US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

bd popeye said:

All navies on this planet watch each other in one way or another. This whole scenario sounds like it could have taken place 50-30 years ago during the Cold War.

There's not a whole lot the US can gain about observing CV-16. Other than where it is, it's speed and maneuvering ablity.. After all the USN wrote "the book" on modern day CV OPS..

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Congress wants common camouflage uniform
Dec. 12, 2013 - 06:00AM |

By Andrew Tilghman
Staff writer Army times
Congress will try one more time to get the Pentagon to cease its uniform madness and adopt a common camouflage pattern for all four services.

The compromise defense authorization bill for 2014 includes a provision that directs the Defense Department to “to adopt and field a common combat and camouflage utility uniform, or family of uniforms, for specific combat environments, to be used by all members of the armed forces.”

And if that becomes law, as appears likely, it would change the future image of the joint force.

For years, lawmakers have been annoyed by the military services’ increasingly elaborate wardrobe of camouflage variants designed for the same forward-deployed environments. Over the past decade, the four services have developed at least seven new combat utility uniforms, each with its own unique design.

In 2009, Congress began to question the military’s growing array of ground combat uniforms and ordered the Pentagon to develop “joint criteria” for camouflage uniforms. But the Pentagon was slow to respond and ultimately opted to check the box with “standards” that addressed textile quality rather than pattern and clothing design, which many experts said was the lawmakers’ intent.

The new law would mark a return to Cold War-era fashion, when for years all troops wore the same uniform when deployed to the same place. The so-called Battle Dress Uniform had only “woodland” and “desert” variants.

That began to change when the Marine Corps fielded its digital-style MARPAT camouflage pattern in 2002, in turn prompting each service to develop its own new pattern — some of which have come in for criticism in the ranks, such as the Air Force’s “tiger stripes” and the Navy’s “aquaflage.”

In several instances, those efforts were botched, scrapped and replaced with more new designs, costing millions of dollars in design fees and replacement costs, according to the Government Accountability Office.

Inside the ranks, the issue is controversial. While distinct uniforms may be good for morale and cultivate a sense of pride among the individual services, others say the array of stripes and pixelated patterns is an unnecessary expense and makes no sense, since the underlying goal is to make troops less visible in a field environment, regardless of their service branch.

This year, the Joint Staff’s top enlisted adviser, Marine Sgt. Maj. Bryan Battaglia, said the mix of uniforms makes the U.S. military look like a “Baskin-Robbins” and signaled his support for a common uniform.

But Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos recently said preserving the Corps’ MARPAT pattern is a top priority and declared that his service will stick to it “like a hobo to a ham sandwich.”

While the law suggests the era of service-specific distinction may come to an end, it will likely be years before any final decisions are made and common uniforms are fielded.

Click to expand...

MwRYum said:

The less informed would brand those acts as Cold War mentality, though I always remind them the Cold War didn't end, they just replace the USSR with PRC, nothing more.

Click to expand...

MwRYum said:

The less informed would brand those acts as Cold War mentality, though I always remind them the Cold War didn't end, they just replace the USSR with PRC, nothing more.

Click to expand...

Blackstone said:

so you have the two kids eyeballing each other on the school playground. There're some friction, to be sure, but not close to another Cold War.

Click to expand...

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Blackstone that basically was the cold war

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

Given the PLAN only sent an LST as well, to "intercept" the Cowpens, I think it says a lot about the gravity (or rather the therelackof) of the situation.

Just as it was routine for the USS Cowpens to be in that area, it has more or less become normal for the PRC to send naval ships to observe -- and in some cases like this one -- head off the other ship.

Click to expand...

lcloo said:

Note the date was Dec 5th, and USS Cowpens was "near by" the PLAN CV which was at berthing at the pier, which by educated guess would put USS Cowpens very close to the Sanya Navy base, also noted that an LST was "able" to intercept the path of USS Cowpens, where the hell did the LST came from? Possibly right from Sanya base or happened to be sailing into/out of the base at the time.

Click to expand...

joshuatree said:

It is interesting an LST made the intercept, a Type 072 is mentioned. If Liaoning was in port when this happened, then it would indicate Cowpens being relatively close to port. If Liaoning was out at sea, was the LST part of that group? Or was the LST part of some outer "defensive" perimeter to shoo away unwanted attention? Sending an LST from port to intercept would take an awfully long time and would make better sense to have one of Liaoning's escorts handle the meet and greet. While there's nothing new for the US to learn, clearly there's still the interest to send a ship in to shadow.

I do find the titles of these articles misleading, trying to ward off Cowpens is quite different from trying to make it stop. Getting in front of Cowpens was probably more of an attempt to force a course change rather than a full stop.

Click to expand...

Blackstone said:

In the US/NATO/SEATO vs. CCCP/Warsaw Pact, ideology was the primary linchpin of contention between the two camps, and there was little economic exchange between them, especially between the main protagonists, US and the Soviet Union. There was also hard separation between the two sides, ideologically, economically, and physically.

Click to expand...

Boeing Joins First KC-46A Airframe
By Guy Norris
Source: Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

December 12, 2013
LOS ANGELES — The fuselage and wings for the first 767-2C to be adapted into a KC-46A for the U.S. Air Force’s aerial refueling tanker program have been joined at Boeing’s Everett, Wash., facility.

Final body join of the first aircraft, dubbed VH001, marks a significant milestone in the $4.4 billion KC-46 engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) program, which the Air Force awarded the company in February 2011.

Under EMD, Boeing is assembling four prototype aircraft that will initially be used for flight test. All four will be delivered as part of the initial tranche of 18 combat-ready tankers contracted for delivery to the Air Force by August 2017.

Assembly of the first aircraft is taking place in Building 40-32, the same line currently producing 767-300F commercial freighters for FedEx. Boeing will continue to build these freighters, as well as a single 767-300ER passenger variant still in the backlog, alongside the 767-2Cs for the tanker program. The company currently has 44 undelivered commercial 767s in the backlog as well as the four 767-2Cs, but anticipates continued production to support deliveries of 179 KC-46s to the Air Force by 2028.

Completion of the major structures comes on schedule and places the tanker program on track for completion of all four initial test airframes by mid-2014, says Tim Peters, Boeing’s vice president for mobility, surveillance and engagement. Commenting at the recent Dubai air show, Peters said the first 767-2C “looks like an airplane” and is currently beginning systems installation.

Final body join involves connecting the major fuselage sections with the wing, horizontal stabilizer and vertical fin, as well as installation of the main landing gear. Hydraulic, pneumatic and electric systems are also installed at this point. Before moving to final assembly, the airframe will also be raised on jacks for the power and hydraulics to be activated for a test wing of the landing gear. Special provisions being added for the tanker include the modifications for the single point refueling system, electrical disconnects at the body join locations, and fitting of pre-bundled, or “axially swaged,” hydraulic lines based on a concept first developed for the F/A-18 assembly line in St. Louis.

First flight of the 767-2C, meanwhile, remains on track for June 2014, Boeing says, while first flight of the fully configured KC-46A is still set for January 2015. Based on the 767-200ER baseline design, the -2C includes a strengthened main-deck cargo floor, cargo door and freighter features, 787-based cockpit display system, auxiliary body tanks for increased fuel carriage and provisioning for the plumbing and wiring required for the refueling mission systems.

Boeing will use the four test aircraft as part of a combined effort to earn two separate certifications from the FAA, the first of which will be an amended type certificate for a 767-2C “provisioned freighter” without the aerial refueling system and associated military avionics and self-defense systems planned for the tanker. Boeing will then apply for a supplemental type certificate (STC) for a fully equipped KC-46A.

Mission systems will be installed at a separate “in-line” production site at Paine Field similar to the procedure adopted for completion of the 737-based P-8 maritime patrol variant at Boeing Field.

VH001 will remain in -2C configuration until completion of the certification program, while VH002 will be completed as a KC-46A before beginning the STC certification. A third aircraft, VH003, is expected to join the -2C type certification test program, while the fourth airframe, VH004, will be the second KC-46A. Assembly work on VH004 is due to start on Jan. 16, according to Boeing, which is also completing the second inflight refueling boom for the program.

Click to expand...

Low-cost Scorpion fighter starts flight tests
Print
By: STEPHEN TRIMBLE WASHINGTON DC 10:05 12 Dec 2013 Source:

First flight on 12 December of the Textron AirLand Scorpion launches an at least two-year certification programme and opens opportunities for closing a deal with a launch customer.
“It’s a great deal for the whole team,” says Textron AirLand president Bill Anderson. “We’ve been working hard for the past 23 months.”

The joint venture between Textron and the start-up AirLand has already scheduled a meeting with a foreign customer, who was waiting for first flight to begin sales discussions, Anderson says.

Anderson is also in discussions with at least one more potential foreign buyer, as well as both active and reserve components of the US military.

The company launched the unsolicited demonstrator to offer militaries a low-cost alternative to modern combat jets. Acquisition price of the Scorpion should be “well south” of $20 million, Anderson says. Direct operating costs are targeted at $3,000 per hour, compared to $12,000 per hour for the Fairchild Republic A-10, he says.


The first flight opens an at least two-year certification campaign. Pilot Dan Hinson completed the 1.4h flight from McConnell AFB, Kansas, never retracting the landing gear. Cruise speeds range between 120-200kt (222-370km/h) at altitudes between 10,000-15,000ft (3,050-4,570m).

In the absence of a customer order, Textron AirLand is keeping the certification programme flexible. The data packages are being prepared for a US Federal Aviation Administration certification, but will do nothing to exclude military airworthiness if a customer requires it.

Powered by two Honeywell TFE731 turbofan engines, the Scorpion is designed to cruise at 450kt with wing-mounted stores and an internal payload up to 1,360kg (3,000lb).

The company hopes to complete up to 500 flight test hours over the next 12 months. The flights are aimed at clearing the basic speed and altitude envelope, culminating in a mission demonstration involving both sensor and weapons tests by the end of the year, says Scorpion chief engineer Dale Tutt.

Although flight tests may reveal design change requirements, Textron AirLand has designed the product to be off-the-shelf. “We’re 99% sure the outer mould line [today] is the outer mould line we’re going to keep,” Anderson says.

The Scorpion, however, includes some modular design features. Textron AirLand, for example, could swap the two-seat front section for a one-seater or an unmanned configuration, Anderson says.

Textron subsidiary Cessna constructed the all-composite Scorpion airframe using a low-cost technique, but it is ready to enter full-rate production, Tutt says.

“That’s been something Cessna has been developing, you know, for a couple years,” Tutt says. “We feel like we could go right into production.”

Textron AirLand started designing the Scorpion less than two years ago. The structure was built with composite materials using a new, low-cost manufacturing technique developed by Cessna.

Click to expand...

Saab's T-X bid highlights growing North American presence
Print
By: STEPHEN TRIMBLE WASHINGTON DC 10:41 11 Dec 2013 Source: Flight global

Partnering with Boeing to bid for the US Air Force’s T-X trainer programme is the latest high-profile step in Saab’s global expansion strategy and particularly in the Americas.
Before announcing the bid on 6 December to replace hundreds of ageing Northrop T-38C Talons with a purpose-built, new aircraft, Saab North America had already created a template for the parent corporation’s new strategy on foreign markets.

“We had a presence, but we felt we could do more here,” says Michael Andersson, executive vice president of Saab North America, in a recent interview.

Saab is partnering with Boeing on the design and assembly of a new trainer. It will compete with off-the-shelf models from the UK, South Korea and Italy, should the USAF decide to fund the T-38 replacement programme.

The agreement bears the mark of Saab’s growth strategy to date in the US market, which emphasizes partnering with domestic original equipment manufacturers. It was most notably used with the US Navy’s littoral combat ship (LCS) programme, in which Saab developed a US version of the Sea Giraffe radar in partnership with LCS prime contractor General Dynamics.

The Sea Giraffe example illustrates how Saab may pursue technology development under the T-X programme. A special problem for foreign contractors working on US military-funded projects are export control issues. Anything the US military buys automatically becomes subject to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which can limit Saab’s ability to sell the same equipment to new or even existing customers abroad.

“What we’ve done in the case of the Girafffes, we’ve transferred technology to a certain point and then the product lines [split] in two ways – one for the US and one for the rest of the world,” says Andersson.

For years, Saab had mainly stayed on the sidelines on the lucrative US defence market, even as larger European rivals including BAE Systems, EADS and Finmeccanica launched aggressive campaigns for high-profile military contracts.

By 2009, Saab had quietly built a business with $200 million annual sales spread among three, largely independent businesses: Saab Barracuda, Saab Training and Saab Support Services.

The $1 billion acquisition of US-based radar and air traffic management specialist Sensis in 2011 signaled a new growth strategy within Saab. The deal also drove the company to consolidate four North American units into two: Saab Defense and Security (SDS), with about 60% of revenues and Saab Sensis (SS), with 40% of sales.

The consolidation also came with a new approach to managing the classified information handled by the US businesses. The four units operated with three separate special security agreements (SSAs), which are units organised and managed under a separate board with an arms-length relationship with the company’s corporate headquarters in Sweden.

The streamlining of the SSAs into a single certificate under the SDS brand simplified the organisation.

“We only need one board – that’s a strong benefit for us,” Andersson says.

The single security license also allows Saab to share back-office functions between the three operating divisions of SDS.

At the same time, Saab split Saab Sensis into two units. The radar division was combined into the Saab Support and Services division of SDS. Meanwhile, Saab Sensis was refocused on global and air and maritime traffic management.

Within two years, Saab North America had more than doubled to a $500 million business in North America with more than 700 employees – and plans to grow further.

The North American push came as Saab adopted a new strategy for markets outside Sweden. The company has recently divided the world into six regional markets, including the Nordic countries, Europe and the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, Asia-Pacific and the Americas.

As a result, the Latin American market, including Saab’s long-running bid for Brazil’s prized fighter contract, came under the North American division.

“You’re going to see a lot of staff moving out from Sweden and a lot of local hires as well,” says John Belanger, vice-president of communications for Saab North America.

Besides new partnerships such as for the T-X opportunity, Saab North America also hopes to market existing aircraft in the company’s portfolio to US government customers.

The US State Department, for example, received demonstrations earlier this year of the rotary-wing Skeldar unmanned air vehicle at White Sands missile range in New Mexico, Andersson says, although the potential fee-for-service deal has not materialised.

Perhaps more promising are special mission variants of the Saab 340 turboprop, which with a new auxiliary fuel tank can fly up to 8h non-stop with a full mission payload, including a radar and a forward-looking infrared sensor.

“We’ve started to socialise the communities here – various commands – with the platform,” Andersson says, “and I think it’s started to get some traction.”

Click to expand...

Boeing confident over additional US Navy F/A-18 orders
Print
By: JON HEMMERDINGER WASHINGTON DC 05:21 10 Dec 2013 Source: Flight global

Boeing expects its F/A-18 production line in St Louis, Missouri to keep humming for the foreseeable future, despite mixed signals from the US Navy about acquiring additional aircraft.

"I can easily envision the production line going beyond 2020," says Michael Gibbons, vice president and programme manager of Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and E/A-18G Growler aircraft. "I could envision, easily, several more years of buys by the US Navy."


The USN is currently "looking for their best options for procuring jets", he adds, while Lockheed Martin continues development of its F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which may not reach initial operational capability with the service until 2019.

Gibbons made his comments on 9 December at NAS Patuxent River in Maryland, following a USN ceremony marking the 35th anniversary of the F/A-18, which first flew in 1978.

Production of the fighter is currently scheduled to end in 2016, when Boeing completes the last aircraft currently on order by the navy. Those aircraft are being procured in the current fiscal year 2014, which ends next September.

Super Hornets cost $51-$52 million each including warfare systems and General Electric F414 engines, while the electronic warfare-roled Growler costs about $9 million more, according to Gibbons.

He insists Boeing has no plans to shut the production line, which currently completes four aircraft per month, but which will slow to three monthly by 2016. Production could ultimately slip to two aircraft monthly and remain financially viable, according to Gibbons.

But signals from the navy have been mixed.

On 17 October, the service posted a pre-solicitation notice on the US FedBizOpps.gov website, announcing it intended to buy up to 36 additional aircraft in FY2015. The navy backpedaled a few weeks later, removing the notice.

On 9 December, US Navy Capt Frank Morley told Flightglobal he was responsible for posting the notice, calling it "a mistake".

"Administratively, it was an error [and was] my responsibility," Morley says, adding that the notice was an effort to ensure the navy maintains its aircraft "options."

"We pulled [the notice] back because it shouldn't have been out there," Morley says. "It was no indication of what the intent of the budget is for [fiscal year] 2015."

The navy notes it has decided to extend the service life of its F/A-18s to up to 9,900h, and fly the aircraft until at least 2030 or 2035. The aircraft's original design life was 6,000h.

In addition, the service is considering upgrading the fighters with conformal fuel tanks, which could boost fuel capacity by almost 1,600kg (3,500lb).

Gibbons expects the navy's intentions will become clear in January, when details of President Barack Obama's FY2015 budget proposal emerge.

Boeing will need to decide by March whether to begin investing in materials needed to build additional jets, Gibbons says. He also notes the programme could be buoyed by orders from other countries, like Australia, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Kuwait and Malaysia.

Click to expand...