US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
LONG RANGE BOMBER PROGRAM! I gotto get to school too, duty calls.
IMHO, probably a skunk works or other deep secret THAP. Manned or unmanned.
Probably not the TR-3A, which I believe exists in some form (also too many sightings and pics), because they are usually much lower altitude in their operations.
Face it ROW, the US builds limited numbers (3-4 at a time) of black project, very advanced aircraft for recon, surveillance, and for research. Been happening since the early 1950s. IMHO, this is something along those lines.
Jura The idiot
General
On Nukes:
Posted on InsideDefense.com: May 9, 2014
An amendment tucked into the House Armed Services Committee's mark-up of the fiscal year 2015 defense authorization bill would allow the Pentagon to eliminate 50 nuclear missile silos beginning in 2021, if it so chooses.
Those silos, both by Defense Department policy and by congressional mandate, will be kept in a "warm" or employable status once their missiles are removed over the next few years in accordance with the New START treaty. An earlier version of the legislation would have set an indefinite, blanket ban on getting rid of those silos, whereas an update, submitted by Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), sets Feb. 5, 2021 as that prohibition's end date.
That amendment is one of several provisions related to Air Force nuclear weapons included in a package of en-bloc amendments proposed by House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee members. En-bloc packages typically include non-controversial legislation and are generally adopted with little or no debate.
Congressional Democrats skeptical of growing spending on nuclear weapons included a pair of additional amendments in the committee's mark-up. One, from Sanchez and Rep. Rick Larsen (D-WA), asks for clarity on the amount of upgraded B61 nuclear gravity bombs that will be produced. The lawmakers wrote that that program of record "must be appropriately sized to meet the requirements of extended and strategic deterrence, and should be informed by geopolitical developments in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere around the world."
The amendment directs a collection of senior defense officials -- among them the heads of three combatant commands -- to brief the committee by Jan. 15, 2015, on the analyses that have informed the production plans for B61 munitions. It also asks for a time frame for when a final decision on production quantities must be made, possibly giving critics of the B61 program a schedule on which to seek to limit it. This amendment was part of the en-bloc package.
Most of the Pentagon's nuclear recapitalization efforts span decades -- for example, the legacy Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile and Air-Launched Cruise Missile that DOD is working to replace will both stay in service until 2030, and the Navy's nuclear weapons are similarly long-term pieces of the inventory. Therefore, another en-bloc amendment from Larsen asks that Congress be briefed on nuclear triad modernization plans going beyond the current 10-year reporting requirement. "This briefing should include relevant measures to ensure that these plans are executable and cost-effective, and discussion of the challenges associated with such very-long-term planning," according to a summary of the legislation.
Democrats submitted two other notable amendments relating to nuclear policy for consideration. One, from Sanchez and Larsen, would partially limit the amount of funding available for expenditure on B61 life-extension work; that activity is led by the National Nuclear Security Administration, with the Air Force responsible for developing a new B61 bomb tailkit. That weapon is likely to be based in Europe once it is fielded in the 2020s, and the legislation would fence off 10 percent of B61 funding until the Energy and Defense Department secretaries, in consultation with the State Department, submit a report detailing if and how NATO allies will share in the costs of B61 development and overseas deployments.
Specifically, the provision calls for "written certification that a proportional share, as determined by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Secretary of State, of the cost of forward-deploying such nuclear weapons will be provided by members of NATO other than the United States." The amendment also would require the president to formally request that the North Atlantic Council consider its share of expenses linked to B61 deployments, and that NATO or the council's response be shared with the congressional defense committees.
As is often the case, the funding limitation in the amendment can be waived if the president deems the expenditure of 100 percent of B61 dollars is in the vital national security interest of the United States.
A final amendment, from Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA), asks for the justification and cost projections for the Long-Range Standoff weapon, the Air Force's next-generation nuclear cruise missile. Development of that missile has been pushed back by three years, to FY-18, and is likely to cost billions of dollars going forward.
Posted on InsideDefense.com: May 9, 2014
An amendment tucked into the House Armed Services Committee's mark-up of the fiscal year 2015 defense authorization bill would allow the Pentagon to eliminate 50 nuclear missile silos beginning in 2021, if it so chooses.
Those silos, both by Defense Department policy and by congressional mandate, will be kept in a "warm" or employable status once their missiles are removed over the next few years in accordance with the New START treaty. An earlier version of the legislation would have set an indefinite, blanket ban on getting rid of those silos, whereas an update, submitted by Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), sets Feb. 5, 2021 as that prohibition's end date.
That amendment is one of several provisions related to Air Force nuclear weapons included in a package of en-bloc amendments proposed by House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee members. En-bloc packages typically include non-controversial legislation and are generally adopted with little or no debate.
Congressional Democrats skeptical of growing spending on nuclear weapons included a pair of additional amendments in the committee's mark-up. One, from Sanchez and Rep. Rick Larsen (D-WA), asks for clarity on the amount of upgraded B61 nuclear gravity bombs that will be produced. The lawmakers wrote that that program of record "must be appropriately sized to meet the requirements of extended and strategic deterrence, and should be informed by geopolitical developments in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere around the world."
The amendment directs a collection of senior defense officials -- among them the heads of three combatant commands -- to brief the committee by Jan. 15, 2015, on the analyses that have informed the production plans for B61 munitions. It also asks for a time frame for when a final decision on production quantities must be made, possibly giving critics of the B61 program a schedule on which to seek to limit it. This amendment was part of the en-bloc package.
Most of the Pentagon's nuclear recapitalization efforts span decades -- for example, the legacy Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile and Air-Launched Cruise Missile that DOD is working to replace will both stay in service until 2030, and the Navy's nuclear weapons are similarly long-term pieces of the inventory. Therefore, another en-bloc amendment from Larsen asks that Congress be briefed on nuclear triad modernization plans going beyond the current 10-year reporting requirement. "This briefing should include relevant measures to ensure that these plans are executable and cost-effective, and discussion of the challenges associated with such very-long-term planning," according to a summary of the legislation.
Democrats submitted two other notable amendments relating to nuclear policy for consideration. One, from Sanchez and Larsen, would partially limit the amount of funding available for expenditure on B61 life-extension work; that activity is led by the National Nuclear Security Administration, with the Air Force responsible for developing a new B61 bomb tailkit. That weapon is likely to be based in Europe once it is fielded in the 2020s, and the legislation would fence off 10 percent of B61 funding until the Energy and Defense Department secretaries, in consultation with the State Department, submit a report detailing if and how NATO allies will share in the costs of B61 development and overseas deployments.
Specifically, the provision calls for "written certification that a proportional share, as determined by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Secretary of State, of the cost of forward-deploying such nuclear weapons will be provided by members of NATO other than the United States." The amendment also would require the president to formally request that the North Atlantic Council consider its share of expenses linked to B61 deployments, and that NATO or the council's response be shared with the congressional defense committees.
As is often the case, the funding limitation in the amendment can be waived if the president deems the expenditure of 100 percent of B61 dollars is in the vital national security interest of the United States.
A final amendment, from Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA), asks for the justification and cost projections for the Long-Range Standoff weapon, the Air Force's next-generation nuclear cruise missile. Development of that missile has been pushed back by three years, to FY-18, and is likely to cost billions of dollars going forward.
Jura The idiot
General
On Submarines: (this time I won't underscore anything 
as I need to run to work)
Posted on InsideDefense.com: May 12, 2014
The Navy has tallied a $27.3 billion price tag for its recently announced five-year plan to buy 10 Virginia-class submarines, a sum that includes nearly $10 billion worth of major subsystems the government will procure for the boats beyond the $17.6 billion shipbuilding contract announced last month.
According to figures provided on May 12 by Capt. David Goggins, program manager for the Virginia-class submarine program, through a spokesman, the Navy estimates the new multiyear contract announced on April 29 will save $5.4 billion compared with an estimated $32.7 billion total ship construction cost to buy the 10 submarines between fiscal years 2014 and 2018 using annual contracts.
"This equates to 16.5 percent" savings, Goggins said in the statement in response to questions from InsideDefense.com. The estimated savings assumes benefits from both the multiyear procurement contract and economic order quantity bulk purchases, according to Goggins.
On April 29, the Navy announced it awarded General Dynamics Electric Boat a $17.6 billion multiyear contract for construction of 10 nuclear-powered attack submarines between fiscal year 2014 and 2018, with options for on-board repairs that could bring the cumulative value of the deal to $17.8 billion.
The contract award, the fourth Virginia-class multiyear block buy, enables Electric Boat and its industry partner Newport News Shipbuilding to continue building two submarines annually.
"This is the largest number of boats ordered to date in a single contract block, which is great news -- particularly in light of today's challenging economic and political environments," Matt Mulherin, Newport News Shipbuilding's president said in a statement at the time of the award.
The actual budgeted construction costs for the Block IV multiyear contract are slightly different from those the Navy initially presented to Congress in 2012 when the service initially sought permission to proceed with a block buy procurement contract for FY-14 to FY-18.
As part of the FY-13 budget request, the Navy outlined a plan to buy nine boats at a total budgeted construction cost of $26.6 billion, a proposed deal that promised $4.4 billion in savings -- 14.4 percent -- compared to $31 billion to buy the same number of boats annually.
As part of the Pentagon's fiscal year 2014 budget, Congress authorized the Navy to proceed with the new submarine multiyear procurement and funded a 10th boat in FY-14.
By adding an additional boat, the total estimated cost of the bulk buy increased by $700 million, compared to figures provided Congress in March 2012; the average cost of each submarine as part of the deal decreased by 7 percent, from $2.95 billion to $2.73 billion.
For each submarine, the Navy separately procures major subsystems and components that are then provided to the shipbuilders to integrate, including the nuclear propulsion plant, combat systems, and the propulsor.
The propulsion plant is purchased using advance procurement (AP) funding two years ahead of the year in which the Navy is formally authorized to buy the submarine, according to Goggins. "The propulsor contract, also critical to schedule, is procured one year ahead of ship authorization with AP to meet the ship's delivery schedule," he added. "The combat system contracts, with less lead time required, are procured in the second to third year of ship construction."
as I need to run to work)Posted on InsideDefense.com: May 12, 2014
The Navy has tallied a $27.3 billion price tag for its recently announced five-year plan to buy 10 Virginia-class submarines, a sum that includes nearly $10 billion worth of major subsystems the government will procure for the boats beyond the $17.6 billion shipbuilding contract announced last month.
According to figures provided on May 12 by Capt. David Goggins, program manager for the Virginia-class submarine program, through a spokesman, the Navy estimates the new multiyear contract announced on April 29 will save $5.4 billion compared with an estimated $32.7 billion total ship construction cost to buy the 10 submarines between fiscal years 2014 and 2018 using annual contracts.
"This equates to 16.5 percent" savings, Goggins said in the statement in response to questions from InsideDefense.com. The estimated savings assumes benefits from both the multiyear procurement contract and economic order quantity bulk purchases, according to Goggins.
On April 29, the Navy announced it awarded General Dynamics Electric Boat a $17.6 billion multiyear contract for construction of 10 nuclear-powered attack submarines between fiscal year 2014 and 2018, with options for on-board repairs that could bring the cumulative value of the deal to $17.8 billion.
The contract award, the fourth Virginia-class multiyear block buy, enables Electric Boat and its industry partner Newport News Shipbuilding to continue building two submarines annually.
"This is the largest number of boats ordered to date in a single contract block, which is great news -- particularly in light of today's challenging economic and political environments," Matt Mulherin, Newport News Shipbuilding's president said in a statement at the time of the award.
The actual budgeted construction costs for the Block IV multiyear contract are slightly different from those the Navy initially presented to Congress in 2012 when the service initially sought permission to proceed with a block buy procurement contract for FY-14 to FY-18.
As part of the FY-13 budget request, the Navy outlined a plan to buy nine boats at a total budgeted construction cost of $26.6 billion, a proposed deal that promised $4.4 billion in savings -- 14.4 percent -- compared to $31 billion to buy the same number of boats annually.
As part of the Pentagon's fiscal year 2014 budget, Congress authorized the Navy to proceed with the new submarine multiyear procurement and funded a 10th boat in FY-14.
By adding an additional boat, the total estimated cost of the bulk buy increased by $700 million, compared to figures provided Congress in March 2012; the average cost of each submarine as part of the deal decreased by 7 percent, from $2.95 billion to $2.73 billion.
For each submarine, the Navy separately procures major subsystems and components that are then provided to the shipbuilders to integrate, including the nuclear propulsion plant, combat systems, and the propulsor.
The propulsion plant is purchased using advance procurement (AP) funding two years ahead of the year in which the Navy is formally authorized to buy the submarine, according to Goggins. "The propulsor contract, also critical to schedule, is procured one year ahead of ship authorization with AP to meet the ship's delivery schedule," he added. "The combat system contracts, with less lead time required, are procured in the second to third year of ship construction."
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Remote Control 1:1 Scale Blackhawk... Awesome!<3
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Jura The idiot
General
USN BMD ships
Early 2014 30 CG/DDG : 5 +25.
Ticonderoga :
Shiloh*, Port Royal*, Lake Erie**, Monterey**** , Vela Gulf****
Burke :
Wilbur*, Fitzgerald*, McCain*, Stethem*, Hopper**, Hamilton**, O'Kane**, Benfold***, Decatur***, Higgins***, Jones***, Milius***, Russell***Ross****, Ramage****, Stout****, McFaul****, Porter****, Cole****, Carney*****, The Sullivans*****, Cook******,
in more 3 others ?
Homeport :
Yokosuka *
Pearl Harbor**
San Diego***
Norfolk****
Mayport*****
Rota****** new : Cook yet, Ross 2014, Porter, Carney 2015, Destroyer Squadron 60
If someone know the name for the 3 Burke missing, thank you to say.
Early 2014 30 CG/DDG : 5 +25.
Ticonderoga :
Shiloh*, Port Royal*, Lake Erie**, Monterey**** , Vela Gulf****
Burke :
Wilbur*, Fitzgerald*, McCain*, Stethem*, Hopper**, Hamilton**, O'Kane**, Benfold***, Decatur***, Higgins***, Jones***, Milius***, Russell***Ross****, Ramage****, Stout****, McFaul****, Porter****, Cole****, Carney*****, The Sullivans*****, Cook******,
in more 3 others ?
Homeport :
Yokosuka *
Pearl Harbor**
San Diego***
Norfolk****
Mayport*****
Rota****** new : Cook yet, Ross 2014, Porter, Carney 2015, Destroyer Squadron 60
If someone know the name for the 3 Burke missing, thank you to say.