US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Jeff, I'm aware about the (vastly different) A, B and C variants of the F-35 Lightning II so I wonder what was the distribution for the first 100 planes, thanks.
We have those kind of details over on the F-35 Thread. Here's the latest numbers (from that thread):

Latest F-35 breakdown in numbers by variant

Forty four F-35A, Forty two F-35B and fourteen F-35C.

I was really just making a note of it here...if we want to discuss it further, we should take it over to the other thread.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Eurotcopter did put it and a updated version in the running as a possible replacement for the Kiowa. personally I prefer the Raider form Sikorsky for that job. faster, more nimble.
Oh yes, I prefer the S-97 Raider too. The Lakota just looks like the older Kiowa.

The Raider will blow its doors off.


raider-overview_03.png


0_9ac85_ab49848c_orig.jpg


0_9ac86_e33e42a2_orig.jpg


0_9ac87_ce1be3f0_orig.jpg

 
Last edited:
We have those kind of details over on the F-35 Thread. Here's the latest numbers (from that thread):

Latest F-35 breakdown in numbers by variant

Forty four F-35A, Forty two F-35B and fourteen F-35C.

I was really just making a note of it here...if we want to discuss it further, we should take it over to the other thread.

Oh I'm sorry, I try not to say ANYTHING about airplanes (after what I had asked about the F-22), just couldn't resist this time ...
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Oh I'm sorry, I try not to say ANYTHING about airplanes (after what I had asked about the F-22), just couldn't resist this time ...
No problem, Jura. Keep asking. Keep reading and researching.

Nothing wrong with learning. And asking questions helps you learn.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
John McCain, Tim Kaine push to change presidential war powers
Published January 16, 2014Associated PressFacebook27 Twitter29 LinkedIn0
WASHINGTON – Two members of the Senate are pressing for significant changes to how presidents consult with Congress on sending the military into war.

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Tim Kaine, D-Va., unveiled legislation on Thursday that would repeal the 1973 War Powers Resolution, often ignored by presidents of both parties, and replace it with a new law that requires greater consultation and a congressional vote within 30 days on any significant armed conflict.

"The Constitution gives the power to declare war to the Congress, but Congress has not formally declared war since June 1942, even though our nation has been involved in dozens of military actions of one scale or another since that time," McCain said. "There is reason for this: The nature of war is changing."

Since the Vietnam War-era resolution, the U.S. military has been involved in several conflicts, most recently when President Barack Obama sent American warplanes to protect civilians in Libya in 2011. The operation touched off a fierce debate in Congress over whether the president had exceeded his authority.

Obama's initial call last year for congressional approval for U.S. military action against Syria revived the debate.

"Forty years of a failed war powers resolution in today's dangerous world suggests that it's time now to get back in and to do some careful deliberation, to update and normalize the appropriate level of consultation between a president and the legislature," Kaine said.

The proposal would require the president to consult with Congress "before ordering deployment into a 'significant armed conflict,' or, combat operations lasting, or expected to last, more than seven days." The consultation must occur within three days of deployment.

Humanitarian missions and covert operations would be excluded.

The measure also would require a vote in Congress on the military operation within 30 days.

The proposal is based on the work of bipartisan National War Powers Commission, which was led by former Secretaries of State James Baker and Warren Christopher.
The last official declaration of war was world war 2, event the Korean war was not voted for by congress it was acted on under the UN's declaration of war.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Global Hawk, U-2 Duel Resumes in ’15 Budget Fight
By Amy Butler
Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology

January 20, 2014
Credit: USAF Airman First Class Bobby Cummings
My how times—and political winds—have changed for the beleaguered Global Hawk unmanned reconnaissance aircraft.

Less than two years after proposing termination and premature mothballing of the new Block 30 version—once eyed as a replacement for the venerable, high-flying U-2 reconnaissance aircraft—the Pentagon leadership is toying with a complete reversal on its position as it works through options for the fiscal 2015 budget proposal.

In a resourcing management decision—the mechanism by which the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) responds to the services' annual spending plans—Pentagon budgeters gutted U-2 funding, shifting more than $3 billion into the Global Hawk Block 30 account. The decision is not yet final, and it remains to be seen whether the service will maintain its position from the fiscal 2013 budget. It favored halting Block 30 work and operations and focusing solely on the Lockheed Martin U-2 as the high-altitude, standoff intelligence collector for the next decade or more.

Officials in the OSD and the Air Force do not comment on funding decisions prior to their delivery to Congress. But there are a variety of reasons behind the possible reversal of course by the Pentagon's leadership. These include politics and a shift in the cost estimate to operate the fleet.

The outcome of this debate could be a bellwether for other such squabbles down the road as the Pentagon proposes fleet terminations—including the A-10, Kiowa and TH-67—in the wake of sequestration and other fiscal pressures. Will the Pentagon and the service capitulate to parochial pressure from Capitol Hill to save a politically popular program? Or will they go to bat for the savings plans they have devised in light of dramatically declining investment budgets? Defense planners argue that if each fleet cut is adjusted, overall savings will be eroded, leaving the Pentagon with a “hollow force” of many platforms that it cannot afford to fly and keep current.

At issue for the Global Hawk is a dive in the cost per flying hour (CPFH) for the aircraft. In earlier fiscal years, CPFH was near that of the U-2 at roughly $33,000 per hr. Fiscal 2013 numbers, recently in from the field, point to a CPFH closer to $25,000, according to a program source.

The notable decrease is due to a substantial spike in the number of hours flown, a shift partly related to the fielding of the first Block 40s outfitted with active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radars for ground surveillance, an Air Force official says. The official did not provide a total number for the year, but a larger number of hours allows fixed costs to be more diluted in the calculation. Though the Air Force has not publicly proposed terminating the Block 40 in budget plans, last year senior leaders were eyeing it for a kill. It was likely saved owing to the then open debate on the fate of Block 30.

Even if this new CPFH holds true in coming years, one program official notes that for some regions—such as the Pacific—Global Hawk must fly more hours to have an equitable time on station as the U-2. While CPFH may be lower for the Global Hawk, the figure is not reflective of the total cost to gather the needed intelligence.

To give an example, the unmanned air system (UAS) would have to fly 54% more flight hours to collect intelligence on areas in North Korea, the Middle East and Iran.

Nor is CPFH reflective of mission success rates between the two platforms. Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance collection is in high demand, and aircraft downtime is extremely worrisome for combatant commanders. In the Pacific, 55% of Global Hawk's missions were canceled in fiscal 2013; 96% of the U-2's missions were achieved. The U-2 was also scheduled for nearly three times as many missions. Global Hawk lacks anti-icing equipment and is not able to operate in severe weather. An upgrade to remedy the shortcoming is being developed by the Navy for its Triton Global Hawk variant, but it would cost money and time to field.

The program source argues that CPFH is not an accurate metric on which to make a decision. He notes that Global Hawks based in Guam have to transit for hours just to reach North Korea, whereas the U-2, based at Osan air base, South Korea, has a shorter commute.

Additionally, the service originally opted to terminate the aircraft because of the lackluster performance by its Raytheon Enhanced Integrated Sensor Suite—the camera used to collect visual, infrared, and radar images. Global Hawk also flies at a lower altitude—typically close to 50,000 ft.—making it more susceptible to some weather and offering less-than-optimal ranges for peering into an enemy's territory. The U-2, by contrast, operates above 60,000 ft., and has nearly twice as much onboard power at the ready for collecting radar images. Forthcoming fielding of the secret, stealthy RQ-180 UAS (also developed by Northrop Grumman) probably contributed to the Air Force's view that the Global Hawk is excessive (AW&ST Dec, 9, 2013, p. 20).

Northrop Grumman did not discuss the newest CPFH figures. “[We are] working closely with the Air Force to reduce Global Hawk costs and enhance the system's outstanding performance. Global Hawk costs per flight hour have gone down significantly since 2010 and continue to decline as the system increases its operational tempo,” says Rene Freeland, a company spokeswoman.

The cost argument could, ultimately, be a cover for OSD simply succumbing to pressure from Capitol Hill, according to some program officials. Lawmakers have gone to bat for the system repeatedly, and Northrop Grumman has aggressively lobbied to keep Global Hawk alive.


Copyright © 2014, Penton
Dragon Lady just keeps on going.

Darpa Takes Aim At Slow Pace, High Cost Of U.S. Milspace
By Graham Warwick
Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology

January 20, 2014
Credit: NovaWurks
National-security space programs have become so slow and costly that the U.S. faces the “self-inflicted surprise” of other nations being able to put capabilities into orbit much faster, says the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) director.

Formed in 1958 to prevent a repeat of the “technological surprise” of the Soviet Union's Sputnik satellite launch, the Pentagon agency has embarked on a group of projects intended to make access to space quicker and cheaper. It is an effort to counter what Darpa Director Arati Prabhakar sees as a troubling development “to do with how slow and costly it is for us to do anything we need to do on orbit for national security purposes.”

The projects involve lower-cost, more-responsive launch systems for smaller satellites; building blocks that allow spacecraft to be produced more rapidly and cheaply; robotic technology to assemble, upgrade or repurpose satellites in orbit; and sensors to see and control what is going on in space.

Speaking at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics' SciTech 2014 conference here last week, Prabhakar said that as commercial and foreign space activity increases, the U.S. is “freezing in place . . . in terms of our ability to react and do what we need to do quickly, cost-effectively in space.” This is putting at risk the precise, lethal warfare capability “that is a core element of our national security today . . . [but is] simply not possible without the assets we have in space,” she says.

Over the past two decades, U.S. launches have declined and shifted to larger and heavier government satellites, and prices have increased, says Antonio Elias, chief technical officer for Orbital Sciences Corp. At the same time, international launches have increased, he told the conference.

Darpa's involvement in space has waxed and waned over the years, and it has targeted smaller, faster, cheaper satellite launches in the past. Agency funding helped Orbital Sciences develop the air-launched Pegasus, and Space Exploration Technologies develop the Falcon. But programs like Rascal, to develop an aircraft-based small-satellite launcher and System F6 to “fractionate” satellites into clusters of smaller formation-flying spacecraft, were terminated before hardware was flown.

But Darpa is always willing to try again. It has initiated the Airborne Launch Assist Space Access (Alasa) project to air-launch 100-lb. satellites into low Earth orbit for $1 million; the XS-1 reusable spaceplane to launch 3,000-5,000-lb. payloads for $5 million; and the Phoenix program to reuse non-working satellites in orbit by robotically attaching building-block “satlets.” Darpa believes such technologies can both unlock the commercial market for small satellites and finally persuade the Pentagon to “disaggregate” its big, expensive satellites into fleets of smaller craft that can be launched more quickly for less money.

Boeing was awarded the Alasa demonstration contract late last year, and flights are planned for 2015, says Brad Tousley, Darpa Tactical Technology Office director. Boeing will use the F-15 fighter to launch a rocket-powered second stage “using a new propulsion approach that will greatly reduce cost,” he says. The goal is to launch 100-lb. payloads from conventional runways with just 24-hr. call-up.

The XS-1 program aims to develop a reusable first stage that enables aircraft-like operations from a clean pad. Darpa wants to demonstrate 10 flights in 10 days; but the plan has its critics. It is a mistake to try to treat launch vehicles like aircraft, Elias says, adding, “[Darpa] is doing yet another study of a reusable launch vehicle—I can't believe it.”

The Phoenix program's concept of constructing satellites from building-block “satlets” could allow a spacecraft to be assembled quickly around the payload for a specific mission or service, cutting cost and speeding delivery, says its developer, NovaWurks. Each individual satlet has all the functions of a large satellite, but on a miniature scale, says Talbot Jaeger, NovaWurks founder. Instead of integrating the payload into a large satellite bus that provides the required mechanical, propulsion, power, thermal, communications, processing and other functions, the spacecraft—a conformal satellite—would be assembled around the payload by connecting multiple satlets together. “We reverse the standard engineering process. We do not have a bus to put the payload on; we form the bus to meet the needs of the payload,” Jaeger says.

The highly integrated satlet (HiSat) design is being developed for the Phoenix program to demonstrate that retired satellites can be repurposed in orbit. In October, NovaWurks was awarded a potential $40 million contract for Phases 2 and 3 of the program.

In Phase 1, the company completed a proof-of-principle demonstration of its satlet. “Phase 2 will take us to a viable prototype,” Jaeger says, adding the company will build a large number of satlet cells for testing. “Version 0” of the box-shaped HiSat measures 20 X 20 X 10 cm (8 X 8 X 4 in.).

If exercised, Phase 3 will be a flight demonstration in which the satlets are carried into orbit on a host satellite and released to be collected by a robotic servicer/tender spacecraft. The robot will attach the satlets to an antenna detached from a defunct satellite to reconstitute an operational spacecraft.

David Barnhart, Darpa's Phoenix program manager, says the agency plans a satlet flight test in 2015, under Phase 2, to prove they are robust and reliable enough to work in orbit and to pave the way for the robotic flight demonstration.

There are two architecture approaches to what Darpa calls satellite “cellularization”—a reference to the cellphone-like low-cost manufacturing paradigm. The heterogenous approach divides up the building blocks by function, with different satlets for propulsion, power, etc. The homogenous one aggregrates multiple identical satlets, each with all the functions.

“The HiSat has a portion of a satellite's functionality. As you build together more satlets, you build more functionality back into the spacecraft,” Jaeger says. “You need more than one to bring back a satellite's functionality,” he adds. While NovaWurks is pursuing a homogenous architecture, Darpa also has awarded a contract to Busek to demonstrate a heterogenous approach by developing a satlet dedicated to propulsion, Barnhart says.

Key to NovaWurks' architecture is a connector design that allows satlets to share fuel, power, thermal, data and other services so their functionality can be aggregated. There are connector pairs on each of the satlet's edges, and on a central turntable, so they can be assembled in different configurations. The connectors allow satlets to be joined—manually on the ground or robotically in space—and rotated into position around the payload or repurposed antenna to create a functioning spacecraft.

Compared with an aggregation architecture in which each building block has a different function, such as propulsion or communication, Jaeger says the homogenous satlets approach provides greater resilience to failures and flexibility to configure—or reconfigure—a satellite. The satlets “would be built not in tens or hundreds, but in thousands,” he says, to lower costs.


Copyright © 2014, Penton
 

thunderchief

Senior Member
This looks and sounds like real trouble . Would Russians allow US aircraft in their airspace ?

U.S. warships deploy for Sochi Olympics

The United States will deploy at least two warships into the Black Sea off the coast of Sochi, Russia, to respond to a potential terror attack during the upcoming Olympics, top officials said on Monday.

The positioning of the ships would also enable the rapid evacuation of Americans in the event of an attack, CNN reported. The State Department would take the lead if evacuations became necessary.

The ships will have helicopters that could fly Americans out of the country if needed. There are also aircraft on standby in Germany that could be at Sochi in about two hours if needed.

Concerns about terrorism at the Olympics have heightened after a video released online Sunday promised a “present” for tourists at the Olympics as revenge for Muslims killed around the world, according to CNN.

Two young men in the video are believed to be the suicide bombers responsible for two attacks in Russia last month.

Earlier Monday, NBC News reported Russia was on the hunt for four possible “black widows” prepared for an attack.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
This looks and sounds like real trouble . Would Russians allow US aircraft in their airspace ?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The US ships would not enter Russian waters unless it was approaved and coordinated beforehand with the Russian authorities. They will stand off shoe in international waters, unless it is approved and coordinated for them to be closer. Same with any helos from the ships.

My guess is, that these types of things ar e being worked out and coordinated as we speak.

Clearly, they think the threat is credible to be taking this step.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
This looks and sounds like real trouble . Would Russians allow US aircraft in their airspace ?



Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Putin knows the US is not likely to invade because of the Olympics. The USMC and USN have a commitment to support and evacuate American Citizens form hazards situations. those ships are already in black sea, if American civilians were placed in the situation that the Israeli athletes were in the Munich massacre. The US would insist on Acting to rescue them. Putin knows this and likely would say yes simply to keep relations good and it would give him a chance to show the Americans that the Russian war in Chechnya was just and the American support of Chechnya was wrong.
 
Top