only blast door disciplinary cases in at least two years.

The willingness of some launch officers to leave the blast door open at times reflects a mindset far removed from the Cold War days when the U.S. lived in fear of a nuclear strike by the Soviet Union. It was that fear that provided the original rationale for placing ICBMs in reinforced underground silos and the launch control officers in buried capsules — so that in the event of an attack the officers might survive to launch a counterattack.

Today the fear of such an attack has all but disappeared and, with it, the appeal of strictly following the blast door rule.

Bruce Blair, who served as an ICBM launch control officer in the 1970s and is an advocate for phasing out the ICBM force, said violations should be taken seriously.

“This transgression might help enable outsiders to gain access to the launch center, and to its super-secret codes,” Blair said. That would increase the risk of unauthorized launch or of compromising codes that might consequently have to be invalidated in order to prevent unauthorized launches, he said.

“Such invalidation might effectively neutralize for an extended period of time the entire U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal and the president’s ability to launch strategic forces while the Pentagon scrambles to re-issue new codes,” he added.
Suddenly some of the Rolling heads makes sense... Never should have happened.
Army full speed ahead on JLTV, Marines choosing words carefully
Oct. 22, 2013 - 06:00AM
By Paul McLeary
Staff writer
The two-week federal government shutdown halted Army and Marine Corps testing of the 66 Joint Light Tactical Vehicles that Oshkosh, AM General and Lockheed Martin delivered in August for 14 months of test and evaluation, Army officials said today.

“Some of the test sites didn’t shut down at the same time and they didn’t come up at the same time,” which complicated matters as far as coordinating across multiple sites performing multiple tests, said US Army Col. John Cavedo, program manager for the JLTV program.

Even when the funding spigot was turned back on after the two-week shutdown, “starting back up has been a very difficult proposition,” he added. “We are behind our current ideal test plan right now,” but he said he’s confident the Army and Marine Corps will be able to make op for those delays over the next nine months.

But that isn’t the end of the program’s fiscal troubles.

Cavedo told Defense News in August that if sequestration remains in place and the program doesn’t receive a new infusion of cash by July, the services will have to begin curtailing test and evaluation activities, pushing back the program’s schedule.

A production award is expected in late fiscal 2015 for approximately 50,000 JLTVs for the Army, with their Marine Corps partners purchasing another 5,500 vehicles.

The Marine Corps has made noises in recent years about possibly pulling out of the program because of the $250,000-per-vehicle price tag and weight issues. But Lt. Col. Michael Burks, Marine Corps program manager, Light Tactical Vehicles, reiterated that the Marines are all in on the program — with a significant caveat.

“The Marine Corps is emphatic on maintaining a combat capacity, so we’re absolutely focused on more tooth to tail,” even as the size of the force falls over the next several years, he said.

“The focus right now is on what is good enough. I won’t speculate on how that’s going to impact across ground combat tactical vehicle strategy … so in terms of what’s good enough, I offer that right now, in the current conversation, in the context of the size of the Marine Corps that we’re looking at, 5,500 JLTVs is good enough to meet deployed commanders critical mission needs.”

Hard decisions about the testing program and the overall schedule for awards will have to be made in the second quarter of fiscal 2014 if sequester remains in place, Cavedo said. In the 2014 budget, the program took a $5 million hit under the sequester, with another $11 million taken out of its coffers by congressional marks.

Overall, the Army requested $84 million for JLTV work in fiscal 2014, while the Marines have asked for $50 million.

Kevin Fahey, head of Army PEO Combat Support & Combat Service Support, added that “our problems have had nothing to do with the program, and everything to do with the budget” in recent years, and that he needs a budget decision in the third quarter of fiscal 2014 in order to keep everything moving ahead as planned.

“Right now we’re on the path where we’re on track,” he said.

But even with those rough deadlines set for later this year, “we can’t even begin to tell you what the actual date is that we run out of money” Cavedo warned.

Looking to the Future: Army 2020
Oct. 22, 2013 - 05:08PM | By LANCE M. BACONThough the discussion was about building the Army that will exist beyond 2020, many attitudes and approaches were met with real-time frustrations from service members, foreign militaries and industry leaders.

The goal is to go from Army of execution to an Army of preparation, said Gen. Robert Cone, commander of U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. Despite current challenges, the service must reallocate some of its energy toward the future.

That is no easy feat. The process starts with policy that becomes concepts, concepts then become capabilities, capabilities become requirements and requirements are funded in a resource constrained environment.

Policy is an ever moving matter as governments and regional players evolve.

A growth of Asian militaries can be expected, while the rest of the world falls into military decline, said Kathleen Hicks, director of the International Security Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies. The goal is to make China’s rise stable and positive.

There will be poverty reduction and improvement in health and wealth, but it will coincide with a growth in urbanization, she said. By 2040, 65 percent of world’s population will live in cities, and one-third – some 2 billion people – will live in slum conditions.

The Arab awakening will continue to shake out and weapons proliferation will pose new risks. Hicks said an increase in coalition building around specific problems will be likely, which makes the survival of existing alliances such as NATO a matter of considerable concern as it will affect how the United States uses force in the future.

A German training commander took the opportunity to address the removal of troops from his continent. While the panel talked often about the need to train alongside others and how interoperability is key, the ally was cautious. He asked how and when this training would happen in light of ongoing budget and force cuts.

The panel stressed the need to capture lessons learned in Afghanistan and Iraq, trust in the physical and virtual training planned for the regional alignment model and take advantage of regional training exercises. But Cone did concede that this effort is “complicated by the loss of Joint Forces Command,” and the service would have to do a better job of reaching out.

“The last place we want to meet and work these things out is the battlefield,” he said.

That’s because speed and multiplicity will be the name of the game as asymmetric warfare becomes the norm. Twenty-eight nations now have weapons grade plutonium. Troops could have to deal with the proliferation of proxies, collapse of governments and humanitarian disasters beyond the scope of anything seen to date.

Concepts and capabilities will continue to evolve in the midterm and integrate in the long term, said Lt. Gen. Keith Walker, deputy commanding general of TRADOC Futures and director of the Army Capabilities Integration Center.

He pointed to the cutting of 750,000 soldiers and funds after the Vietnam War as an example.

“Fortunately, the intellectual led the physical,” he said. The result was the Air/Land Doctrine and the “Big Five” innovations – the M1 Abrams main battle tank, the M2 and M3 Bradley fighting vehicles, the Black Hawk and Apache helicopters, and the Patriot air defense missile.

The intellectual led the physical again after Operation Desert Storm, which saw a cut of 500,000 soldiers and associated funding. But this ushered in the digitization era.

“The question is where do we invest now?” Walker said.

His answers focused heavily on the human nature of conflict, and leader development “is the number one investment.” Significant investment in human sciences can also be expected, as sergeants today do what a Special Forces sergeant first class with 10 years of experience would have done a decade ago.

Expeditionary maneuver is also among priorities as troops will increasingly need to get somewhere fast despite anti-access and area denial efforts. Hicks said she expects intolerance for land forces for the next 10 years, which adds to the dilemma, but said any number of factors could change that attitude. Regardless, don’t expect intermediate staging bases built up over time.

Advance computing to enhance situational awareness is another hot topic. Walker said squads get surprised 70 percent of the time, which should not happen.

Requirements must be designed to keep soldiers competent in their craft, said Brig. Gen. Wayne Grigsby, director of training for Army Operations and Plans.

There must be “tactical and techno competence” and an understanding that mission command and regional alignment are interdependent.

Familiar buzz words were used by the man who matches money to mission.

Lt. Gen. James Barclay, deputy chief of staff for programs, said new gear must be versatile and tailorable, affordable and cost effective – and must be based on network and squad.

He said the service will rely on incremental improvements and smaller procurements are likely. Barclay said the focus will be on mature technologies to reduce developmental costs and he expressed concern about maintaining the industrial base.

The panel did concede that the acquisition process takes too long. They said the service must produce more adaptive requirements, consider leasing options and cut back on the abundance of testing that is required.

Cone urged “institutionalizing adaptive mechanisms,” and pointed to the promise of the Asymmetric Warfare Group as an example for the future. He also suggested the Rapid Equipping Force fall within TRADOC and the Joint IED Defeat Organization fold into a Defense Department model.

He said a “couple” of these units “might have been on cutting block in recent months,” though he did not elaborate.

US Army Forced Into 'Extreme Tiered Readiness,' Chief Says
Oct. 23, 2013 - 02:53PM | By MICHELLE TAN
The Army will have to move into an “extreme tiered readiness model” as it struggles to train and equip soldiers amid the ongoing fiscal crisis, the service’s top officer said Wednesday.

“A very small portion of forces will be ready” as the Army deals with the fallout of sequestration, the recent government shutdown and the ongoing budget battle, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno said in an interview with This week in Defense News.

“What we’ve been forced to do is cut readiness, cut modernization,” Odierno said. “We still have brigades, but if we ask them to go, they’re not [ready]. That’s not acceptable to me.”

Odierno’s blunt message is something he has repeated throughout the Association of the United States Army annual meeting this week in Washington, D.C.

“Between now and 2019 we have significant risk,” Odierno said, adding that the Army is “unbalanced” during a time when the world is “incredibly uncertain.”

This week, senior Army leaders said only two brigade combat teams are combat-ready — that’s in addition to those preparing to deploy to Afghanistan or rotate to Korea.

Those two brigades are part of the 82nd Airborne Division, which is tasked as the global response force.

Tiered readiness is a strategy to “mitigate this period of uncertainty,” Gen. Daniel Allyn, commanding general of Forces Command, told Army Times.

The Army had to choose between spreading limited resources across all its BCTs or prioritizing, he said.

“We’re going to have a very severe divide between the haves and have nots,” Allyn said.

It will become more and more challenging to train armored brigade combat teams, which cost more than training infantry and Stryker BCTs, he said.

The Army’s goal is to get seven brigades into combat-ready status by June — this will include two of each type of brigade and an aviation task force, Allyn said.

“We’re going to get as much readiness as we can get,” he said.
Reco don't forget to hit some of the other small arms booths. I see FN but Remington just got a Socom Contract.
 
Last edited:

thunderchief

Senior Member
Wtf ? Is this really possible ? :confused:

-------------------------------------

Only Two US Army Brigades Now Combat Ready, Chief Says


Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno said his greatest fear is to receive an order to deploy thousands of troops. And with good reason.

The Army has only two combat-ready brigades right now, he said. Even the ones headed to Afghanistan are qualified for the trainer and adviser mission, not combat.

Odierno said he hopes to get the number of trained and equipped brigades to seven by June 2014.

“There is going to come a time when we simply don’t have enough money to provide what I believe to be the right amount of ground forces to conduct contingency operations,” he said. “We’re not there yet, but it is something we are going to continue to review.”

Army Secretary John McHugh said he and the chief are committed that “whatever the Army’s end strength and its budgets may look like, we will never send a soldier into war unprepared, untrained or improperly equipped.” But he acknowledged that there are unprecedented uncertainties with which the service must contend.

The cost of sequestration is being covered by readiness and modernization dollars. That is why there are so few brigades trained and equipped for the combat mission. Service leaders look to accelerate the drawdown to help free up some money and balance training, modernization and end strength.

One step in this endeavor is an effort to cut 25 percent of overhead in headquarters. The Pentagon only required a 20-percent cut, but Odierno said the larger slice “can achieve some significant savings” — thousands of soldiers that could instead help fill a Brigade Combat Team, for example.

But many problems are beyond Army control. Leading that category is a gridlocked Congress’ habit of passing “continuing resolutions.” These force the military to operate on the previous year’s budgets — which are several billion shorter than the president’s current budget proposals.
................................................................

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

shen

Senior Member
Wtf ? Is this really possible ? :confused:

-------------------------------------



Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

US Army is on a big PR offensive to blunt the threat to its budget from AirSea Battle. And the threat is real considering there are talks of cutting the Army to a force level of 200,000 to free up funding for the Navy and Air Force. Type AirSea Battle into google news today, you get mostly stories about the Army ironically. Now there is talk of shutting ONA down. Would anyone be surprised if Army has a hand behind that?
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
That's a part of it but the factors involved are more then just air sea, which the Army can work its self into. Also factor in the surges. The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan demanded a big army. With the pull out the army found its budgets on the chopping block and personal on the discharge line. The sequester was also poorly planned for by the DOD who believed that the nightmare scenario was impossible. These poor management choices have lead to a strung out force.
 

thunderchief

Senior Member
US Army is on a big PR offensive to blunt the threat to its budget from AirSea Battle. And the threat is real considering there are talks of cutting the Army to a force level of 200,000 to free up funding for the Navy and Air Force. Type AirSea Battle into google news today, you get mostly stories about the Army ironically. Now there is talk of shutting ONA down. Would anyone be surprised if Army has a hand behind that?

Well , if they really want to cut Army to 200 000 personnel , and considering the fact that lot of this personal are on non-combat duties or in training , maybe there is some truth in this story .
 
Top