US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

thunderchief

Senior Member
Personally I think Russia's recent move will force a re-think of many US military projects

The whole time the entire time they have been focused on China the "Pacific Pivot" while right in the heart of Europe Russia just did the number on Crimea

Clamor in the East, Attack in the West. :p

Joke aside, talk about Russia and Europe will last few months, then some other hotspot will go in limelight. In reality, US foreign policy is largely dominated by interventionist lobby, both from Republican and Democratic side. Said lobby is actually working against US interests, overextending American forces and overspending taxpayer's money. In a current situation, sensible thing for US would be to cut foreign aid, draw down foreign military deployments and go back to some sort of modified Monroe doctrine. But alas, it would not happen. So we could expect wasting more money in confused manner, like those brand new MRAP vehicles abandoned in Afghanistan, because U.S.Army doesn't need them any more.
 
Clamor in the East, Attack in the West. :p

Joke aside, talk about Russia and Europe will last few months, then some other hotspot will go in limelight. In reality, US foreign policy is largely dominated by interventionist lobby, both from Republican and Democratic side. Said lobby is actually working against US interests, overextending American forces and overspending taxpayer's money. In a current situation, sensible thing for US would be to cut foreign aid, draw down foreign military deployments and go back to some sort of modified Monroe doctrine. But alas, it would not happen. So we could expect wasting more money in confused manner, like those brand new MRAP vehicles abandoned in Afghanistan, because U.S.Army doesn't need them any more.

Those MRAPs have to be serving as unofficial pre-positioned material, or maybe inventory for future military aid to the Afghan or other governments in the region.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Thunder, Pan
questions as to the MRAP Pakistan deal are addressed in my post #2449 of this thread. The last quoted news story states that Pakistan will not get any Afghan MRAPs this, would likely indicate new units sold to the Pakistanis from the US.
 

delft

Brigadier
I didn't know the F-35 should be nuclear-capable ... until a moment ago:

Posted on InsideDefense.com: March 26, 2014
Even as the F-35 program strives to deliver an interim software capability to the Marine Corps next year, the program will submit its follow-on software development plans -- some parts of which will not be fielded until the mid-2020s -- to the Pentagon for validation in a matter of months.

That schedule for Block 4, which is divided into Blocks 4A and 4B, is necessary because of the extremely long cycle time for defining software load requirements, coding that material, lab-testing it and ultimately testing it in flight.

The F-35 aircraft in the field today are utilizing either Block 1B or 2A software, both with limited capability, and the program is currently flight-testing Block 2B, a slightly more advanced version that the Marine Corps plans to declare initial capability on in 2015. The JSF program's system development and demonstration phase includes two more loads of true developmental software -- Block 3i, nearly identical to 2B, and then Block 3F, a much more capable and risky endeavor.

Block 3F is not due for delivery until August 2017, but program officials are already well on their way to beginning development of additional capabilities beyond that time frame. Follow-on efforts are split into two segments, Block 4A and Block 4B.

F-35 joint program office spokesman Joe DellaVedova said in a March 21 email that the package of capabilities to be included in Block 4 will go before a Defense Department evaluation board for certification around the end of the year. That would set the stage for a contract award to prime contractor Lockheed Martin.

"[A] Block 4A and 4B Capability Development Document will be approved by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council in the early FY-15 time frame," he said. "After we have enterprise-approved requirements the JPO will start negotiations for a full follow-on development engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) contract in 2016."

As is frequently noted, the F-35 program's struggles can be traced to concurrent development and production, and while Block 4 includes a number of desirable qualities -- including nuclear certification -- its presence later this decade will extend concurrency by a number of years. For example, Lockheed will most likely be working on software blocks 3i, 3F, 4A and 4B at the same time in some capacity.

JSF Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan wrote in prepared testimony to Congress this week that Block 4A development will span from 2016 to 2022, and Block 4B from 2018 to 2024. Bogdan appeared before the House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee on March 26.

The general described the status of the F-35's nuclear certification -- commonly referred to as transforming the jet into a dual-capable aircraft, or DCA -- in his testimony. The aircraft is intended to carry the B61 gravity bomb, which is undergoing a life-extension program and will be ready for fielding in the early 2020s.

"With regards to the Dual Capable Aircraft, we are continuing to execute a risk-reduction strategy to prepare for DCA integration during Block 4 Follow-on Development," he wrote. "Our risk-reduction efforts include developing a detailed planning schedule for B61 integration on the aircraft, maturing the nuclear architecture design, refining the cost estimate, Nuclear Certification Requirements planning, and the initial Concept of Operations documentation. All F-35 DCA Risk Reduction benchmarks will be complete by Summer 2015."

Bogdan went on to say that F-35 nuclear certification is not actually expected until 2025. Software development, flight test and certification activities will take place during the course of Block 4's 2016 to 2024 time period, "resulting in an F-35 design certification in 2024." The Air Force would then perform an operational evaluation to clear the jet for nuclear weapons carriage.

DCA is one of very few unique requirements for the Air Force in Block 4. Other requirements include the integration of certain weapons that partner nations are looking for but the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps do not envision utilizing on their own jets.

AFB, I checked Air Force Magazine on this! :)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Recently 80% of the members of the Dutch lower house voted that the Dutch F-35 should not be nuclear capable, but the government answered that the Dutch parliament had no authority in this matter, and neither apparently the Dutch government , and that the Dutch F-35's will be nuclear capable.
The Dutch government recently confessed that there are US nuclear weapons in The Netherlands but not that they are stored at Volkel air force base nor that there are 22 of them.
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Recently 80% of the members of the Dutch lower house voted that the Dutch F-35 should not be nuclear capable, but the government answered that the Dutch parliament had no authority in this matter, and neither apparently the Dutch government , and that the Dutch F-35's will be nuclear capable.
The Dutch government recently confessed that there are US nuclear weapons in The Netherlands but not that they are stored at Volkel air force base nor that there are 22 of them.

Ah, don't worry about it, we don't mind sharing, and you may need them before we do????????? Yah better take all of the "deterants" that are available, uncle V might be droppin in?
 

delft

Brigadier
Ah, don't worry about it, we don't mind sharing, and you may need them before we do????????? Yah better take all of the "deterants" that are available, uncle V might be droppin in?

We certainly don't want to see nuclear weapons explode in our neighborhood. And after all Iraq saw off the US occupation without using such weapons. The Dutch don't want these weapons in their country but The Netherlands are clearly not an independent country.
 

delft

Brigadier
Re #2418:
The problem right now is this

US Goverment is weak the president is weak and the entire establishment is weak to the extent that defence cuts have left big gapping holes in foreign policy
You nailed it, Jura. The US practice their foreign policy based on the use of aircraft carriers rather than ambassadors. The US ambassador in The Netherlands was replaced after a hiatus of some 30 months by someone whose qualification is that he collected a few million dollars for the presidential reelection campaign.
 
Re #2418:

You nailed it, Jura. The US practice their foreign policy based on the use of aircraft carriers rather than ambassadors. The US ambassador in The Netherlands was replaced after a hiatus of some 30 months by someone whose qualification is that he collected a few million dollars for the presidential reelection campaign.

delft, if you mean
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/world-armed-forces/us-military-news-thread-162-1547.html#post274948
by #2418, then let me tell you I'm not an author by that post :) (it would be asif iqbal) but since you called me on it LOL I read it, found interesting ... In that post, there's one part I haven't heard of, though:

"Reagan also asked Saudi Arabia to flood and over supply the oil market which collapsed the Soviet foreign currency and the price of oil dropped to $13 barrel"

because if this really happened, I wouldn't know, as I had lived behind the Iron Curtain at that time :)
 
Posted on InsideDefense.com: March 31, 2014

The Defense Department has established a new baseline for the Navy's effort to develop and acquire mission packages for the Littoral Combat Ship, estimating a $7.2 billion price tag beyond the cost of the ships to acquire 64 sets of weapons and sensors that can be launched from MH-60 helicopters and unmanned vehicles -- a 120 percent increase above a 2007 estimate.

The Government Accountability Office, in a report published today, revealed the previously undisclosed cost estimate for the LCS Mission Modules program, which has been in development since 2004. The new cost estimate was locked in by the Navy's acquisition executive in January, according to the report, when the program formally transitioned into the engineering and manufacturing phase of the weapon system acquisition cycle.

This new cost estimate, however, is likely to be revised because it assumes buying 64 mission packages, a target the Navy developed to outfit 52 LCS ships. Last month, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel directed the Navy to pare back the planned LCS procurement to 32 ship and study options for follow-on capabilities, which could reduce the immediate requirement for mission modules.

Still, the figures in the GAO report provide new insight on the significant recalibration of the Navy's projected costs for delivering the combat packages needed for the ship to realize its promised capability.

"The program's acquisition cost is now $7.24 billion, an increase of $3.29 billion based upon its 2007 estimate, which did not include full development costs," GAO states in a new report on selected major defense acquisition programs.

Northrop Grumman is the Littoral Combat Ship mission package integrator, responsible for ensuring the modules fit within the seaframes.

According to GAO, the estimated research and development cost for the program is $3.1 billion, with another $4.1 billion estimated for procurement. The average unit cost is $113.1 million, according to the report. A 2007 cost estimate pegged the development costs at $517 million, with $3.4 billion for procurement, according to the report.

The Navy, according to the report, expressed concern to congressional investigators that these numbers do not tell the entire story.

"The Navy states that our assessment of program cost growth incorrectly compares the acquisition program baseline against a fiscal 2008 baseline, which does not reflect the total acquisition," the GAO report reads.

The Navy has previously said the cost to develop and procure a fleet of 52 LCS seaframes would be $33.9 billion. The Defense Department has not yet disclosed how the decision last month to reduce total seaframe quantities to 32 will impact that cost estimate.

From that report:

"Program Office Comments

The Navy states that our assessment of program
cost growth incorrectly compares the acquisition
program baseline against a fiscal 2008 baseline,
which does not reflect the total acquisition. Further, the Navy states that this assessment disregards
near term operational requirements as the data presented indicates that the program should be
delayed. The Navy also states that our assertion of excessive program risk, due to concurrency, is
unfounded because developmental testing,
combined with capability proven during early
deployments, has significantly reduced technical
risk. This is evidence, according to the Navy, that
the LCS will successfully complete operational
testing. Lastly, the current missile procurement was
delayed due to sequestration; the Navy states that
the program is on track to deliver a capability in late
2016.

GAO Response
In comparing the 2007 estimate with the acquisition
program baseline, we used the Navy's 2007 data,
which included full procurement costs but only five
years of development cost. The Navy has acquired
eight packages without proving capability through
operational testing. In the absence of a defined
increment-based approach for the full baseline
capability to sequentially gain knowledge and meet these requirements, the Navy's acquisition approach is not in accordance with best practices or DOD guidance in place at the time of our review."
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Army testing combat boots, camouflage patterns
March 31, 2014

By David Vergun


Soldiers in Afghanistan have reported durability problems with their boots when negotiating the rough terrain, so the Army now issues mountain combat boots to Soldiers who are deploying there. Pictured here are Soldiers patrolling Nuristan Province, Afghanistan, before the mountain boots were issued.
One of several jungle boots undergoing testing by Soldiers
Army Combat Boot, hot weather variation
Army Combat Boot, temperate weather variation
Fire-resistant boot used by aircraft and tank crew
Mountain Combat Boot, hot weather variation
Mountain Combat Boot, temperate variation
Related Links
Army.mil: Inside the Army News
PEO Soldier: Soldier Protection and Individual Equipment - PM SPIE
PEO Soldier: Soldier Enhancement Program
Army News Service
FORT BELVOIR, Va. (Army News Service, March 31, 2014) -- Young Soldiers often want to wear a uniform that looks cool, while lawmakers want cost effectiveness, but the Army's priority is protecting the Soldier from harm.

That's what Col. Robert F. Mortlock, project manager for Soldier Protection and Individual Equipment, Program Executive Office Soldier, said he aims for, along with other important goals like comfort, fit, price, protection from the environment and durability.

JUNGLE BOOTS

As the Army pivots to the Pacific region, it is looking to develop a new jungle boot. Testing of some vendor-supplied prototypes could begin this summer, Mortlock said.

A good jungle boot, he explained, would shed water, meaning it can dry out fast after submersion. It also would be lightweight and breathable to minimize the effects of high temperatures and humidity. The lugs (tread) on the outsole would also be able to trek through mud with minimal slipping. Also, the leather should not dry out and crack from repeated wetting cycles.

The most important factor in the development of the jungle boot -- or any new boot for that matter -- he said, is Soldier feedback from real-use, rigorous testing.

"We do this rigorous user testing because we want Soldiers to trust and have confidence in their equipment so they can focus on their primary mission. And we've built up that trust over a number of years," he added.

BOOT IMPROVEMENTS

One of the biggest recent improvements in boot design is "direct-attach outsoles," Mortlock explained that soles that are glued, not stitched, to the bottoms of boots, make some pairs of Army Combat Boots up to 1 pound lighter. The direct-attach outsoles are also less apt to separate after long, rough usage.

But equally importantly, he said, direct-attach outsoles have reduced lower leg injuries to Soldiers because they reduce the shock transferred to the foot and leg.

The adoption of "universal sizing" is also important. Until the Army adopted universal sizing, a Soldier wearing size 10.5 boots and who ordered another pair of the same size from another vendor might find the new boots somewhat smaller or bigger than the boots being replaced. This is because commercial vendors use different molds, or "lasts" for building their footwear. The Army now requires that a universal "last" or mold, be used by all of its boot vendors to ensure that Army-issue boots have universal sizing. This will reduce the logistics trail and save time for Soldiers and their units, Mortlock added.

Another criteria, that doesn't really relate to safety and comfort, is that any boot that's produced for Soldiers and issued by the Army has to be made entirely in the U.S. out of U.S.-manufactured textiles and materials, per the Berry Amendment, which was originally passed by Congress in 1941, and codified into law as 10 USC 2533a. Soldiers are authorized to wear boots of their choosing, even if they are not Berry Amendment compliant, as long as these boots conform to Army Regulation 670-1 "Uniform Appearance Regulation." Soldiers are authorized to use their clothing replacement allowance for these.

Master Sgt. Benjamin Owens, a 20-year Army veteran who was interviewed along with Mortlock, said that even though many Soldiers opt to buy their own footwear, in his opinion, the best boots are standard issue.

"As a drill sergeant, I've foot marched hundreds of miles in different terrains in these," he said, pointing to the standard-issue boots he was wearing.

"Younger Soldiers sometimes go for a flashy look in a boot," he said, adding that they often pay a price for doing so.

Adding to Owens' comment, Mortlock said, "Any time you choose a different boot, you're trading off something: durability or breathability, or something else."

When a Soldier first joins the Army, they're issued two types of standard Army Combat Boots, the hot weather and temperate weather variants. Soldiers later receive an annual clothing replacement allowance for boots.

Other specialized boots are issued for specific mission requirements. Soldiers deploying to Afghanistan are issued mountain combat boots, tailored for rough, mountainous terrain found in the eastern part of that country. That too comes in a hot-weather and temperate weather variant.

Aviators and vehicle combat crewmen are issued flame-resistant boots that fit their mission.

There are also intermediate cold/wet-weather boots and extreme cold-weather boots.

Specialized boots are not part of the Soldier's annual clothing replacement allowance, so Soldiers are simply issued new ones when their old boots wear out.

CAMOUFLAGE PATTERNS

The Army just completed the most extensive uniform camouflage testing in history, in which thousands of Soldiers participated over multiple lanes of effort, Mortlock said.

He explained the importance of camouflage to a Soldier's mission:

"The bottom line is the enemy can't kill, hurt or injure who they can't see," explained Mortlock. "We have testimonials from Soldiers in theater close enough to the enemy to hear them saying they can't see the American. That's powerful. That's a combat multiplier."

Although much has been done, camouflage testing continues, Mortlock said. The Army evaluates "all the options" and is reviewing the fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act to ensure any camouflage decision is in full compliance with the NDAA. The NDAA states that the Army can "use existing uniforms and patterns and use the patterns of sister services."

The ongoing tests will continue this month and next at Fort Benning, Ga., and will be followed up at Fort Polk, La., and Yuma Testing Ground, Ariz.

The tests are seeking to determine a family of camouflage patterns that perform better than the present Universal Camouflage Pattern, known as UCP. Separate patterns designed for arid, transitional semi-wooded, or heavily wooded terrain tend to perform better than a single pattern, which seeks to provide concealment in all three environments.

Criteria for testing the patterns, Mortlock said are "detection and blending."

For those criteria the Soldiers wearing the different patterns are put at a variety of distances, lightings, backgrounds and movements from Soldiers who serve as spotters. These Soldiers are timed as they try to pick the camouflaged Soldiers out from the environment.

So far, tests show that at a range between 25 and 50 meters, the pattern matters, meaning it is critical for blending in the environment. At distances greater than 50 meters, the pattern itself is less important than the general colors of the camouflage.

Once the testing is complete, Army leadership will use the test results to reach a decision on whether to keep the present camouflage pattern or adopt one of the new families of patterns. One option would be to adopt a transitional pattern for general Army use, and to keep the more specialized arid and woodland patterns in reserve until they are requested by a combatant commander.

"The other thing about camouflage that sometimes gets lost is, we're not changing the combat uniform," Mortlock added. "It'll still be called the Army Combat Uniform. All that we're doing is updating the camouflage on the Army Combat Uniform."

"Whatever we do, we're going to do in a fiscally-responsible manner," Mortlock said.

A number of organizations collaborate in the science, research, development and testing of combat boots and camouflage uniforms. These include PEO Soldier; the Army Test and Evaluation Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.;, the Maneuver Center of Excellence, Fort Benning, Ga.; U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Eustis, Va.; and the Natick Soldier Research Development and Engineering Center, Natick, Mass. The effort also benefits from interaction with commercial vendors who develop and produce combat boots, uniforms and other gear.

(For more ARNEWS stories, visit
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, or Facebook at
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)

Budget Cuts To Bring Military Spending Down To Pre-Civil War Levels By G-Had | February 26, 2014 18
THE PENTAGON — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel proposed deep and far-reaching cuts across the military on Monday, vowing to bring spending down to pre-Civil War levels, sources confirmed.

“There are some who would criticize a move towards bringing our military spending down to levels seen in the 1860s,” said Hagel. “But these people don’t understand the evolving nature of warfare.”

While the cuts would hit naval personnel hardest — with a reduction in the overall number of commodores in the service and the suspension of its plan to send gunboats to open up Japan to trade — the Army is also facing the end of its “two tribes” policy of having enough regiments mustered to fend off multiple Indian raids.

In a press briefing, Hagel also explained the need to make drastic cuts to equipment and personnel, but vowed to maintain important research and development funds for projects such as a regiment that can man two skirmisher lines at once and a ship of the line made of iron that runs on “steam power.”

However, plenty of programs will face the surgeon’s hacksaw. “The first thing we need to get rid of is the 32-pounder cannon,” said Hagel. “You need several extra horses to draw it and the reinforced caisson can only travel on the sturdiest dirt roads.”

He added that the Air Force would also see a reduction to “tested and sustainable technology levels,” such as hydrogen-powered dirigibles whose safety record rivals today’s Ospreys.

Hagel refused to comment if the Army would still receive funding for its controversial all-negro units.

Paul contributed a headline and emotional support for this report.

Sikorsky pays $3.5 million over Army cost claims
Mar. 31, 2014 - 05:43PM |
0 Comments

A
A

The Associated Press
FILED UNDER
News
Congress & DOD
HARTFORD, CONN. — Helicopter maker Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. has agreed to pay $3.5 million to resolve allegations it violated federal law and inflated the cost of spare parts to the Army, federal prosecutors said Monday.

From 2008 to 2011, Sikorsky did not disclose accurate, complete and current cost and pricing data to the Army purchasing unit that buys spare parts for the manufacturer’s Black Hawk helicopter. When determining the prices to be charged to the government, Sikorsky failed to disclose it had lower prices for certain parts.

The government paid artificially excessive prices, authorities said.

“Failure to disclose accurate, complete and current cost and pricing data created an uneven playing field in the negotiation process, which tilted unfairly in Sikorsky’s favor,” U.S. Attorney Deirdre M. Daly said.

Stratford-based Sikorsky is a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. In a statement, it said it’s pleased to have resolved the matter.

Authorities say Sikorsky violated the False Claims Act.

“Unethical decisions and instances of fraud occurring within the defense contractor community continue to burden the U.S. defense budget and puts U.S. military readiness at a disadvantage,” said Craig W. Rupert, special agent in charge of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service.

Military contractors are required by law to disclose accurate, complete and current cost and pricing data to the government during negotiations.

Unidentified Aircraft Seen Over Southwest U.S.
By Bill Sweetman
Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology

March 31, 2014
Credit: Steve Douglass
The identity of what appears to be a blended wing-body aircraft type photographed over Amarillo, Texas, on March 10 remains uncertain, with the U.S. Air Force declining any comment on the aircraft.

Three aircraft were observed flying in formation southwest of Amarillo around 4:20 p.m. CDT, by photographers on the fence line of the city's international airport. IbOne of the aircraft could be a B-2, but the clearest color photos and monochrome images enhanced (for contrast and resolution) with commercial software suggest a blended shape with a straight trailing edge. Steve Douglass, one of the photographers and an experienced aircraft observer, says the aircraft were “larger than fighter-size” and appeared similar in wingspan to commercial traffic.

The formation was not using Mode S transponders, according to a review of records at the Flightradar24 air-traffic-tracking site. Radio transmissions apparently associated with the flight were intercepted and recorded, possibly including the call sign “Sienna.”

An Air Force representative in Washington responded to queries about the aircraft, and about flight activities at that time and place, with the statement “I have nothing for you,” a phrase long associated with responses to queries about classified programs and operations. The 509th Bomb Wing at Whiteman AFB, Mo., home of the Air Force's B-2 fleet, says that none of its aircraft were operating near Amarillo on March 10. However, test units have also flown B-2s.

The fact that three aircraft were in formation suggests an aircraft that is operational or close to reaching that status. The unidentified aircraft are not likely to have been examples of the Northrop Grumman stealth reconnaissance drone known as the RQ-180 (AW&ST Dec. 9, 2013, p. 20) because unmanned air systems are seldom flown in formation of any kind. Likewise, the Lockheed Martin demonstrator that is reportedly being built to support the Long Range Strike-Bomber program is likely to be a one-off product.

For a closer look at the images and more about the photographing of these and other classified aircraft, check out Bill Sweetman's post on Ares at: ow.ly/v3Hvp
B3? or X48?
 
Top