US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Sadly, I was not able to get across the entire ountry to Maine when she was launched. But I have seen her...even through the eye of the camera lens...and what I see warms my soul and does my heart good.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Just can't get enough, of her...or her big sister!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
news attack!
New gear puts electronic warfare on the offensive
Oct. 30, 2013 - 02:10PM
EDGEWOOD, MD. — Army electronic warfare capabilities in their early days in Iraq got a reputation as a sledgehammer that jammed both roadside bomb detonators and friendly communications indiscriminately, but today, Army officials say those capabilities have been refined to be more like a scalpel or a Swiss Army knife.

The program office for electronic warfare is fielding an array of precision jammers, including some that target the triggers for radio-controlled improvised explosive devices and act as sensors to pinpoint the trigger man’slocation. These new devices also extend to squads on foot and forward operating bases the protective bubble for wheeled vehicles.

“This is a significant shift from defense — protect your convoy, let’s just get through the day — to go on the offensive for enemy command and control,” said Mike Ryan, electronic warfare program manager.

The next version of the CREW Duke for vehicles merges electronic warfare and cyberwarfare by conducting “protocol-based attacks,” said Ryan, “where you actually get into the system and displace ones and zeroes to break that communication chain between the trigger and the [radio-controlled] IED receiving those ones and zeroes.” This is part of a technology insertion over the next few years.

Although Army EW program officials were guarded in what they could say publicly, a more sophisticated protocol-based attack theoretically could insert malicious software code into an adversary’s computer network over the air to disrupt the network or to steal information from it. The Army is exploring technology that can be deployed on aircraft and ground vehicles to wage this kind of cyberwarfare, according to a recent report from Defense News, a sister publication of Army Times.

According to a carefully worded statement from the EW program office, it conducted a demonstration at Yuma Proving Ground, Ariz., in February in which a convoy equipped with Duke jammers demonstrated a blend of cyber and electronic warfare in a single tactical scenario. The convoy demonstrated its ability to protect itself, pinpoint the location of signals and “attack and exploit insurgent communication systems.”

“This demonstration utilizing existing tactical sensors to gain and maintain an advantage over adversaries and enemies in both cyberspace and the electromagnetic spectrum, while simultaneously denying and degrading adversary and enemy use of the same, is a promising first step toward showing the full potential of CEMA employment and its contribution to unified land operations,” the statement reads.

CEMA is a relatively new Army concept that addresses the integration and synchronization of cyberspace operations, electronic warfare and electromagnetic spectrum management operations.

Toolbox of EW systems
The Army has fielded a family of EW systems as quick-reaction capabilities in recent months. They are not integrated, but the strategy is to consolidate or link them in the next generation of EW gear, the Multifunctional Electronic Warfare System, envisioned for 2020.

“As we come out of the war, with these existing systems, we will have a bridging strategy,” Ryan said. “We will maintain them, improve them, be ready to support the global response force, and at the same time invest in [research and development] to replace these individual boxes.”

The latest mix of hardware tailored to the ground force includes the Duke V3 for vehicles and post entry points, the man-packable Thor and Baldr for squads, and the FOB-bound Gator device, which locates enemy command-and-control signals.

In contrast with the earliest version of Duke, when it only jammed low-powered roadside bomb triggers such as toy cars and key fobs, the later versions have been adapted to jam cellular signals and a broader range of commercial and military threats.

Part of the system is always on, jamming those low-powered threats, but it can also sense other potential threats and react to jam them. If an adversary is triggering multiple bombs on multiple frequencies, Duke — which is, in a sense, a software-defined radio — can frequency hop and distribute power to jam along multiple frequencies.

“We’re having constant comms with the theater, and they’re very satisfied, it’s very effective and it’s significantly reduced the casualty rate,” said Lt. Col. Kent Snyder, the product manager for CREW. “[Soldiers are] happy, but they’re looking for expanded capabilities.”

With 32,000 Duke devices fielded, and each of them a sensor with an event log, the Army is interested in consolidating the data on failed bomb attacks for its intelligence databases. Duke can be used to chart the origin of a so-called “signal of interest” emanating from a trigger man as it jams, Ryan said.

Rudimentary pressure-plate and command-wire detonated IEDs are more common in Afghanistan than radio-controlled IEDs were in Iraq, but EW program officials say that points to the success of their technologies, not their obsolescence.

“We have a saying that we’ve put them back on command wire and other methods that expose them to detection through other assets,” Ryan said. “The [radio-controlled] incidents are much lower, and we know if we take this away, it’ll come right back because they’re constantly probing and testing.”

The Roadmaster, a vehicle-mounted direction finding system, can find lines of bearing on known trigger signals. Used in concert with the Duke V3, the system detects enemy signals, overlays them on a map and records them. The soldier can pursue the trigger man or continue to collect intelligence.

For squads on foot, the Thor III is like a Duke V3 split into three 26-pound man-packable units that together create a protective bubble. Several thousand have been fielded over the past few years, program officials said.

Individual soldiers who plan to wander outside of the Thor’s protective bubble can wear the smaller Baldr that protects over an individual footprint. Baldr, which weighs 12 pounds with its battery, has recently been fielded.

The Gator, a Ground Auto Targeting Observation/Reactive jammer, is a fixed-site technology for a forward operating base, meant to surgically identify, locate and jam enemy communications. The Army has fielded eight systems, which consist of a containerized shelter, a transceiver and a 107-foot mast antenna.

One application for Gator is to selectively black out enemy communications to herd enemy fighters out of a protected position to a vulnerable location in search of a better reception.

Gator can also transmit voice messages or music. Program officials noted Metallica and country music are not popular with insurgents.

The Army has fielded a Network EW Planning and Management Tool for use by electronic warfare operators, which helps war-game missions in advance, visualizing the spectrum in their battle space, predicting potential interference issues and designing work-arounds for potential conflicts.

The idea is to afford commanders an actionable picture of the electromagnetic spectrum. For example, a unit could detect and display the signal of an enemy spotter radioing coordinates for a mortar attack on its base. With the signal’s location, the commander would have the option to listen in, jam the signal or fire on its coordinates.

“You can populate a screen and say to the commander, ‘Sir, this is what we’re jamming,’ and he could see something visually,” Snyder said.

Such a tool would also allow the control and coordination of various electronic warfare assets on the battlefield. It will also be vital to the next generation of electronic warfare systems that promises the ability to cooperate with one another, focusing multiple jammers on a single area or jam various signals simultaneously.

Latest Videos

DoD personnel chief: New job-specific physical standards being drafted
Oct. 29, 2013 - 06:00AM

By Andrew Tilghman
Staff writer
FILED UNDER
News
Congress & DOD
Related Links
Four female Marines pass key hurdle during enlisted infantry training
17 units open combat jobs to women
Spec Ops may need to be exempt from integrating women, SOCOM official says
Opening up the combat arms career fields for women will result in a new array of job-specific physical standards that will apply to both men and women, the Pentagon’s top personnel and readiness official said Tuesday.

“You, as the man or woman, need to carry your load. So when we develop the standard, the standard is not just going to be for the females. The standard is going to be the standard,” said Jessica Wright, acting undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness.

Wright is overseeing the process of opening up all military jobs to women by 2016, including more than 200,000 billets that make up the core of the ground-level combat forces in the Army and Marine Corps. The four services are developing a new set of job-specific physical standards.

She said military officials are consulting with fitness experts, occupational therapists and other medical and health professionals to ensure that the emerging physical standard will be based on “science” rather than “opinion.”

Wright, a retired Army National Guard major general, used the example of a Marine infantry officer who must be able to carry a heavy pack on a long trek to develop the stamina needed for grueling infantry missions.

“If he can’t accomplish that mission, he is a failure as an infantry officer. If a female can’t accomplish the exact same standard, she is a failure at being an infantry officer and they both — should they not be able to accomplish the mission — put the mission at risk and put their teammates at risk,” Wright said.

Any exemptions to the rule opening all jobs to qualified women will have to be approved by the secretary of defense. Some officials from special operations commands have expressed concern about the impact of women on unit cohesion of the small teams that make up the bulk of the spec ops force.

The Marine Corps has moved swiftly to integrate women into the infantry. While no women have successfully completed the infantry training courses, 12 are now enrolled in the enlisted course in North Carolina. Earlier this year, 10 women enrolled in the infantry officers training course in Virginia, but for a variety of reasons, none completed it.

The Navy also recently set in motion plans to open up jobs with riverine units, which have traditionally been limited to men.

Wright spoke on Oct. 29 at a conference in Washington about diversity. Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., who was also at the conference, said Congress will closely oversee the integration of women into combat jobs to ensure that overall standards are not lowered.

“For the history of the military, those standards have been determined by males,” Cardin said at the conference. “There will be changes — maybe men should feel more threatened than women.”

Ultimately, Wright said, expanding the role of women in the military will improve readiness.

“We talk about diversity in the terms of race and gender and ethnicity, but it is much more than that in my mind,” she said. “It is diversity of thought, of ability, of background, of culture and of skills. Not just who you are or what religion you come from or the color of your skin but your thought process, how you grew up, what you can add to the greater good because of your background.”
Pakistan: 3 percent of drone deaths were civilians
Oct. 30, 2013 - 02:13PM



By Munir Ahmed and Sebastian Abbot
The Associated Press

ISLAMABAD — The Pakistani government said Wednesday that three percent of the people killed in U.S. drone strikes since 2008 were civilians, a surprisingly low figure that could alter the highly negative public perception of the attacks.

The number, which was provided by the Ministry of Defense to the Senate, is much lower than past government calculations and estimates by independent organizations. The ministry said 317 drone strikes have killed 2,160 Islamic militants and 67 civilians since 2008.

The attacks are widely disliked in Pakistan, where many people believe they violate the country’s sovereignty and kill too many innocent civilians. The Pakistani government regularly criticizes the drone program in public, even though it is known to have secretly supported at least some of the strikes in the past.

Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif pressed President Obama to end the attacks in a visit to the White House last week, but the U.S. gave no indication it was willing to abandon the attacks, which it views as vital to its battle against al-Qaida and the Taliban.

It’s unclear how the Pakistani public will respond to the new government data, and there was also no indication why it seems to differ so much from past government calculations and outside estimates.

A U.N. expert investigating drone strikes, Ben Emmerson, said earlier this month that the Pakistani Foreign Ministry told him that at least 400 civilians have been killed by the attacks in the country since they started in 2004.

Emmerson called on the government to explain the seeming discrepancy, saying the figures provided by the Foreign Ministry since 2004 indicated a much higher percentage of civilian casualties.

“If the true figures for civilian deaths are significantly lower, then it is important that this should now be made clear, and the apparent discrepancy explained,” Emmerson said in an email sent to The Associated Press.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, based in London, has estimated that at least 300 civilians have been killed by drones in Pakistan since 2008, while the Washington-based New America Foundation put the figure at 185 civilians. These estimates are often compiled based on media reports about the attacks.

Pakistan’s figure for total deaths, 2,227, is lower than some other totals, although not to the same degree as its figure for civilians. The Washington-based New America Foundation has a total of 2,651 people killed in drone strikes in Pakistan since 2008, while the Long War Journal website has 2,493.

Compiling the accurate number of civilian casualties from drone strikes is hampered by the danger of traveling to the remote tribal region where they take place.

The U.S. rarely speaks publicly about the CIA-run drone program in Pakistan because it is classified. But officials have insisted in private that the strikes have killed very few civilians and that estimates from the Pakistani government and independent organizations are exaggerated.

Amnesty International called on the U.S. to investigate reports of civilians killed and wounded by drone strikes in Pakistan in a report released earlier this month that provided new details about the alleged victims of the attacks, including a 68-year-old grandmother killed while farming with her grandchildren.

Mamana Bibi’s grandchildren told the London-based rights group that she was killed by missile fire on Oct. 24, 2012, as she was collecting vegetables in a family field in the North Waziristan tribal area, a major militant sanctuary near the Afghan border. Three of Bibi’s grandchildren were wounded in the strike, as were several others who were nearby, the victims said. Bibi’s relatives testified before members of the U.S. Congress on Tuesday.

An even deadlier incident noted by the report occurred in North Waziristan on July 6, 2012. Witnesses said a volley of missiles hit a tent where a group of men had gathered for an evening meal after work, and then a second struck those who came to help the wounded, one of a number of attacks that have hit rescuers, the rights group said.

Witnesses and relatives said that total of 18 male laborers with no links to militant groups died, according to Amnesty. Pakistani intelligence officials at the time identified the dead as suspected militants.

Contrary to the information outlined in the report, the Pakistani government said Wednesday that there were no civilian casualties in 2012. The government said 21 civilians were killed in 2008, nine in 2009, two in 2010 and 35 in 2011. No civilians have been killed so far in 2013, the defense ministry said.

Amnesty did not immediately respond to request for comment on the government data.

The government also said “terrorist” attacks have killed 12,404 people and wounded 26,881 others since 2002, although these figures were disputed by some of the members of the Senate. The government has been battling an insurgency by the Pakistani Taliban, which seeks to topple the country’s democratic system and impose Islamic law. It was not clear if the figure involved only attacks on civilians, or also included attacks on security forces.

A roadside bomb killed five soldiers and wounded three others Wednesday in the South Waziristan tribal area, the Pakistani Taliban’s main sanctuary before the army conducted a large ground offensive in 2009, said military officials. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity in line with military policy.

Also Wednesday, a bomb exploded in a market in southwestern Pakistan, killing two people and wounding at least 20 others, said police official Ahmad Raza. The attack occurred in Quetta, the capital of Baluchistan province. The province is home to both Islamic militants and separatists who have waged a low-level insurgency against the government for decades.

Associated Press writer Abdul Sattar contributed to this report from Quetta.
 

thunderchief

Senior Member
U.S. Fighter Aircraft Pricing Themselves Out of the Export Market

By Sandra I. Erwin

At a time when U.S. arms manufacturers are turning to overseas markets to help make up for declining sales to Pentagon, analysts warn that the high prices of American fighter jets could place U.S. firms at a competitive disadvantage.

The arrival of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter gives manufacturer Lockheed Martin Corp. an opportunity to sell the world’s most technologically advanced aircraft. But its price tag, in excess of $100 million per airplane, will make it unattainable for most non-U.S. buyers, according to new analysis by The Teal Group, a market research firm. Other perennial contenders in international competitions, Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-15 Eagle, also are becoming out of reach for many nations.

“We've jacked up the price of fighters,” says Teal Group Vice President Richard Aboulafia. “The export market’s reaction? ‘No, thank you,’” he tells industry executives at a meeting hosted by the Air Force Association, in Arlington, Va.

Although the average unit price of fighters sold internationally today is $65 million — about the cost of a Super hornet — the bulk of the export market increasingly wants F-16 prices, which is about one-third less, says Aboulafia.

Of 52 countries that buy fighters worldwide, 30 are in the $35 million to $50 million price range, he says.

American firms face a “ real issue” trying to sell higher end machines, Aboulafia says. There are currently just five F-15 users after 40 years of trying to sell it internationally, and one non-U.S. user of the Super Hornet after 15 years of competitions, he says. “That's not good.”
.......................................................

Rest of the story :
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Rest of the story :
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Well, the F-35 is coming down in price with each successive build. LRIP 7 will be at $98 million. I suspect LRIP 8 (the one before full rate production) will have it down to $92 million or so. Full rate production will bring it down even lower. I hope they get it into the mid $80s.

Still, a lot of people will look hard at aircraft like the F/A-18 Advanced Super Hornet. With its conformal fuel tanks, stealthy weapons pod, updated cockpit, more thrust, and stronger IR capabilities, it is a bargain at $56 million for a brand new aircraft. Same goes for the Silent Eagle.
 
Last edited:

thunderchief

Senior Member
Well, the F-35 is coming down in price with each successive build. LRIP 6 will be at $96 million. I suspect LRIP 8 (the one before full rate production) will have it down to $92 million or so. Full rate production will bring it down even lower. I hope they get it into the mid $80s.

Still, a lot of people will look hard at aircraft like the F/A-18 Advanced Super Hornet. With its conformal fuel tanks, stealthy weapons pod, updated cockpit, more thrust, and stronger IR capabilities, it is a bargain at $56 million for a brand new aircraft. Same goes for the Silent Eagle.

Well , according to official documents , flyaway cost of various F-35 variants in 2012 is above $150 million per unit , and for Super Hornet it is above $65 million :

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I recall that F/A-18 IN (for India ) would have cost somewhere between 70 and 80 million , but don't take my word for that .
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Well , according to official documents , flyaway cost of various F-35 variants in 2012 is above $150 million per unit , and for Super Hornet it is above $65 million :

I recall that F/A-18 IN (for India ) would have cost somewhere between 70 and 80 million , but don't take my word for that .
Those were 2012 figures...and the high cost item was, and remains the F-35C, but only a few of those have been built, their prices are coming down too as more are built.

But, the current data is clear. On
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
for LRIP lots 6 (36 units for 2014) and 7 (35 units for 2015) and they are as follows:

Lockheed Martin Press Release said:
LRIP 6:
USAF F-35A - 23 Units at $103 million each
USMC F-35B - 6 Units at $109 million each
USN F-35C - 7 Units at $120 million each

LRIP 7:
USAF F-35A - 24 units at $98 million each
USMC F-35B - 7 uUnits at $ 104 million each
USN F-35C - 4 Units at $116 million each

Those are the current contract prices, and we are VERY early in this program. When all of those are built, the US will have a total of 142 aircraft built out of over 2,400 planned. So the cost will continue to drop, and significantly. In the end, the average price for F-35s will be well under $100 million dollars, and maybe under $90 million dollar.

As to the F/A-18 Advanced Super Hornet, Boeing itself cites the cost at $56 million for the Advanced Super Hornet in an
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
dated Aug 29, 2013.

Aviation Week said:
If the service were to buy new advanced F/A-18s with the upgrades, the cost would be roughly about $56 million, or 10% higher than the most recent flyaway cost in the third multiyear buy cited for the F/A-18F by the company of $51 million (this price includes the aircraft, both engines and electronic warfare gear).
 

Pointblank

Senior Member
As to the F/A-18 Advanced Super Hornet, Boeing itself cites the cost at $56 million for the Advanced Super Hornet in an
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
dated Aug 29, 2013.

The US DoD's Selected Acquisition Report from 2011 on the Super Hornet states that the per-​unit reoccurring flyaway cost (basically the aircraft with no ancillary equipment or spares), comes to $82.88 million USD:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I believe the Boeing numbers are without engines, as they are government-furnished equipment.
 

thunderchief

Senior Member
Those are the current contract prices, and we are VERY early in this program. When all of those are built, the US will have a total of 142 aircraft built out of over 2,400 planned. So the cost will continue to drop, and significantly. In the end, the average price for F-35s will be well under $100 million dollars, and maybe under $90 million dollar.

As to the F/A-18 Advanced Super Hornet, Boeing itself cites the cost at $56 million for the Advanced Super Hornet in an
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
dated Aug 29, 2013.

I don't know Jeff , something really doesn't add up here . Maybe these are prices without engines , as Pointblank mentioned . Btw , this site claims that Australians paid A$ 3 billion ($2.36 billion) for their 24 Super Hornets ( $98 million per aircraft)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


And this site claims they would spend $1.5 billion for additional 12 Growlers ( $125 million per aircraft) and $3.2 billion for 14 F-35s ( $228 million per aircraft)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
The US DoD's Selected Acquisition Report from 2011 on the Super Hornet states that the per-​unit reoccurring flyaway cost (basically the aircraft with no ancillary equipment or spares), comes to $82.88 million USD:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I believe the Boeing numbers are without engines, as they are government-furnished equipment.
No, if you read the article, it specifically states that that price is with both engines.

Aviation Week said:
...this price includes the aircraft, both engines and electronic warfare gear.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
I don't know Jeff , something really doesn't add up here . Maybe these are prices without engines , as Pointblank mentioned . Btw , this site claims that Australians paid A$ 3 billion ($2.36 billion) for their 24 Super Hornets ( $98 million per aircraft)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


And this site claims they would spend $1.5 billion for additional 12 Growlers ( $125 million per aircraft) and $3.2 billion for 14 F-35s ( $228 million per aircraft)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I cannot speak to what ther countries are buying them for...and usually those contracts include a lot of spare parts, additional engines, and miantenance as well, so simply dividing up the costs by the number of aircraft does not give you the fly away costs of each aircraft.

As to the F-35 costs. Those prices I showed are 2013 prices attached to a signed contract. Rehashing 2011 or 2012 prices does not reflect what they are selling for now.

As to the Advanced Super Hornet price, all we have is what Boeing is stating themselves. I am sure the government, based on that statement will drive hard for that price. We will not know the actual price until the contract is signed.
 
Top