US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

FORBIN

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


Right now, as chance would have it, the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) is dockedright next to the USS Enterprise (CVN 65), which is being dismantled, and which USS Gerald R. Ford will replace in the U.S. Navy fleet.

Now isn't that a picture that would be great to see!

...a few minutes later. hehehe. well I did find this. I am sure more will come out later. it's just too historic. The 1st nucler carrier docked next to the latest nuclear carrier. will only come along once.
Enterprise is the first US CVN dismantled also.

I believe nuclear reactor previously dismantled.
 

thunderchief

Senior Member
Air Force nuclear troubles run deep; key officers 'burned out'

WASHINGTON — Trouble inside the Air Force's nuclear missile force runs deeper and wider than officials have let on.

An unpublished study for the Air Force, obtained by The Associated Press, cites "burnout" among launch officers with their fingers on the triggers of 450 weapons of mass destruction. Also, evidence of broader behavioral issues across the intercontinental ballistic missile force, including sexual assaults and domestic violence.

The study, provided to the AP in draft form, says that court-martial rates in the nuclear missile force in 2011 and 2012 were more than twice as high as in the overall Air Force. Administrative punishments, such as written reprimands for rules violations and other misbehavior, also were higher in those years.

These indicators add a new dimension to an emerging picture of malaise and worse inside the ICBM force, an arm of the Air Force with a proud heritage but an uncertain future.

Concerned about heightened levels of misconduct, the Air Force directed RAND Corp., the federally funded research house, to conduct a three-month study of work conditions and attitudes among the men and women inside the ICBM force. It found a toxic mix of frustration and aggravation, heightened by a sense of being unappreciated, overworked, micromanaged and at constant risk of failure.

Remote and rarely seen, the ICBM force gets little public attention. The AP, however, this year has documented a string of missteps that call into question the management of a force that demands strict obedience to procedures....................

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Well, if US personnel, which are required by law to maintain very strict safety, health, time-on-station, and shift requirements to insure that they do not become fatigued are having "burn out," issues, I shiver to think what is going on in other places in the world where such requirements are not as stringent.
 

Jeff Head

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



thumb_131113_O_SW468_025.jpg


Sea Waves said:
The Navy concluded another round of carrier testing Nov. 19 to further demonstrate and evaluate the X-47B unmanned air system integration within the aircraft carrier environment.

Tests aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) included deck handling, carrier approaches and landings in off-nominal wind conditions, digitized ship systems interfaces, and concept of operations development.

“The X-47 was tested in winds of higher magnitude and differing directions than seen in previous detachments,” said Program Manager for Unmanned Carrier Aviation Capt. Beau Duarte. “This resulted in more stimulus provided to the aircraft’s guidance and control algorithms and a more robust verification of its GPS autoland capability.”

This test phase, which began Nov. 9, also provided an opportunity for the second X-47B to make an appearance, marking the first time both aircraft appeared together in a carrier environment.

Over the flight test period, the X-47Bs performed 26 total deck touchdowns: 21 precise touch-and-goes and five arrested landings; as well as five catapults, five commanded and two autonomous wave-offs. While one X-47B operated in the vicinity of CVN 71, the second air vehicle conducted flight operations between ship and shore. Both X-47Bs are assigned to Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23 at Naval Air Station Patuxent River.

“The Navy and industry team once again conducted productive flight operations in the CVN environment,” said Barbara Weathers, Unmanned Combat Air System deputy program manager. “The carrier systems installation and system checkouts were performed in record time, quite an amazing feat.”

The Navy will operate the X-47B throughout FY14 to conduct further land and carrier based testing to mature unmanned technologies and refine concept of operations to further inform future unmanned carrier requirements.

“The Navy is committed to developing, maturing, and fielding unmanned carrier aviation capabilities into our carrier air wings and carrier environments. This week’s successful carrier operations demonstrated the feasibility and realistic path to achieving the manned/unmanned air wing of the future,” said Rear Adm. Mat Winter, program executive officer for Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons (PEO(U&W)), which oversees the UCAS program.

This is very good stuff. For the first time both aircraft were used at once, and they are now testing them at more adverse climatic conditions.
 
Last edited:

thunderchief

Senior Member
Well, if US personnel, which are required by law to maintain very strict safety, health, time-on-station, and shift requirements to insure that they do not become fatigued are having "burn out," issues, I shiver to think what is going on in other places in the world where such requirements are not as stringent.

Reading the article and some comments , looks like lot of nuclear missileers think they are redundant and in dead-end job with no carrier prospect . When you add that their duties are usually boring , but rules strict and punishment swift , no wonder they have lower morale then other USAF personnel .
 

Jeff Head

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



CharlesDavidJrCommissioning.jpg


Sea Waves said:
November 16, 2013 - Coast Guard Cutter Charles David Jr was commissioned into service Nov. 16 at Coast Guard Sector Key West, Fla. Charles David Jr is the first of six Fast Response Cutters (FRC) to be homeported in Key West and the seventh vessel to be delivered through the Coast Guard’s Sentinel-class FRC recapitalization project.

Rear Adm. Jake Korn, Coast Guard Seventh District commander; Sharon David, granddaughter of the cutter’s namesake and sponsor of the Coast Guard Cutter Charles David Jr; and Chris Bollinger, president of Bollinger Shipyards; look at information about Charles W. David Jr. before the commissioning ceremony. Steward’s Mate 1st Class Charles David Jr. was posthumously awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Medal for his part in saving the lives of nearly 100 U.S. Army soldiers and members of his own crew during World War II. U.S. Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Mark Barney.

The cutter’s namesake, Steward’s Mate 1st Class Charles W. David Jr., was posthumously awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Medal and the Immortal Chaplains Prize for Humanity for his heroism during the 1943 rescue of survivors from the torpedoed Army transport ship Dorchester.

The night of Feb. 3, 1943, the Comanche was on convoy duty in the North Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Greenland when it was called to the aid of the Dorchester, which had been attacked by an enemy submarine and was rapidly sinking. When survivors were spotted, David and several shipmates volunteered to dive into the frigid North Atlantic and saved nearly 100 soldiers and many of the Dorchester’s crew. When Comanche’s executive officer, Lt. Langford Anderson, feeling the effects of hypothermia and exhaustion, was unable to return to the cutter, David plunged into the water again and helped him aboard. David succumbed to pneumonia three days later, leaving behind a widow and a young son.

Charles David Jr is 154 feet long, has a beam of 25 feet and a maximum sustained speed of more than 28 knots. The cutter is armed with a stabilized 25-millimeter machine-gun mount and four crew-served .50-caliber machine guns. Charles David Jr will provide support operations in the Seventh Coast Guard District, an area comprised of 1.8 million square nautical miles of ocean ranging from the South Carolina coast to the Caribbean.

This is the seventh vessel commissioned in the past two years. Seven more are currently building and the rate of building and commissioning has increased. The US Coast Guard intends on building almost 60 of these vessels.

At the same time, the fourth large 4,500 Defender Class National Security Cutter was launched this year and the fifth and sixth are under construction. These are large, modern, ocean going vessels. Eight of them are planned.

Finally, the largest US military open shipbuilding project still not awarded is the US Coast Guard Offshore Patrol Cutter program. Twenty-five 3,000+ ton plus vessels, over 300 ft. long each and with a beam of 52+ ft., armed probably with a 57mm gun and a helo pad and hanger, hang in the balance. Eight shipbuilders are currently competing, which is supposed to be cut down to three ship builders and their designs by February 2014. Then a single design will be selected for potential building at multiple yards to start in 2016 with the first vessels coming in service in 2020.

The US Coast Guard is involved in a major modernization prgraam across the board for its larger cutters.
 

navyreco

Senior Member
Northrop Grumman Delivers Additional MQ-8C Fire Scout VTOL UAV to the U.S. Navy
Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) has delivered the second MQ-8C Fire Scout unmanned helicopter to the U.S. Navy after completing final assembly at the company's unmanned systems center in Moss Point, Miss. The aircraft is joining the first one delivered to Naval Base Ventura County, Point Mugu, Calif., to conduct flight testing before using the system for operational missions in 2014.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
BAE, GD: We Can Cut Weight From Army’s GCV
By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR. on November 27, 2013 at 4:29 AM


As storm clouds loom over the Army’s controversial Ground Combat Vehicle, both contractors competing for GCV say they’re focused on completing the program of record still on the books. But if the Army slows the program down – a near-certainty at this point – both BAE Systems and General Dynamics told me they are ready to adapt. In fact, they’ll make the best of any extra time to refine their designs and develop new technologies.

The biggest single criticism of the GCV has been how heavy it is. The Congressional Budget Office estimated up to 84 tons, although the fine print noted that figure was for a hypothetical future version that had grown to the maximum the vehicle could bear. News stories often describe it as weighing over 70 tons. But both contractors insist their designs are already below that figure and that they can keep whittling the weight down over time.

Depending on how much modular armor you bolt on to BAE’s current design, “it’d be in the 60- to 70-ton range depending on the configuration,” said BAE program director Deepak Bazaz.

Not coincidentally, 70 tons plus 20 percent more weight for future upgrades — a margin for growth the Army requires the GCV designs to have — is how CBO came up with its 84-ton figure.

General Dynamics was more specific, perhaps because their choice of a traditional diesel engine leaves them with less uncertainty than BAE’s hybrid drive. Even allowing for 20 percent growth, said GD’s GCV director, Robert Sorge, a future upgrade of their design would still max out at 76 tons. In the most heavily armored configuration currently planned, it’s about 62 tons, he told me. If commanders decide to sacrifice some protection for easier deployment by aircraft, they could get it down to 56.

BAE technicians work on the "hotbuck" testbed for their Ground Combat Vehicle design.
BAE technicians work on the “hotbuck” testbed for their Ground Combat Vehicle design.
That’s still darn heavy. The Army’s current M1A2 Abrams main battle tank, built by General Dynamics, weighs 69 to 70 tons depending on its armor package. But the tank-like BAE M2 Bradley troop carrier that the GCV is supposed to replace weighs 36 to 40 tons. General Dynamics’ eight-wheel-drive Stryker troop carrier weighs just 21 to 26 tons.

It was air-delivered Strykers that formed the spearhead of an Army rapid-deployment force in a recent wargame set in 2030. And top brass from Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno on down are insisting that the Army needs to get lighter and more “expeditionary” to respond quickly to post-Afghanistan crises around the world.

So if the sequestration budget cuts force the Army to put the GCV program on slo-mo, can the contractors use the extra time to get the weight down?

Yes, but. A really significant decrease would require either a breakthrough in protective technology — such as ultra-light armor or an “active-protection system” to shoot down incoming tank shells — or a reduction in the size of the squad the vehicle must carry. A breakthrough is a technological long shot, but the Army is already considering shrinking the squad.

“You always have material advances but I think sometimes we lean on that a little bit too heavily,” said Bazaz. “There’s never been any radical change to the materials that we’ve employed over the last 30 years. There’s been a continued progression.”

“I’m not holding my breath for any breakthrough technology,” agreed Sorge. “I think there’s a lot of potential there, that’s one of the areas we’d be looking for” — but he’s hardly counting on it.

What the designers definitely can do right now, however, if the Army tells them to, is make the GCV smaller. “Structure and armor to protect 12 soldiers is one of the biggest weight drivers on the vehicle,” Sorge said. “Providing enough space for a large 2015 male soldier with all his gear, times 12 people, defines the volume that you need to build the vehicle around.”

The Army’s current specs insist the GCV carry a full nine-man infantry squad in back — like the Stryker — and a crew of three — driver, gunner, and commander. But the aging Bradley and, for that matter, the German-built Puma sometimes suggested as an alternative to GCV only carry a six-man squad.

Both vehicles still have a three-man crew, so a unit using Bradleys, Pumas, or other mid-size troop carriers would need not only more vehicles but more personnel to drive around the same amount of foot troops. That, in turn, might well drive the total cost and weight of the unit right back up to where it would be with GCVs. In the past, however, the Army insisted that a nine-man squad was the minimum to keep fighting after taking casualties and that the whole squad had to ride in one vehicle to prevent lethal confusion on the battlefield. Now it looks like the service is willing to at least calculate the trade-offs.

The last time the Army tried to replace the Bradley, with what it called the Future Combat System, it attempted to square the circle of a nine-man squad in a lightweight vehicle by relying, not on heavy armor, but on superior sensors to avoid danger in the first place and on an active protection system to shoot down incoming rounds. FCS proved unmanageably ambitious and was cancelled in 2009, after designs had already swelled from 19 tons to nearly 30.

Active protection systems simply weren’t ready for battle then and no American-made systems are ready now. Some systems, like the Israeli Trophy, can react and destroy an incoming round filled with high explosive — say, a rocket-propelled grenade or anti-tank missile — but there’s nothing that can shoot down a solid anti-tank shell moving at about a mile per second. The Army asked industry for APS in its original GCV specs but then decided that feature would have to wait for later upgrades. Having enough time to get APS to really work, said Bazaz, would be the real “game changer.”

Sorge agreed maturing active protection systems would be a top priority for any extra time. Extra testing would also allow some improvement in mechanical reliability, sensors, and on armor protection against roadside bombs and mines.

So far, however, they’ve not gotten any order from the Army to change the pace. “We’ve heard lots of things and read lots of things; we don’t have anything official,” Sorge said. “The official plan is still the plan of record which had a Milestone B” — the official move into procurement — “in the June-July timeframe of ’14, with EMD [engineering and manufacturing development] starting right after that.” It’s the EMD stage that is now in doubt. EMD’s when both companies would build drivable prototypes, though they already have stationary testbeds for all their components, including working engines and transmissions.

“The thing I’m focused on is continuing to execute the program. We still run through next June,” agreed Bazaz. “Dark clouds or whatever, there’s uncertainty in the future, but we’ve still got contract deliverables and that’s what we’re working on now.”
Breaking defence

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Revision TALOS

Army releases RFP for new armored vehicle
Nov. 26, 2013 - 04:43PM |
Army Times
The Army's Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle program will replace the service's M113 armored personnel carrier.
The Army's Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle program will replace the service's M113 armored personnel carrier. (Army)

By Paul McLeary
FILED UNDER
News
WASHINGTON — After releasing several draft request for proposal documents over the past year, on Tuesday the Army finally released the final specs for the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle’s engineering and manufacturing development phase.

Despite sequestration and the service’s need to cut billions of dollars from its budget in the coming years, the program appears to be soldiering on, with a solid requirement of 2,907 vehicles to be built over 13 years at roughly $1.8 million apiece.

In October, the Army announced it intended to delay the start of the program by a year while raising developmental costs by several hundred million dollars in its quest to replace thousands of Vietnam War-era M113 tracked armored personnel carriers.

The new document says the Army plans to award a five-year EMD contract in May 2014 to one contractor who will manufacture 29 vehicles for government testing, followed by a three-year low-rate initial production contract beginning in 2020.

Earlier documents estimated the EMD phase would run from fiscal 2014 to 2017 and cost $388 million. But the final plan stretches that out while adding to the overall price tag. The EMD phase will run from fiscal 2015 to 2019 and cost $458 million to develop and build the 29 prototypes.

The document released Tuesday lowered that number slightly to $436 million.

Likewise, whereas the estimate for the LRIP order of 289 vehicles between 2018 and 2020 was initially pegged at $1.08 billion, the Tuesday RFP lists three options for the LRIP years totaling $1.2 billion, giving the program a $1.68 billion budget before full-rate production begins.

The Army requested $116 million in its fiscal 2014 budget for development activities for the AMPV, which Congress approved.

The LRIP order will go to only one winner, and BAE Systems and General Dynamics are vying for the final prize.

BAE is offering a variant of its turretless Bradley, while General Dynamics is offering either its wheeled double V-hull Stryker or a new tracked version of the Stryker.

The AMPV has taken on increasing importance in recent months as the Army appears to be moving away from developing the costly — and increasingly heavy — ground combat vehicle as its primary heavy infantry carrier of the future.

What that will mean for the AMPV, and how much of the program will survive the current budget environment, likely will not become clear for several months as the military services work through their five-year budget proposals and have them reviewed by the secretary of defense.

Stryker Tracked
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Bradley Turret less
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


War game compares response of 2 versions of future Army
Nov. 25, 2013 - 06:00AM |

Fury troopers train for close quarters combat scen
A reduced reliance on airfields and seaports in a recent war game resulted in increased speed and entry operations. (Sgt. Juan F. Jimenez/Army)

By Lance M. Bacon
Staff writer
FILED UNDER
News
New Gear: What’s next
If necessity is the mother of invention, get ready for a lot of new stuff. In the near term, that will include:
■ Getting the network into standard units.
■ More interoperable and user-friendly mission command.
■ Mobile and survivable command posts.
■ 3-D or 4-D printing to reduce logistic repairs.
■ Hands-free, heads-up displays so “people playing ‘Call of Duty’ [no longer] have an ability to access data our soldiers don’t.”
And that is just the start, according to Maj. Gen. Bill Hicks, deputy director for the Army Capabilities Integration Center. He described some “very promising” advances in science and technology after the conference. One was mo-lecular changes to reduce the weight of vehicle armor by half without lessening protection.
Have you ever heard of graphene? It would take an elephant balanced on a pencil to break through a sheet with the thickness (or thinness) of plastic wrap. Imagine using that as body armor.
The Innovation Group moved one-third of its force using two conceptual troop carriers. One was an ultra-heavy vertical takeoff-and-landing aircraft that would (theoretically) cut BCT deployment from 29 days to four. The other was a conceptual joint high-speed, shallow-draft ship expected to reduce sealift time by half.
Many in attendance were pleased with the modeled results and pressed the need for such platforms. In an era of austere entry, that would seem necessary.
But one top Army leader said not to count on it. Not because he didn’t like the idea. He did. But these programs would require joint money, and they may not be a priority for sister services.
“We’ve done that in the past, and it failed every time,” he said.
The general advised looking at making the Army’s fighting force smaller and faster.
Related Links
Army forecasts shrinking squads, smaller vehicles

A major shift took place Nov. 20 that will change the Army as you know it.

Squads and brigades will be smaller and complemented by robotics, as well as unmanned ground and aerial vehicles. The heaviest vehicles will come in at 30 tons — less than half the weight of the M1A1 tank and the planned Ground Combat Vehicle. Front-line fighters will be equipped with intelligence gear that operates at the “speed of change.” Some soldiers may be assigned to a region for their entire career. The human and cyber domains of war will be merged.

Service leaders have been touting an expeditionary and scalable Army. Now, they’re putting their money where their mouth is. They are using the five-year drop in funding to change investment strategies and turn to innovative solutions that will reconfigure all manner of formations with rapid deployment in mind.

These revolutionary changes were not established on Congress’ floor or within the Pentagon’s halls. Instead, they came in a National Defense University conference room, where dozens of top generals and civilian service leaders gathered to discuss the results of a yearlong training exercise geared toward future conflict.

The exercise is called Unified Quest. The scenario centered on the use of chemical weapons by a collapsing nation against U.S. forces at home and abroad. The nation had chemical weapon stored in seven cities, and there was a strong possibility of nuclear weapon proliferation from a border nation.

The war game took place in 2025, and with good reason. Two separate teams independently responded to the same scenario. The first, called the “Evolution Group,” was equipped with current and planned capabilities and structures. The second, called the “Innovation Group,” was equipped largely with nonexistent but technologically feasible gear and used a variety of unique strategies and force structures.

The results were telling.

The Evolution Group took nearly four weeks to deploy and its operational fires commenced on Day 29. When the operation concluded on Day 85, the weapons of mass destruction were lost and blue forces could not account for opposition scientists.

The Innovation Group, using the same model, departed in five days and commenced operational fires on Day 8. The operation concluded on Day 24 with all WMD either secured or fixed.

With that said, it wasn’t easy for the Innovation Group. A reduced reliance on airfields and seaports resulted in increased speed and entry operations, and multiple points of entry left enemy forces scrambling. But it was difficult to move or sustain blue forces after entry. This led to an advantage for the adversary.

While the Evolution Group had more robust sustainment due to concurrent arrival, its troubles far outweighed its successes. One infantry brigade combat team had no reserve and limited resupply. The adversary massed fires and overwhelmed this “vulnerable” force. And the enemy was able to anticipate and resist the predictable (and necessary) reliance on major ports and airfields.

When the dust settled, senior leaders saw a need to change formations, strategies and gear to better succeed on future battlefields.

Changes to troops
The first battle is to prevent the battle, and win decisively and quickly if full battle is required.

The Unified Quest exercise validated the regional alignment model designed to enable soldiers to prevent and shape so they don’t have to fight and win, especially if that fight may become a large-scale conflict a cash-strapped Army is not equipped to fight. So you can expect this plan to gain steam in coming years.

A lot of preparatory training will be done at home station — a combination of run-and-gun and virtual, simulated and integrated training to replicate scenarios you are likely to face while deployed. Those threats will range from the complex to the criminal.

Expect immersion in language, regional expertise and culture training. Soldiers also will spend a lot of time training allied armies to do things they are now unable to do. There will be a lot of joint and partner-building exercises to increase U.S. influence and enhance the nation’s ability to gain access if required.

One general officer questioned whether a 19-year-old could handle the tasks described, and suggested the need for a more educated, higher-ranking force as the Army gets smaller.

A top leader rebuffed the idea and said young officers have proved they can handle responsibilities. He added that he is “overwhelmed by the increasing knowledge, understanding and capabilities of [noncommissioned officers],” and that the goal is to further develop the NCO corps for such operations and environments.

He pointed to author Malcolm Gladwell’s theory that it takes 10,000 hours of practice to master a skill. The goal now is to compress the experience of a 35-year-old special operator into a 25-year-old officer or NCO.

Training is one obvious aspect. But Army leadership also is looking to science and technology to build better soldiers. Such science can help people learn faster, identify those prone or immune to stress, hone decision-making skills and measure various propensities. The latter can help put people in the right teams or place the right person in the right specialty. It also can help identify toxic leaders early on.

Such science is already a part of the Brigade Pre-Command Course. One leader said this aspect gets the lowest marks among students at the onset but the highest marks upon completion.

“We probably need to do this before they become brigade commanders,” he said. “This is low-cost, high-impact.”

Changes to strategy
While deployed forces will maintain strategic balance, expeditionary maneuver will restore balance when required. The key will be getting forces in during a narrow time window before the situation deteriorates. As the exercise showed, the Army as planned doesn’t do well in this endeavor.

For starters, it is not geared well for the growth in urbanization expected in coming years. The world is growing closer physically and virtually. It’s predicted that by 2040, 65 percent of world’s population will live in megacities far larger than New York City. One-third — some 2 billion people — will live in slum conditions. The Arab Spring will continue to shake out and weapons proliferation will pose new risks. An increase in coalition building around specific problems is likely, and enemy combatants will move across borders with ease.

Many more problems can be added to that:

■Increasing deficiencies in cyber warfare.

■A lack of battlefield intelligence at the squad level.

■Increasingly hostile anti-access and area-denial capabilities.

■A lack of airlift.

Fewer than one-third of Air Force crews are airborne-qualified. Gen. Robert Cone, commander of Army Training and Doctrine Command, this year identified 23 deficiencies in troop delivery during a similar exercise.

“We are too heavy and too reliant on old platforms,” one senior leader said at the conference.

Army Times was granted access to this open, and sometimes contentious, discussion under the agreement of anonymity for speakers.

The exercise also found that speed doesn’t come without risk. The Innovation Group had reduced reliance on airfields and seaports. The increased speed and multiple points of entry left enemy forces scrambling. But it came close to mission failure because resupply could not keep up. And the team had to rely on linear logistics and because sea basing could not be established.

Logistics leaders agreed that their field is “not yet integrated with the global response strategy of an expeditionary Army.”

“We have 20th-century logistics supporting 21st-century fighting forces,” one said.

As such, box kickers can expect serious effort toward technical advancements.

Sustainment wasn’t the red flag. A greater emphasis also will be placed on how quickly and competently the Army can aggregate and disaggregate units. Future force structure will lean heavily on the rapid forming, dissolving and reforming of units. Brigade combat teams and divisions may not operate in habitual command relationships. These realities were not dismissed lightly, as it was a significant issue in many hot washes that followed operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Despite these obstacles, the exercise showed that speed of operation will matter greatly in future operations. This approach better ensures an adversary “will be forced to respond to our actions, at the time and place of our choosing,” one four-star said.

And it will keep troops safe. The high-speed Innovation Group was able to decrease from high to low threat in 15 days. The Evolution Group didn’t get there until Day 45.

An unexpected turn of events happened when the intel community made a case for using “well-versed assignments” to keep its highly trained people in their region of interest. Top leaders didn’t balk at the idea. In fact, one who has a whole lot of pull said some enablers should remain in their region of expertise, and that he was “open to idea of aligning brigades” in such a manner but couched that comment by saying the service would “know better as the structure evolves.”

Yes, the Army’s 30-year plan was released just last year. And yes, it seems much of it will be thrown out the window.

But leaders are optimistic about the changes.

Eighty percent of gear the Army will use to fight in 2020 is already in the force or in the works, participants said. The bulk of these programs were started between 1990 and 2005. Much has changed and continues to change. The Evolution Group showed that the planned Army will not be optimal in light of such radical change.

Simply put, the Army will be in a fair fight by 2025 if these changes are not made, top leaders said.

The U.S. has “substantial advantage” only in interconnectivity and synthetic biology, they said. There is “considerable advantage” in armor, rail guns and robotics. Investment is needed to retain advantage in computing, night vision and UAVs. Adversaries are already overtaking advantages in active protection, cannon and rocket artillery, chemical weapons, C3/deception, solid rocket booster missiles and shaped charges.

But a “leap-ahead investment” in cyber, energetics, laser weapons, radio frequency weapons or power could be a “game-changer.” These will better allow for the self-sufficiency needed to overcome the logistics burden and operate in swift fashion.

But the delicate balance of the theoretical and practical was evident as ideas were exchanged. Representatives from research, development and acquisition fields sometimes looked perplexed, sometimes sat wide-eyed — and sometimes emitted audible gasps as uniformed leaders described the capabilities they need.

One example came when a top leader demanded a better network on the battlefield and made the familiar point to a smartphone as an example.

“We must have situational awareness while moving,” he said, describing troops as being in a black hole for hours while the aircraft draws near the mission. And when they arrive, “it is a completely different situation than when they took off.

“When we deploy, we have to put 100 damn trucks on the ground. Why?” he asked. “Instead of bringing infrastructure, let’s use the existing infrastructure. Let’s focus on the protection of data and reduce our footprint by 90 percent.”

The suits in attendance said it is a good idea, but it would require a much more open architecture that would be far more difficult to manage. In addition, cellular networks are not available everywhere. And if they are, additional capabilities may be needed. And if the people running that network “show up and turn it off on you, now you’re really going to struggle.”

The general wasn’t ready to retreat. He gave the builders and thinkers the green light to not only see what science has to offer but to help develop that technology. And while the soldier can’t always use host-nation networks, a rapid and immediate network could be developed that would have a far smaller footprint, he said before repeating the prevailing focus: “A reduced footprint means increased speed and increased lethality.”

Such differing dialogue was the exception, not the rule. The suits were motivated by the pending changes and the careful approach described by Army leaders. For example, they were told to not follow the Future Combat Systems example and instead make sure the item works before it is bought. That means experimentation such as that seen in the Network Integration Exercise will likely be required prior to acquisition.

Changes to gear
Yes, the Army’s 30-year plan was released just last year. And yes, it seems much of it will be thrown out the window.

But leaders are optimistic about the changes.

Eighty percent of gear the Army will use to fight in 2020 is already in the force or in the works, participants said. The bulk of these programs were started between 1990 and 2005. Much has changed and continues to change. The Evolution Group showed that the planned Army will not be optimal in light of such radical change.

Simply put, the Army will be in a fair fight by 2025 if these changes are not made, top leaders said.

The U.S. has “substantial advantage” only in interconnectivity and synthetic biology, they said. There is “considerable advantage” in armor, rail guns and robotics. Investment is needed to retain advantage in computing, night vision and UAVs. Adversaries are already overtaking advantages in active protection, cannon and rocket artillery, chemical weapons, C3/deception, solid rocket booster missiles and shaped charges.

But a “leap-ahead investment” in cyber, energetics, laser weapons, radio frequency weapons or power could be a “game-changer.” These will better allow for the self-sufficiency needed to overcome the logistics burden and operate in swift fashion.

But the delicate balance of the theoretical and practical was evident as ideas were exchanged. Representatives from research, development and acquisition fields sometimes looked perplexed, sometimes sat wide-eyed — and sometimes emitted audible gasps as uniformed leaders described the capabilities they need.

One example came when a top leader demanded a better network on the battlefield and made the familiar point to a smartphone as an example.

“We must have situational awareness while moving,” he said, describing troops as being in a black hole for hours while the aircraft draws near the mission. And when they arrive, “it is a completely different situation than when they took off.

“When we deploy, we have to put 100 damn trucks on the ground. Why?” he asked. “Instead of bringing infrastructure, let’s use the existing infrastructure. Let’s focus on the protection of data and reduce our footprint by 90 percent.”

The suits in attendance said it is a good idea, but it would require a much more open architecture that would be far more difficult to manage. In addition, cellular networks are not available everywhere. And if they are, additional capabilities may be needed. And if the people running that network “show up and turn it off on you, now you’re really going to struggle.”

The general wasn’t ready to retreat. He gave the builders and thinkers the green light to not only see what science has to offer but to help develop that technology. And while the soldier can’t always use host-nation networks, a rapid and immediate network could be developed that would have a far smaller footprint, he said before repeating the prevailing focus: “A reduced footprint means increased speed and increased lethality.”

Such differing dialogue was the exception, not the rule. The suits were motivated by the pending changes and the careful approach described by Army leaders. For example, they were told to not follow the Future Combat Systems example and instead make sure the item works before it is bought. That means experimentation such as that seen in the Network Integration Exercise will likely be required prior to acquisition.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Gentex IHPS

Army forecasts shrinking squads, smaller vehicles
Nov. 25, 2013 - 09:39PM |

Army leaders are beginning to consider cutting the size of a squad from nine soldiers to as few as six.
Army leaders are beginning to consider cutting the size of a squad from nine soldiers to as few as six. (Army)

By Paul McLeary
Staff writer
FILED UNDER
News
Related Links
War game compares response of 2 versions of future Army
WASHINGTON — For the Army, everything is on the table.

During the service’s yearly senior leader seminar Nov. 20, the Army’s top uniformed leadership for the first time called for a look at cutting the size of the squad from nine soldiers to as low as six, while reminding subordinates that the service is shrinking and likely won’t be able to afford new leap-ahead technologies in the near future.

And briefing slides referenced vehicles half the weight of the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV), which enjoys dwindling support among the brass.

Going smaller while focusing investments on increasing the combat punch a small unit can bring to bear will “make us more affordable, yet as capable” as the service is now, one leading general said. A key point is also to become faster and more expeditionary.

One senior leader said that in coming years, the Army will have to “reduce the size of our formations but increase the capability of our formations. ...If we can be more effective with less people it will make us more expeditionary.”

A handful of reporters were allowed to sit in on the briefing under the condition that names not be used.

This talk about moving faster comes in response to the fact that the Army will primarily be a domestically based force in the coming years. The idea that rapid deployability to hot spots around the world will be a key to future conflicts is one that the Army is taking very seriously.

This new push has generated a new Army catchphrase: “Speed that matters.”

The thinking goes that speed can act as a deterrent to adversaries. The idea was also floated during the seminar that having a rapidly deployable force provides civilian leadership with more leverage and “decision space” in which to politically exploit an adversary’s weakness.

While leadership has “latched on to this idea that we need speed to buy time for decision makers, I don’t see the policy makers saying the reason I can’t make decisions is because the Army isn’t moving fast enough,” said Maren Leed, a frequent Army adviser and analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

One general complained that “our Army is too heavy and reliant” on the other services for lift to other parts of the globe. The answer for the future, he said, is to “tailor our heavy forces into smaller, more capable force packages. ...The Navy and Air Force are both reducing strategic lift.” Without upgrading heavy lift capabilities, it will take the Army weeks to get all of the necessary gear overseas.

But getting to the fight only means so much. It’s what you bring to the fight — and the way you fight — that worries the service.

“We have about a five-year gap in our modernization” plan on the horizon, one four-star estimated, and the coming gap “means we have no choice: We have to go to the innovative approach. Our budget is driving us that way.”

The “innovative approach” will lead the Army away from simply building on existing platforms and technologies and toward a search for new armor and other technological advances that may pan out in coming years as the service pinches its pennies by placing some key modernization programs on hold.

Chief among them is the GCV program, on which the Army has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars but can’t reduce the vehicle’s weight to less than 70 tons — a weight that would make it heavier than a fully loaded Abrams tank.

For comparison, the Bradley fighting vehicle, which can carry about seven soldiers — less than a full nine-man squad —weighs about 33 tons, while the 19-ton Stryker can carry a squad.

One GCV-unfriendly slide sketched out the path that the Army wants its heavy troop carriers to go. Tellingly, the vision for 2030 showed a platform that weighed 30 tons, less than half of the GCV, which has been scheduled to go into production at the end of this decade.

The Army has publicly walked back its support for the program in recent weeks, saying that it will likely continue work on the GCV for several years longer than it had originally anticipated in order to get the requirements right.

Two Scenarios
The seminar at Fort Lesley J. McNair was not only to hash out future operating concepts but also for senior leadership to be briefed on the latest iteration of the yearly Unified Quest war game, which pits the projected Army of the near future against a problem.

Last year’s fight was against a nuclear-armed failed state that was a thinly veiled stand-in for North Korea. The 2013 version looked much like Syria, with the fight taking place in the failed state of “Sasani,” which had lost control of its chemical weapons. Terrorists smuggled the chemicals out of the country and attacked the mainland United States with them, causing several divisions of American troops to invade in order to secure the remaining weapons, while providing humanitarian assistance to the civilian population.

The Army gamed the fight out in two ways.

One was to use the current investment approach to project what technologies would exist in 2030, and the other was to follow a path that would lead to leap-ahead technologies, like the 30-ton protected ground vehicle and huge advances in tilt-rotor vertical lift and “significant investments in joint strategic mobility.”

It’s no surprise that the team that represented the vision the Army would like to sketch out for itself performed superbly, while the fiscally constrained force faltered.

The less modernized force took seven weeks to begin ground operations, while the “innovative” force was on the ground in two weeks, with the opening assault involving a Stryker brigade being airdropped into the country.

But one general took exception to some of the assumptions under which planners labored. He made one briefer stop in the middle of his presentation, complaining that there simply won’t be enough money in coming years to invest in big advances in new cargo airplanes and helicopters that would get troops to a hot spot as quickly as the game allowed.

“Let’s assume we’re not going to get a significant investment in joint strategic power projection,” he said. Instead, planners should focus on “making ourselves smaller.”

The Army can’t control how the Navy and Air Force spend their money, he argued, and in the coming years the other services will be focused on their own combat capabilities and will not invest in getting the Army to where it needs to go. “Like it or not that’s not their priorities. ... We have to control our own destiny, and to control our own destiny, we have to reduce the amount [of troops and equipment] that has to be moved.”

It was a moment of clarity from a general who, two years after the passage of the Budget Control Act, which made sequestration the law of the land, still has to remind Army planners that the new normal will be messy and may blow apart some long-held assumptions of resetting the force.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
New Artist conception of Defiant.
Area 51 declassified: Documents reveal Cold War 'hide-and-seek'
By
Published November 13, 2013 | Space.com
ADVERTISEMENT
Newly declassified documents reveal more detail about past use of the mysterious Nevada test site known as Area 51 and the concern for maintaining secrecy about the work done at the facility.

The recently released papers, which date mostly from the early 1960s into the 1970s, spotlight the U.S. government's desire for tight security at Area 51, also known as Groom Lake. The area was photographed with American reconnaissance assets to better assess what the Soviet Union's spy satellites might be able to discern.

The documents also detail the debate over the possible release of a photograph "inadvertently" taken of the secret facility by NASA astronauts aboard the Skylab space station in 1974. [Flying Saucers to Mind Control: 7 Declassified Military & CIA Secrets]

Stealthy work
More than 60 declassified documents in an Area 51 file were posted on the Internet by the National Security Archive late last month, compiled and edited by archive senior fellow Jeffrey Richelson. The archive is located at The George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

Those of you hoping for information about captured aliens and flying saucers will be disappointed.

A number of documents focus on the quest to develop stealth capability in aircraft. Others report on another type of activity at Area 51 — the exploitation of covertly acquired Soviet MiG fighter jets.

American engineers assessed the design, performance and limitations of MiGs in an attempt to learn their vulnerabilities — knowledge that could come in handy during combat situations.

Spysat overflights
An April 1962 document sourced to the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) outlines the rationale for photographing Area 51 by either a high-flying U-2 spy plane or a then-classified CORONA reconnaissance satellite. The idea was viewed as a means of seeing what the Soviet Union might learn from its own satellite images of the facility.

This would provide "a pretty fair idea of what deductions and conclusions could be made by the Soviets should Sputnik 13 have a reconnaissance capability," explains the memorandum, which was marked "secret." [Gallery: Declassified US Spy Satellite Photos & Designs]

Also part of the plan, the memo states, was having a U-2 image Area 51: "Without advising the photographic interpreters of what the target is, ask them to determine what type of activity is being conducted at the site photographed," the memo states.

Skylab image
Also of interest is another document, dated April 11, 1974, from the deputy director of the NRO to the chairman of the director of central intelligence's Committee on Imagery Requirements and Exploitation. This memorandum discusses what to do about a photograph taken by Skylab astronauts of Area 51, outlining the issues to be considered in deciding whether or not to release the photograph.

The two-page document, marked "Top Secret," mentions a draft decision paper that focuses on the "relative merits of retaining [deleted in document] as a high-priority secret national security installation versus the merits of the NASA belief that there would be domestic and foreign problems created by withholding the photograph."

The April 1974 memo also says that the Skylab photograph "in the public domain would almost certainly provide strong stimulus for media questioning and the potential near-term revelation of the missions of the installation."

Unclassified platform
A follow-up memorandum from April 19, 1974, marked "Confidential" for then-Director of Central Intelligence William Colby, explains that the recent Skylab mission "inadvertently photographed" Area 51, and that there were "specific instructions not to do this."

The memo also reports that the Skylab photo is the subject of an interagency review and that Department of Defense officials believed it should be withheld from public release.

At the time, NASA — and, to a large extent, the State Department — took the position that the image should be released. It would be allowed to go into a repository in Sioux Falls, S.D., that contained satellite remote sensing data of the Earth's land surface and "let nature take its course," the memo states.

Complex issues
The April 19 memo explains that there are some complicated precedents that should be reviewed before a final decision could be made about the Skylab image. For example, there was a question of whether anything photographed in the U.S. can be classified if the platform from which the image was taken, such as NASA's Skylab, is unclassified.

In addition, the April 19 memo notes that there are some complex issues in the United Nations concerning U.S. policies about imagery from space. Further, the document raises the question of whether or not the photo would be leaked anyway, even if it were withheld.

The memo also carries handwritten responses by the CIA's Colby.

Colby expressed some doubts about the need to protect the image, since the Soviet Union had it from their satellites anyway. He further asked, "If exposed, don't we just say classified USAF [U.S. Air Force] work is done there?"

Hide and seek
Dwayne Day, an American space historian, policy analyst and author, has previously written on Area 51, as well as the 1974 Skylab image flap.

It turns out that the Skylab shot of Area 51 was placed in NASA's collection of Skylab photographs, Day said, but nobody had noticed. So, in the end, NASA won its argument with the intelligence community over the image, he said.

As for playing Cold War hide-and-seek at Area 51 with the Soviet Union, Day said the Soviets had spy satellitesand that they could certainly see the airfield.

"But, of course, the CIA knew the flight paths of Soviet satellites, and they would avoid having their aircraft in the open when satellites were overhead," Day told SPACE.com. "The best form of concealment is a big hangar where you can park all your planes."

Day said that there has been at least one report of an effort at Groom Lake to create a fake heat signature for orbiting satellites to see.

"I have my doubts about that," Day said. "The timing is wrong — too early for anybody to expect the Soviet Union to be capable of that kind of infrared observation."

Day said he's also wondered about a photograph taken at Area 51 showing a line of A-12 OXCART spy planes, probably from 1964. OXCART was the label given to the CIA's A-12 program, meant to come after the U-2 to perform reconnaissance flights over the Soviet Union.

"The Soviets did not always have reconnaissance satellites in orbit," Day said, "so did the CIA line these planes up for a beauty shot when they knew that they were safe from observation? Or, did they simply not care?"

To dive into the Area 51 files, go to the National Security Archive's website:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Leonard David has been reporting on the space industry for more than five decades. He is former director of research for the National Commission on Space and co-author of Buzz Aldrin's new book, "Mission to Mars – My Vision for Space Exploration," published by National Geographic. Follow us @Spacedotcom, Facebook or Google+. Originally published on SPACE.com.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The new Multicam Family The Background is of course Multicam Top Left is Multicam Arid ( for Deserts) Top Right is Multicam Tropical ( woodlands) Bottom Right Is Multicam Aspine ( snow) and Finally Bottom left is Multicam Black ( for swat teams)

Defense Department gives local police equipment designed for a war zone
Published November 27, 2013 | FoxNews.com
ADVERTISEMENT
From war zones to city streets, some military vehicles are getting a new life -- and not everyone is happy about the recycling.

The Defense Department recently announced it would be giving domestic law enforcement forces hulking vehicles designed to efficiently maneuver in a war zone for use in thwarting any potential high-scale activity.

This did not sit well with those who see a troubling trend: the militarization of local police departments, including the American Civil Liberties Union, which has criticized the Defense Department for giving 18-ton, $500,000 armor-protected military fighting vehicles to local forces.

ACLU affiliates have been collecting 2012 records to determine the extent of military hardware and tactics sent to police and plan to issue a report early next year.

"One of our concerns with this is it has a tendency to escalate violence," said ACLU Center for Justice senior counsel Kara Dansky.

An Associated Press investigation of the Defense Department military surplus program this year found that a disproportionate share of the $4.2 billion worth of property distributed since 1990 — everything from blankets to bayonets and Humvees — has been obtained by police and sheriff's departments in rural areas with few officers and little crime.

Ohio State University campus police got one vehicle, saying they would use it in large-scale emergencies and to provide a police presence on football game days. Others went to police in High Springs, Fla., and the sheriff's office in Dallas County, Texas.

In New York, the Albany County sheriff's department already had four smaller military-surplus Humvees, which have been used for storm evacuations and to pull trees out of roadways. Their new Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected vehicle will go into service after technicians remove the gun turret and change the paint from military sand to civilian black.

Sheriff Craig Apple rejected the idea that the nation's police forces are becoming too militaristic.

"Nothing could be further from the truth," he said. "Our problem is we have to make sure we are prepared to respond to every type of crisis."

To be sure, there has been some concerns raised in the past.

Radley Balko, the author of "The Rise of the Warrior Cop," argues that the police mind set in the country is to be like a soldier.

"Instead of bringing soldiers in to do domestic law enforcement, we have allowed, and even encouraged, police officers to basically be armed like, police like, use the tactics of, be dressed like and adopt the mind set of these soldiers," he said at a CSPAN forum last summer. "And the outcome is just as troubling, I think, as if the military were actually doing domestic police themselves."

In October, Reuters ran a column by Michael Shank and Elizabeth Beavers called "The Militarization of U.S. Police Forces" in which the authors called for Congress to permanently ban the transfer of all military-grade equipment to U.S. cities.

The column noted the Pentagon's 1033 Program that allows the Defense Department to donate its surplus equipment. It pointed out allegations of fraud and abuse and called some of the machinery donated "impractical."

"Shocking, almost comical, examples of abuse have been well-documented — from the officer who sold his weapons on eBay, to the one who lent his weapons to unauthorized friends and the police departments that lost the military weapons or tried to auction them off," the column said.

For police and sheriff's departments, which have scooped up 165 of the mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles, or MRAPS, since they became available this summer, the price and the ability to deliver shock and awe while serving warrants or dealing with hostage standoffs was, however, just too good to pass up.

"It's armored. It's heavy. It's intimidating. And it's free," said Apple.

Fox News' Edmund DeMarche and The Associated Press contributed to this report
 

Jeff Head

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



ai_Fire_Scout.jpg


SeaWaves said:
San Diego November 25, 2013 – Northrop Grumman Corporation has delivered the second MQ-8C Fire Scout unmanned helicopter to the U.S. Navy after completing final assembly at the company's unmanned systems center in Moss Point, Miss.

The aircraft is joining the first one delivered to Naval Base Ventura County, Point Mugu, Calif., to conduct flight testing before using the system for operational missions in 2014.

"Since 2006 we have conducted final assembly of the earlier MQ-8B Fire Scout aircraft from our Moss Point facility, so we have a lot of manufacturing experience there," said George Vardoulakis, vice president for medium range tactical systems, Northrop Grumman. "With the MQ-8C variant being assembled there as well, we can use the same expertise and quality processes already developed."

The MQ-8C Fire Scout is the Navy's newest unmanned helicopter that can fly twice as long and carry three times more intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance payloads than the existing variant.

To prepare the second MQ-8C Fire Scout for flight operations, a series of ground and flight tests will occur to validate payload integration and that communications between the ground control system and the aircraft are working properly.
Including the two test aircraft, 14 new Fire Scouts are currently under contract to be built. The Navy's current plan is to purchase 30 MQ-8C Fire Scouts.

A bigger, faster, longer range Fire Scout!
 
Top