US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
LOl...bring it on Brat (paint ball duel of course).:eek:

But I like that cockpit/intake look! It's the new sexy! It would make it to Vanity Fair and Cosmos will regret it for losing the chance to uncover the newest cover girl of the world (I'm talking about the bomber of course).;)

Well as the Air Force Brat, I have a sacred duty to love every winged thing upon the face of the earth, (well except tetse flys, and giant Asian hornets), I even love the buzzard, so nothing that flies can be truly ugly, so feel free to post a few more bomber shots, and the the latest sixth gen fighters shots, I don't seem to have as much luck finding all these goodies as you young lads. Oh and I've heard that those paint balls hurt, so maybe I'll just concede ahead of time. Keep your airspeed up, and your turns coordinated Jr. brat
 

navyreco

Senior Member
From AUSA

[video=youtube;rKICargUpO8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKICargUpO8[/video]

[video=youtube;P8sMKAMaplA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8sMKAMaplA[/video]
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



Ingalls-Shipbuilding-Christens-Coast-Guard-Cutter-Hamilton.jpg


World Maritime News said:
Ingalls Shipbuilding Christens Coast Guard Cutter Hamilton
Posted on Oct 27th, 2013 with tags americas, Christens, Coast Guard, Cutter, Hamilton, Ingalls Shipbuilding, News by topic, usa.

Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Ingalls Shipbuilding division christened, Oct. 26, the National Security Cutter (NSC) Hamilton (WMSL 753) in front of nearly 1,000 guests. Hamilton is the fourth NSC Ingalls has built for the U.S. Coast Guard.

The ship is named in honor of Alexander Hamilton, who is credited with establishing the Revenue Cutter Service, the forerunner of today’s U.S. Coast Guard. It is the third Coast Guard cutter to bear the name Hamilton.

HII President and CEO Mike Petters said the ship’s namesake “would be most proud of the fact that this ship is the product of a manufacturing company like HII, from a community like Pascagoula, and the result of an American industrial base that includes 649 suppliers from 39 states.”

NSCs are 418 feet long with a 54-foot beam and displace 4,500 tons with a full load. They have a top speed of 28 knots, a range of 12,000 miles, an endurance of 60 days and a crew of 110.

“In the past decade, we’ve added to our 75-year legacy by building the most capable Coast Guard cutters in the world for the most capable Coast Guard in the world,” said Ingalls Shipbuilding President Irwin F. Edenzon. “We understand these great ships must be affordable. And the Coast Guard’s management of the NSC program has helped. Stable funding, timely contract negotiations and a disciplined appetite for change allow us to get learning from ship to ship. It gives both us and the Coast Guard the best opportunity to achieve our mutual objective: to keep building NSCs at an affordable price so we can build more NSCs. And not only do our shipbuilders know that the ships we build have to be affordable, they know who serves in them: Coast Guard men and women, sailors and Marines who are our friends, our neighbors, our sons, daughters, nieces and nephews—America’s heroes.”

NSCs are the flagship of the Coast Guard’s cutter fleet, designed to replace the 378‐foot Hamilton-class High-Endurance Cutters, which entered service during the 1960s. Ingalls has delivered three and has three more under construction, including Hamilton. Keel laying for Ingalls’ fifth NSC, James (WMSL 754), took place on May 17. The ship is currently 33 percent complete and will launch the spring of 2014. Ingalls has started construction on 28 of 45 units for NSC 6 and she will launch the fall of 2015. An advance long lead material procurement contract has also been awarded for a seventh NSC.
These are nice, effective frigate sized cutters, capable of the full gambit of coast guard duties, and capable of integration with US Navy task forces if necessary. This, USCGC Hamilton, WMSL 753, is the fourth in class. Two more are building and the seventh is under contract.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



2044654A5076AFDC1B7320


Sea Waves said:
The Coast Guard exercised a contract option Sept. 25, 2013, worth $250.7 million with Bollinger Shipyards of Lockport, La., for production of six Sentinel-class Fast Response Cutters (FRCs) and deep insurance spares. The six FRCs delivered under this option will be delivered in 2016.

This option brings the total number of FRCs under contract with Bollinger to 24 and the total value of the contract (to date) to $1.1 billion.

To date, the Coast Guard has taken delivery of seven FRCs. Six have been commissioned into service. The seventh, Charles David Jr, will be commissioned into service this November in Key West, Fla.

This contract action follows the Sentinel-class FRC acquisition project receiving DHS approval to enter full-rate production Sept. 18, 2013. Also known as the “Produce, Deploy and Support” acquisition phase, approval was granted after the cutter successfully completed Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E). This approval allows the Coast Guard to continue with FRC acquisitions.

The FRC is already making a significant impact in the field. This summer, Coast Guard Cutter Robert Yered participated in Operation Unified Resolve, a multi-agency effort to support continuing law enforcement operations in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. During this operation, Robert Yered supported a narcotics interdiction resulting in the seizure of $35 million worth of cocaine bound for the streets of the United States
Seven of these cutters have already been delivered. The next six, which will mark starting into full rate production, will make a total of 24 already ordered. 58 are planned. These will replace the very effective ISland Class cutters that have served for the last 25 years or so. The US Coast Guard puts heavy, and rough use on its cutters.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
[video=youtube;FyUxGlLK45Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyUxGlLK45Y&feature=share&list=PLGIaDi4Rq8NwSleaoOuLfbVjMgOOFIcrU[/video]

Active hearing protection not just for SF but GI and Artilery.

[video=youtube;bl9dYN665EY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl9dYN665EY&feature=share&list=PLGIaDi4Rq8NwSleaoOuLfbVjMgOOFIcrU[/video]

Fire resistent Uniforms. It's my opinion that by the next decade the US will phase out non FR types for all duties save for Service uniforms.

New coveralls within 9 months
By Mark D. Faram
Staff writer
FILED UNDER
News
Uniforms
Nearly six months after revelations the Navy Working Uniform Type I would “burn robustly” and melt when exposed to fire, fleet leaders have put the Navy on the path to issuing all sailors fire-retardant clothing while afloat.

Adm. Bill Gortney, commander of U.S. Fleet Forces Command, and Adm. Cecil Haney, commander of U.S. Pacific Fleet, announced Thursday a three-part plan that includes issuing two new fire-retardant coveralls, the first within nine months and a longer-term solution over the next three years.

“Safety is integral to every duty our men and women perform and this is something we can do to help protect them in rare cases where a fire may break out aboard a ship,” Gortney said in a release.

The first new coverall, the release said, will take its design from the existing standard-issue coverall, but will be made with the fire-retardant fabric already worn by sailors working in repair lockers.

Similar to the NWU Type Is, standard coveralls offer no fire protection and are made of a poly-cotton blend that would also melt, exacerbating sailor injuries in the event of a fire.

This new interim coverall would be used only by surface forces and for carrier crews except those on the flight deck who have their own FR gear. Coverall variants such as the “electrical coveralls” worn by electricians and “engineering coveralls” worn in main propulsion spaces are still authorized.

Submariners will continue to use the issue polyester and cotton coveralls for now as they have “low-lint” requirements.

The final part of the plan, expected to last three years, is to develop a new fire-retardant coverall that meets the needs of all communities in a joint effort between the Navy Exchange and the Defense Logistics Agency. The release says this coverall would be fire retardant, provide “arc flash protection and contains low lint levels.”

Fleet officials, in a news release, said they would “make available as organizational clothing” the new coverall, but stopped short of saying its wear would be required.

The release also didn’t say whether commands would have to cover the additional costs of issuing the new coveralls.

This announcement comes midway through an effort examining fire risks for sailors at sea. A working group tasked with examining organizational clothing recently wrapped its investigation, and this coverall initiative was born from it. A second working group, now underway, is looking specifically at the NWU.

Effective immediately, fleet leaders are trying to better educate sailors to what the fire risks are while afloat, and to minimize injuries.

Your chance to sound off
Fleet leaders have been talking for months about fire risk, but we want to hear from you.

Do you think this coverall plan is the right way forward? Should the Navy develop and pay for two new coveralls?

As for the NWU, do you think it should remain a shipboard uniform or be allowed only at shore commands? Or would you like to see a new, fire-retardant version of the Type Is made for shipboard use?

Send your comments to reporter Mark D. Faram at [email protected]. Your comments could appear in an upcoming issue of Navy Times.
This is from May but photos are now availible
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The NWU replaced a lot of uniforms for the Squids. Trouble is some moron Forgot about fire resistence. So Salors on Aviation decks or working in Fire prone areas have been very very in trouble. This will hopefuly solve some of that but best would be to change the NWU to FR.

Guard eyes readiness amid personnel cuts, less training
Oct. 27, 2013 - 11:02AM
By Michelle Tan
Staff writer
The Army National Guard will shrink by 8,000 soldiers in the next two years, but more cuts could be on the way as the Army wrestles with tightening budgets and getting the right mix of active- and reserve-component troops.

“The Army’s getting smaller,” said Lt. Gen. William Ingram, director of the Army Guard. “The Guard, the [active- and reserve-component] mix, and the number of soldiers that would remain in the National Guard is a concern.”

The Guard continues to work with the Army on finding the right balance, Ingram said.

“We’re not on the same sheet of music quite yet,” he said.

The Army Guard was authorized an end strength of 358,200 on Sept. 30, the end of fiscal 2013, Ingram said. That authorization will decrease by 4,000 in fiscal 2014 and by another 4,000 in fiscal 2015, bringing the end strength to 350,200, he said.

The active Army is already set to go from a wartime high of 570,000 soldiers to 490,000 by 2017, and senior leaders have warned that sequestration could force deeper cuts.

“The deal is how many and what kind of structure do we need for the total Army, and where does that structure need to be?” said Ingram, who declined to say what types of end strength numbers are being discussed with the Army. “That’s always been the case at the end of any conflict.”

The Guard must maintain its readiness not only for federal and overseas missions but for its work at home, too, Ingram said.

In 2013, the Guard conducted 132 domestic missions, including responding to Hurricane Sandy and tornadoes in Oklahoma. In all, Guard soldiers served 387,794 man-days last fiscal year; one person on duty for a day is counted as one man-day.

“We need to have the soldiers that are in the states stay in the states,” Ingram said. “Each state has their own structure ... and they grow leaders from inside that structure. We also try to keep a balance in that state to do the domestic operations. There, it’s really about capabilities like command and control, aviation, engineers, [military police], transportation and chemical, and that’s the other side of the Guard.”

Despite the uncertainty and potential cuts, Ingram is adamant that his soldiers remain trained and ready.

This past year, because of the budget, the Guard was taken off of a number of missions it has traditionally taken on, including the mission in the Sinai.

“We’re essentially out of Kosovo, working our way out of Kuwait, working our way out of the Sinai mission, [and] we’re working our way out of Afghanistan,” Ingram said.

There are about 19,000 Guard soldiers mobilized, deployed or demobilizing, and Ingram expects that number will be smaller in fiscal 2014.

“We hope to get the Kosovo and [Multinational Force of Observers in the Sinai] missions back,” he said. “Bottom line is there will be fewer training and overseas deployment opportunities.”

These missions aren’t huge, nor do they involve a lot of soldiers, but “it gives the units selected to do those missions a great training focus and something to prepare for,” Ingram said. “It energizes the whole system and keeps those processes we do, that were not in good shape on 9/11, warm.”

Portable training
One way the Guard is seeking to overcome budget limitations is by using the eXportable Combat Training Capability, a training program that uses live, virtual and constructive training environments to provide brigade-size training in a 21-day time frame.

The XCTC is flexible, scalable and tailorable, and it provides units with mission-focused training at their home station and certifies soldiers at the platoon or company levels before they enter the “available” year of the Army Force Generation cycle.

“You take that to a training location, rather than take the soldiers and all their equipment to a [combat training center],” Ingram said. “It’s really quite good.”

So far, the Guard has conducted 20 XCTC rotations at 14 locations; more than 41,100 soldiers and 365 companies have been trained.

For larger formations, such as a brigade combat team, the Guard is incorporating active-duty units into its XCTC training.

The Guard used XCTC as the culminating training event for the 48th BCT from Georgia, which is preparing to be regionally aligned with Southern Command.

The increased use of the XCTC comes as the Guard — along with the active Army — sees reductions in combat training center rotations for its BCTs because of funding constraints. The Guard’s two CTC rotations in fiscal 2013 and two of the three scheduled for 2014 have been canceled, officials said.

The Guard continues to look for opportunities to train, Ingram said, and plans to look for training opportunities for enabler units.

“We’re not the force that we were prior to 9/11,” he said. “There’s a lot of talk about going back to [being a] strategic reserve. Even if we’re not used as much as we were in the past, we’re not a strategic reserve.”

Shipyard President: We Are Driving Cost Out of New Carrier
Oct. 27, 2013 - 03:45AM | By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS
NEWPORT NEWS, VA. — The most expensive ship now under construction for the US Navy is the nuclear aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78). Representing the first entirely new carrier design since the 1960s, the ship’s cost has risen more than 22 percent since construction was authorized in 2008 and is projected to hit $12.8 billion by the time it’s delivered in 2016.

Ford’s design embodies a number of new and untried technologies, chief among them new launch and recovery systems for aircraft and a new dual-band radar system. The Navy and Congress were aware at the time of authorization that a high level of risk was attached to perfecting each technology on time and on budget, and delays have contributed to the cost growth.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is a long-time critic of the CVN 78 program, and its reports have garnered considerable attention from analysts and other observers. A recent GAO report recommended slowing production of the next carrier, the John F. Kennedy (CVN 79), until costs on the first ship are better understood. But the shipbuilders at Newport News Shipbuilding bristle at many of the criticisms.

Matt Mulherin, president of the shipyard, addressed the carrier issue during an interview Oct. 22.

“There is a view out there that a typical first-of-class ship has over 30 percent cost growth over the baseline. Today we are at 22 percent. I am not saying that I am happy with that, but I think we have done an awfully good job of controlling the costs.

“I think this ship is going together well — we are seeing the value of the product model, we are seeing the technologies that we were responsible for putting together [coming] to operational status. I know we are going to meet all the key performance parameters for the pieces of the ship that we’re driving to. I feel very good about the ship.”

Q. One of the chief worries about the ship’s construction was over the testing and delivery of the new electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS), an item developed by the Navy and furnished to you for installation. Has that caused problems?

A. “Some of the government-furnished equipment — the EMALS, the advanced arresting gear — have been a challenge. But, with EMALS, I have all of the hardware inside the ship ... the catapults are coming together. We are on our plan on that stuff. Now are we going to have integration challenges? I think you would be a fool to say we are not going to. I tell you that is what we do; that is what we do well. We understand how this stuff works. I have had people up at [Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, N.J.] operating this stuff; they are qualified shooters. They are up there doing the test program so they know it quite well.

“So I feel pretty good about the fact that we are going to be able to bring this stuff all together. We are going to deliver, in 2016, a Gerald R. Ford that is a ready round. It is able to shoot [aircraft]; it is able to catch; it is going to have all its phased array antennas working. We are not far off our plan — we were supposed to launch this thing in July, and here we are four months late. That was to a date we set over 10 years ago. I wish I was on the plan, but I do not think we are in a terrible place. I think this has been a great ship, I really do, and I think it will be.”

Q. Citing the cost growth, the GAO warned recently that additional increases could come from “shipbuilder underperformance.”

A. “I know it is a lot of dollars, and 22 percent cost growth is a lot of money,” Mulherin said. “I think we are being good stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars as we are driving to deliver to the Navy the ship they want. I do not know that people really recognize that we pay attention to that. I get penalized for that cost growth. I am making these decisions trying to figure out how I drive to the least cost, and because that is in my best interest as well.

“I think we are going to see a different position for CVN 79, where that ship is going to go together better; it is going to be less cost — but building an aircraft carrier is an expensive thing.

“Everybody is going to be forced to go back to the requirements and say if I really need to drive costs out of here, what can I do? That is where we are as we get ready for CVN 79. I think we all have to look in our own houses and say how do we drive cost down? I have to do that; the Navy has to do that. That is where we are, but at least the Navy recognizes that the least cost for CVN 79 is if I stay on that plan for building the ship. Because we have laid out the most efficient build plan.

“We are being very effective; we are still implementing things; there is no end to what we are trying to do to drive costs out of this thing. We know we are in a position where none of us want to be. We are going to great lengths to try to figure out how we [become] much more efficient and how we build Kennedy.”
And hopefuly even more on Enterprise.
Bell President Says JMR Schedule Could be Accelerated
Oct. 22, 2013 - 11:29AM | By AARON MEHTA
WASHINGTON — The Joint Multi-Role (JMR) helicopter replacement program remains on track for a downselect before the end of this fiscal year — and the president of Bell Helicopter thinks the program could move up its overall timetable.

“We’re confident we’re going to be one of the two companies selected for that actual bill. We’ve set up the schedule as if we’re going to be successful,” John Garrison, Bell president and CEO, told reporters Tuesday morning at the Association of the United States Army conference. “We also believe that with the maturity of this technology, as we look forward, it doesn’t need to take to 2035 to bring this technology and capability to the marketplace.

“That’s the current schedule, but from a technology standpoint, we don’t believe [delivery in 2035] has to be the schedule going forward. So that’s another goal we have. We believe this can be shifted to the left. I know that sounds like a challenge in today’s budgetary environment, but you have to plan beyond the current crisis.”

The JMR program aims to replace the Army’s Apache and Black Hawk platforms by the mid 2030s. Four companies — Bell, Sikorsky, AVX Aircraft and Karem Aircraft — were awarded $6.5 million contracts this year to develop initial technology demonstrators. Two of those companies will be selected before the end of fiscal 2014, with a fly-off occurring in 2017.

Bell is showing a nearly full-scale mockup of its V-280 Valor design on the show floor this week. The fixed-engine tilt-rotor design can fit 11 passengers with four crew members.

The company is confident the Valor design will hit 280 knots with a 2,100 nautical-mile range, attributes that could make self-deployment a possibility — alongside potential reductions in logistics, Garrison said.

“It took eight main bases to support the aviation assets in Afghanistan,” Garrison said. “With this technology, we could do that [with just two bases]. So now you think about the force structure, all the soldiers required on the logistics side, now you begin to strip out all that infrastructure cost because you have a space/time continuum you’re dealing with, with speed. It’s not just going fast, it’s ‘what is the productivity’ in that flight hour.”

Garrison also sees a wide range of potential sales abroad.

“I believe that JMR will lead to FVL [Future Vertical Lift], and FVL will lead to the future of rotorcraft on a global basis, much the same way the Huey did and the Black Hawk did before it,” he said. “You will see an evolution of this type of technology in the future.

“So I think you look at the universe of the countries that operate Apaches and Black Hawks and Hueys today, and that’s the potential for the aircraft in the future.”■
may be just may be we won't have to wait for 2035...
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Washington Post said:
The Navy’s stealthy Zumwalt destroyer floated out of dry dock without fanfare Monday night and into the waters of the Kennebec River, where the warship will remain dockside for final construction.

The largest destroyer ever built for the Navy, the Zumwalt looks like no other U.S. warship, with an angular profile and clean carbon fiber superstructure that hides antennas and radar masts.

“The Zumwalt is really in a league of its own,” said defense consultant Eric Wertheim, author of the “The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World.”

Originally envisioned as a “stealth destroyer,” the Zumwalt has a low-slung appearance and angles that deflect radar. Its wave-piercing hull aims for a smoother ride.

The 610-foot ship is a behemoth that’s longer and bigger than the current class of destroyers. It was originally designed for shore bombardment and features a 155mm “Advanced Gun System” that fires rocket-propelled warheads that have a range of nearly 100 miles.

Thanks to computers and automation, it will have only about half the complement of sailors as the current generation of destroyers.
 
Last edited:

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Some how she looks so small.
Officials Concerned About Stable Funding For JLTV
By John M. Doyle
Source: Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

October 29, 2013
Credit: Lockheed Martin
The U.S. Army and Marine Corps Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) remains a top priority for both services, although officials are hinting that the program could suffer setbacks if Congress fails to approve adequate funding for fiscal 2015.

Army Secretary John McHugh and Gen. Raymond Odierno, the Army chief of staff, speaking at the Association of the U.S. Army (AUSA) symposium in Washington last week, both raised concerns about future cutbacks to signature acquisition programs.

But they declined to identify which among the Army Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV), the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) and JLTV programs could be in trouble.

“We need all of that, but the bottom line is we can’t afford all of that,” Odierno said. McHugh said it was too soon to make a decision about the GCV, which is seen as the most vulnerable because of its anticipated high cost. But he called it “difficult to envision any significant number of our developmental initiatives that won’t be affected — some very significantly.” Some will have to be canceled, he added.

But officials overseeing the JLTV program told reporters at another AUSA briefing that replacing part of the High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle (Humvee) fleet with more than 50,000 JLTVs — 49,000 for the Army and 5,500 for the Marine Corps — was still on track despite testing delays brought on by the 16-day government shutdown.

Total funding for the program from research and development through procurement is estimated at more than $22 billion.

“We still have a train on the tracks,” said Col. John Cavedo, the Army’s JLTV program manager. Kevin Fahey, Army program executive officer for combat support, said JLTV remains “a priority.”

But both officials said if a new budget isn’t approved and Congress decides to keep the government running under a continuing resolution, which only provides funding at 2012 levels, JLTV could see its schedule slide along with other ground vehicle programs.

Lockheed Martin, Oshkosh Defense and AM General have sent a total of 22 prototypes for field tests at Aberdeen, Md., Yuma, Ariz., and other government proving grounds.

The Army has said it expects to make a downselect based on the testing outcomes by summer 2015.

Teams Test More Powerful Engines For U.S. Army Helicopters
By Graham Warwick
Source: Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

October 24, 2013
General Electric and a Honeywell/Pratt & Whitney team are testing new 3,000-shp. turboshaft engines amid signs that, despite current budget challenges, the U.S. Army remains committed to re-engining its Boeing AH-64 Apaches and Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawks in the 2020s.

Advanced Turbine Engine Co. (ATEC), a 50:50 Honeywell/Pratt joint venture, has run both of its HPW3000 demonstrator engines and is “very pleased with the results,” says Jerry Wheeler, ATEC vice president for programs.

General Electric says it is running its GE3000 demonstrators and getting good results, but declines to provide further details.

The GE3000 and HPW3000 are being tested under the Army Aviation Applied Technology Directorate’s Advanced Affordable Turbine Engine (AATE) science and technology (S&T) program.

AATE is a precursor to the Army’s Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) to develop and field a more powerful, reliable and lower fuel-burn engine for the AH-64 and UH-60. ITEP is aiming for a 35% higher power-to-weight ratio and 25% lower specific fuel consumption than the current GE T700 engine used in both helicopters.

Despite the budget pressures, support for ITEP within the Army and Congress remains strong, Wheeler says, because of the increased capability and reduced operating costs the new engine offers.

A request for proposals for ITEP is expected in mid-2014. This will be for a competitive technology-development phase that would take both engines through a preliminary design review to a Milestone B decision to begin engineering and manufacturing development (EMD).

At that point, one engine would be selected to proceed into development, ground testing and flight test. Low-rate initial production is scheduled to begin in 2022-23, and the ITEP is intended as a drop-in replacement for the T700 — for forward fit and retrofit.

ATEC ran its first HPW3000 in July, completing a 30-hr. abbreviated durability test before being torn down and inspected with the Army.

The second engine, for performance and sand-ingestion tests, began runs about a month ago.

Performance was measured on the first engine “and we believe we have validated that the customer’s goals are achievable,” Wheeler says. The ITEP EMD goals are carried over largely unchanged from the AATE S&T program, he adds. Early results from the second engine “look good,” he says, with sand-ingestion tests scheduled to continue into next year.

The Army’s goal is to field the ITEP with minimum changes to the UH-60 and AH-64, using the additional power to increase hot-and-high performance while staying within existing transmission limits. Later, gearboxes could be upgraded to take full advantage of the extra power, Wheeler says.

Northrop Grumman Mum On Bomber Bid
By Bill Sweetman [email protected]
Source: AWIN First

October 25, 2013
Credit: USAF
Northrop Grumman is not saying whether it will compete in the U.S. Air Force’s Long-Range Strike – Bomber program.

Boeing and Lockheed Martin have announced that they will be teaming up to pursue the contract, with Boeing as prime and Lockheed as chief teammate.

“Northrop Grumman views the Long-Range Strike Bomber program as vital to both national security and the power projection capability of the U.S. Air Force,” the company stated. “We do not comment on other companies’ business arrangements and have no further comment on the program at this time.”

The move is surprising, because Northrop has been publicly promoting its qualifications to build the Air Force’s next bomber for more than a decade, based on its experience with the B-2 program. The company continued that campaign through September’s Air Force Association show via advertising and the release of a specially commissioned book about the B-2’s history. But the defense manufacturer elected to no-bid the final stage of the USAF tanker program after investing many years and a great deal of money into its Airbus A330-based proposal.

Even a threat of a no-bid decision puts the Pentagon in an awkward position, because it would turn a program valued at well above $60 billion into a sole-source Boeing effort – which would likely draw widespread scrutiny and some outright opposition in Congress.

One observer notes that Northrop Grumman may be pressuring the Pentagon into more generous funding. The Pentagon is proposing a development program in which cost-reimbursable line items (that is, non-fixed-price) would be limited to areas where the government sees risk, while incentive payments will be tied to tangible deliverables rather than paper milestones. Senior Pentagon leadership expects to supervise a “should cost” process, controlling the release money to the program office.

Alternatively, Northrop Grumman may be looking to level the playing field if – as has been reported – Lockheed Martin is already building an LRS-B-related demonstrator. This would be a replay of the early history of stealth, where Northrop (in 1979) initially declined to bid on what became the B-2 until it was sure that the requirements would not favor Lockheed, which had already flown the Have Blue stealth prototype and was under contract for the F-117.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



GBU-10-boat.jpg

GBU-10-21-685x488.jpg

B-1B Lancer delivers GBU-10 on target against small boats

The Aviationist said:
In September, the 337th Test and Evaluation Squadron sent a solo B-1B over the Gulf of Mexico and its sea ranges to prove the concept that Lancers (or “Bones” as the swing wing bombers are dubbed) can be used to attack surface targets whilst at sea; in other words, the goal of the mission was to assess and improve the B-1′s capabilities.

According to the Dyess AFB website the B-1 released six munitions, including a 500lb GBU-54 laser guided bomb as well as 500lb and 2000lb joint direct attack munitions (JDAM).

Lt. Col. Alejandro Gomez, 337th TES special projects officer said: “This evaluation solidifies what our crew members have already known: We can strike surface targets. The knowledge we gain from these events gives combatant commanders assurance that we can be called upon to complete the mission.”

The mission, called a “a maritime tactics development and evaluation” or TD&E ,saw the B-1 being given the goal of detect, target and engage small boats using currently fielded and available weapons, released in all weather conditions.

The dramatic photo in this post was taken during the mission and shows that the B-1 was very effective in doing its goals: the term “using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut” springs to mind as the GBU-10 is captured a split second before annihilating a small rigid hulled boat.

The Bone would give a group of Pirates a very bad day!

Not to mention a bunch of Iranian speed boats.

Just the same, and beyond speed bpats, this is a critical development. B-1B Lancers as Maritime Strike aircraft? Makes a lot of sense. Like a US Tu-26 Backfire that can be deployed by the dozens. If they can hit small craft like that with GBU type weapons, imagine what a group of B-1B Lancers could do loaded to the gills with JDAMs, SLAMs, Harpoons, and the new LRASM which is already testing with B-1B Lancers.


B-1B-Drops-LRASM-550x412.jpg

 
Top