US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

I just wish they had kept going with Armed aerial scout and merge it into JMR as the JMR-L. the JMR program is designed to replace all the existing Rotary wing fleet save for CH53K and possibly V22. Included in that was the Kiowa but the opening for the JMR-Light which would have replaced the Kiowa was for 2030!
JMR-Medium to replace BlackHawk and Apache in 2027
JMR-Heavy to replace Chinook in 2035
and the Weirdest of them JMR-ULTRA to replace C130?! in 2025? and aimed for a A400M class transport with VTOL. which means they would have to have JMR Ultra in the Air under testing right now! but we don't have anything yet.

the Way it should be worked in my opinion is something like this

• JMR-Scout 2020 replacing Kiowa with manned and unmanned capacity
• JMR-Utility 2026 All service Replacing H60/H1 As utility/CSAR/ASW/MedEvac/infiltration.

• JMR-Heavy replacing Chinook 2030-ish should be a tilt rotor based platform
• JMR-Ultra option post 2030 with USAF to act as Tactical transport, Gunship, tanker, and then some.

Jura said:

On Helicopters:

Posted on InsideDefense.com: May 19, 2014

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) is sponsoring an amendment to the House fiscal year 2015 defense authorization bill that recommends the Army upgrade the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior helicopter despite the service's plans to divest the aircraft.

"The secretary of the Army may implement engineering change proposals on OH-58D Kiowa Warrior helicopters," the amendment language states. Those changes include a mast-mounted sight laser pointer, a two-card system processor and a diode pump laser.

According to the amendment, the "manner of modifications" for the helicopters "ensures the safety and survivability of the crews of OH-58D Kiowa Warrior helicopters by expeditiously replacing or integrating, or both, the mast-mounted sight engineering change proposals to the current OH-58D fleet; the safety of the flight and that the minimum requirements of the commanders of the combatant commands are met."

Why a helicopter slated to be retired should be updated, however, remains unclear. A representative from Session's office was not immediately available for comment, though a congressional source stressed that language in the amendment appeared more suggestive than directive.

The Army plans to divest its entire fleet of Kiowa Warriors and instead fly AH-64 Apache helicopters teamed with Shadow unmanned aircraft systems in the armed aerial scout role. Army officials have repeatedly said the faster the service can divest the aircraft the more savings could be generated through cost avoidance. In a briefing obtained by InsideDefense.com in January, the service outlined decision points for its plan to restructure Army aviation and noted that the first move was to divest the aircraft and cancel its cockpit and sensor upgrade program.

The timing on when Kiowas will officially be moved into storage or retired is unknown. However, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno has testified that should the service not be allowed to begin implementing its restructure plan in FY-15 it would lose $1 billion in anticipated savings that year.

Click to expand...

Thank you Jura for all you do to keep us all abreast of the latest defense new, Forbin also makes a great contribution as well to our little program, as does Asif Iqbal, we have many senior posters who do the same, and sometimes something you co-ordinate together on gives me a much better picture on a subject I know little about, each of your insights and observations add to the overall excellent experience of the Sino-Defense Forum.

On Bombers: (That's scary, Attrition Reserve Assets, in the middle of the article.)

Posted on InsideDefense.com: May 20, 2014

The Defense Department estimates in a new report that Air Force spending on its long-range strike inventory will decline to almost $8 billion annually by 2024 after reaching nearly $10 billion in 2020, a roughly 20 percent drop compared to the Pentagon's 2013 forecast.

DOD disclosed the figures -- which for a third consecutive year reflect dramatic fluctuations -- in an annual report on its long-term aircraft plan delivered to lawmakers last month. The congressionally mandated report summarizes plans to acquire and sustain a fleet of more than 13,400 aircraft between fiscal years 2015 and 2024.

The Pentagon's 2013 report to Congress estimated funding to procure and sustain the Air Force bomber fleet -- including the B-1, B-2, B-52 and the new Long-Range Strike-Bomber -- would propel annual Air Force spending on its long-range strike inventory to a sustained level of $10 billion within a decade, a three-fold increase compared to the 2012 plan (DefenseAlert, June 12, 2013).

The annual estimate reflects total research and development spending, procurement, operation and maintenance, personnel and military construction resources to achieve the planned inventory as well as to operate, maintain, sustain and support the fleet.

The Air Force launched the Long-Range Strike bomber program with its fiscal year 2011 budget request; the effort was subsequently identified as a key modernization thrust of the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance, which called for the military to "rebalance" toward the Asia-Pacific region following the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

With the exception of limited budget information, most details behind the new bomber program are classified. The new report reiterates Air Force plans to field a new nuclear-capable, penetrating bomber in the mid-2020s and to buy between 80 and 100 aircraft.

According to the new report, the Air Force spends $5 billion annually on its entire long-range strike inventory, which includes a total of 159 bombers -- 96 operational aircraft, 29 training aircraft, seven used for research and development and 27 attrition reserve assets.

These include 76 B-52H Stratofortress bombers, 63 B-1B Lancer bombers and 20 B-2A stealth bombers. The Air Force plans to extend the operational life of B-52s and B-1s to 2040 and the B-2s until 2058.

"The current fleet of Air Force bombers continues to be modernized so that it can retain long-range strike capabilities through the 2030s," the report states. "To deter and defeat [anti-access, area denial] A2/AD threats, DOD is creating a long-range strike family of systems, including a program to develop a new penetrating, nuclear-capable bomber."

The new report projects the inventory will fall to 147 aircraft by 2024, though that accounting is intentionally incomplete. "Inventory does not include LRS-B to keep report unclassified," the report states, a stipulation not included in previous reports.

Boeing and Lockheed Martin are teamed in a presumed competition against Northrop Grumman to develop a new nuclear-capable aircraft.

The Air Force's FY-15 budget calls for spending $11.4 billion through FY-19 on the new bomber, including $913.7 million in FY-15, $1.5 billion in FY-16, $2.3 billion in FY-17, $3 billion in FY-18 and $3.4 billion in FY-19.

The report sent to Congress last month does not account for statutory spending cuts that would require the Air Force to wring $36.2 billion from its budget plan between FY-16 and FY-19 if lawmakers and the White House cannot agree on a plan that would reduce federal spending and raise revenues.

Navy TAO(X) Oiler Shipbuilding Program:


Henry J. Kaiser Class Oilers replacement.

There will be a replacement for the Supply class fast combat support ship planned ?
The Supply decommissioned by the end of the year, unusual log ships capable 26 kn the world's only able to go as fast as combat ships in a TF ( almost ).
All the others max 20 kn.

On Open Systems:

Posted on InsideDefense.com: May 21, 2014

Although an open systems approach to acquisition can potentially benefit all programs, it must be applied on a case-by-case basis assessed through the Defense Department's milestone decision process, Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall told lawmakers in a recent report.

"While the department acknowledges the potential benefits that open system principles can bring to its acquisition system, it recognizes that it is not necessarily a one-size-fits-all solution for every procurement," Kendall wrote in the April 1 report reviewed by Inside the Pentagon. "The department will continue to implement and exploit open system design principles to the maximum extent possible in cases when a comprehensive operational and business case analysis supports such an approach."

This decision, which could be made at a program's initial development stage or at a later point in the program's life, is contingent on factors including mission, threat, vulnerability and operating environment, Kendall wrote.

Although the department believes a case-by-case basis is best, defense officials understand that the open systems approach "is essential to establishing an environment of reduced total ownership costs, preventing proprietary limitations, enabling rapid insertion of new joint interoperable technologies, preventing obsolescence, and decreasing time to field new capabilities," the report states.

The report comes in response to a call from lawmakers to make better use of open architecture. In the House report accompanying the fiscal year 2014 Defense Authorization Act, lawmakers commended the Pentagon's efforts to develop a common, open and scalable architecture to control unmanned aircraft systems. But yet, "the services have continued, in some cases, to procure proprietary and closed architecture unmanned systems and ground control segments resulting in higher costs, fragmented and disjointed operations, and reduced operational effectiveness," the lawmakers wrote, calling for the Pentagon to have all UAS systems heavier than 20 pounds be in compliance with the architecture.

Lawmakers also noted that the Pentagon has "the potential to benefit from the use of an open systems approach for weapons systems acquisition programs," and called for a report that laid out DOD's plan to implement an open systems approach for new manned and unmanned aircraft acquisition programs, and the related costs and benefits.

In the report, Kendall noted that an open systems model would benefit more than just aircraft acquisition programs.

"Implementation of warfighting functions using an open architecture, standards-based solution enables common, interoperable capabilities to be fielded more rapidly and more affordably while facilitating effective technology insertion," the report states.

DOD also called out its unmanned efforts with the UAS Control Segment architecture, noting that in one instance, "a $450,000 investment made in architecture modifications demonstrated a potential cost savings of up to $72 million through software reuse."

However, achieving the benefits of open systems architecture comes with costs, DOD wrote.

"An open system approach requires resources to cover non-recurring engineering costs for research, development, design and testing of its products," the report states, noting that a program that uses an open architecture within a closed system "with no reuse or model driven engineering" would limit the benefits.

"For these reasons, the department believes any open system implementation must be backed by a sound business case indicating that the open system development cost will produce tangible total ownership savings in the context of a program's overall acquisition strategy," the report states.

SOCOM Soon Getting More Capable, Deadlier Ospreys and C-130s
May. 22, 2014 - 11:33AM | By PAUL McLEARY
TAMPA, FLA. — US Special Operations Command may have a relatively small budget with which to add the latest generation of widgets to its fixed-wing fleet, but commando leaders say they’re making those dollars count — and doing so quickly.

Plans briefed to industry at the annual SOFIC conference here include adding a forward-facing gun and better armor to its 50 CV-22 Ospreys, Hellfire missiles to the AC-130 fleet, along with new command and control and radio frequency jammers and countermeasures to both platforms that can be rolled on and rolled off, depending on the mission.

But money is an issue.

“If you’ve got a million dollar widget you want to put on the [Osprey] — there’s 50 of them. We can’t afford a $50 million program,” Lt. Col. John DiSebastian, SOCOM’s C-130 and CV-22 program director, told a small group of defense industry reps Wednesday.

“But if you’ve got a $100,000 or a $50,000 widget that can improve the sustainment, capability, or ops of the aircraft, then bring that to us.”

DiSebastian stressed that he’s looking for opportunities to do low-cost modifications on the tilt-rotor aircraft, hinting that the playing field is still pretty wide open as the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) is continuing to refine and tweak how the CV-22 is employed.

But that doesn’t mean the commandos haven’t already outlined a path forward.

After three of AFSOC’s Ospreys were shot up over Juba, South Sudan in December, resulting in the injuries of four Marines on board, the command realized that the birds needed better armor.

DiSebastian said that “we’re looking to put armor protection on those aircraft in under 140 days” and they’re about a third of the way through that.

SOCOM leadership is also working on beefing up the firepower on the aircraft, testing new forward-firing weapons that it wants to put in place by the end of this year.

If that seems like a pretty quick schedule to those who are used to the years-long process of getting things done in the Pentagon bureaucracy, Lt. Col. DiSebastian said that’s the whole point.

The gun program “is something that if we went to big Air Force or big Navy acquisitions it would have been a five-year program,” he said, but since the command is doing the research and development itself, “companies are looking to put a capability on this aircraft and shoot it by the end of this year.”

According to slides presented at the briefing, SOCOM is also looking at the potential of using helmet mounted displays, digital map upgrades, and using mobile devices to help do mission planning in the near future.

When it comes to the AC-130 gunship, the command has developed a laser-guided small diameter bomb that will be fielded this summer, and is just starting the process of fitting Hellfire missiles on the aircraft, according to Erich Borgstede, SOCOM’s systems acquisition manager for standoff precision-guided munitions.

SOCOM’s C-130 variants are the most expensive part of its overall portfolio, and include the MC-130 cargo planes along with the AC-130 gunships.

While AFSOC operates about 200 C-130s, it has outlined plans to reduce the overall number of airplanes it operates while focusing more on adding capability to the platforms that it retains.

Click to expand...

Sounds like If they wanted to modify and use the CV22 as a Gundhip the USAF would need to be based on existing systems. in other words conventional arms.

House OKs $495.8B for 2015 Base Budget; Orders Army Structure Commission
May. 22, 2014 - 01:55PM | By JOHN T. BENNETT | Comments


A House passed US defense spending bill would set up an independent commission to study the Army's future structure. (Army)

WASHINGTON — The House on Thursday approved a measure that would authorize just over $600 billion in 2015 US defense spending, while blocking A-10 retirement plans and ordering an independent group to study the Army’s future.

The chamber’s version of the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act includes a $495.8 billion base Pentagon budget and $79.4 billion more for an overseas contingency operations (OCO) budget. It passed 385-98, with over 80 Democrats and more than 10 Republicans voting no.

The bill, crafted by the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), also authorizes $17.9 billion in Energy Department defense programs and $7.9 billion in mandatory defense spending.

And it could still grow larger because the OCO amount is a placeholder. The White House could send over an exact amount for the war in Afghanistan after the bill later goes to conference to resolve any differences between the House and Senate versions.

The House-passed measure shifts funds to protect a long list of weapon programs. That approach could be DOA in the Senate, where that chamber’s Armed Services Committee is crafting its version of the legislation. Senate subcommittee chairs gave clues in several open — but brief — mark-up sessions this week that the SASC bill would adopt much of the Obama administration’s 2015 defense budget, which proposed some weapon retirements and cuts.

Action on the chamber floor Wednesday and Thursday did not include any effort to reverse HASC’s language that prohibits retiring A-10 attack planes until the US comptroller general makes a number of certifications and completes several studies. Those measures would have to include a report to evaluate all Air Force platforms that are used for close air support missions.

Notably, the chamber defeated an amendment offered by California Democratic Reps. Adam Schiff and John Garamendi, 191-233 with more than 200 GOP members voting no. The amendment would have voided the post-9/11 authorization of the use of military force (AUMF) one year after the final version of the NDAA is signed into law.

Lawmakers in both parties have talked in recent years about rescinding the AUMF or updating it, especially as al-Qaida has been weakened in Pakistan and Afghanistan but gained strength elsewhere.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., told reporters last year he doubted AUMF reform efforts would go anywhere because the White House opposes altering the measure. But some legal scholars say the Obama administration may push for changes near the end of Barack Obama’s second term, which ends in January 2017.

Very Little Debate
The chamber approved more than 100 amendments in just a few hours on Wednesday evening, most without any serious debate via six large blocs adopted via voice votes. Another bloc of amendments was adopted Thursday morning.

The chamber also approved a bipartisan amendment that would set up an independent commission to study the Army’s future structure. Specifically, the provision would require the commission to explore: “(1) the necessary size (2) the proper force mixture of the active component and reserve component (3) missions (4) force generation policies, including assumptions behind those policies (5) and how the structure should be modified to best fulfill mission requirements in a manner consistent with available resources,” according to a House summary.

Senate Armed Services Airland subcommittee Chairman Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told reporters Tuesday that the full SASC version of the bill also would mandate an Army structure commission.

The measure includes an amendment from Rep. John Mulvaney, R-S.C., and Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Fla., which “codifies criteria developed by [the White House Office of Management and Budget] in 2010 to clarify when military spending should be designated as contingency operations and properly be part of the Overseas Contingency Operation budget,” according to a House summary.

Members of both parties are increasingly skeptical of the Pentagon and White House budget practice of using that war fund to pay for things lawmakers and analysts contend are not directly related to America’s post-9/11 wars.

On the floor, another amendment was tacked on directing the White House to sell Lockheed Martin-made F-16 fighter jets to Taiwan. It also includes a proposal to shift $99 million to buy Raytheon-made Standard Missiles.

On the floor, members approved an amendment from Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., requiring US plans for Afghanistan through 2018 to describe opportunities for American companies to win contracts to equip Afghan security forces.

Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., won approval for a measure that would prohibit the establishment of permanent US military bases on Afghan soil.

Protects Programs
The floor process left intact the general crux of the House Armed Services Committee-crafted bill: It protects a slew of weapon programs. It does so mostly by raiding accounts used for service contracts and other non-weapons accounts.

Those transfers would give the armed services billions in order to refuel the aircraft carrier George Washington, develop missile defenses with Israel, buy EA-18G aircraft and upgrade Abrams tanks — projects not budgeted in the Obama administration’s 2015 Pentagon spending request.

The bill would shift $796.2 million to refuel the GW and maintain an 11-carrier fleet, $450 million for five EA-18Gs, $348 million for the “Israeli Cooperative Missile Defense” program, $800 million for the Navy’s amphibious ship program and $120 million for the Abrams upgrades.

It also proposes $82 million for 96 Tomahawk missiles, $80 million for body armor and over $240 million for three combat vehicle programs.

To protect those programs, others took hits. That list includes the Pentagon’s Joint IED Defeat Organization ($49.5 million), Littoral Combat Ship program ($350 million), Energy Department uranium enrichment fund ($100 million).

Notably, $817.5 million from accounts used to pay for service contracts would be tapped.

With the lower chamber now finished with its 2015 NDAA, attention shifts across the Capitol. The Senate Armed Services Committee is working behind closed doors on its version of the bill, and is slated to finish this week. The full upper chamber likely will not take up the bill until the fall.

A House-Senate conference committee would then hammer out the differences and craft a final version.

Click to expand...

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Sounds like If they wanted to modify and use the CV22 as a Gundhip the USAF would need to be based on existing systems. in other words conventional arms.

Click to expand...

Wow! The AC-130 is about to get even more awesome! And I can't wait to see ACV-22s!

BREAKING!!!!

Army Selects New Camouflage Pattern

Military.comMay 23, 2014 | by Matthew Cox
The U.S. Army is quietly putting the word out to commands that it is replacing its current Universal Camouflage Pattern with a pattern the service has owned for more than a decade.
The Army's senior leadership has selected Scorpion, a pattern similar to MultiCam that was developed around 2002, according to a source with knowledge of the decision.
Sgt. Major of the Army Raymond Chandler III has been briefing senior sergeants major throughout the Army about the new pattern for the Army Combat Uniform, but details are still limited.
The Army was poised to announce the results of its multi-year camouflage improvement effort nearly a year ago, but congressional language in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2014 called on the Pentagon to put an end to the services branding their ranks with unique camouflage uniforms.
The Army has been considering replacing UCP with Crye Precision's MultiCam -- a pattern that has demonstrated consistent performance in multiple tests and was selected in 2010 for soldiers to wear in Afghanistan.
Army officials even tried to buy the rights to MultiCam but rejected Crye's figure of $25 million, according to Caleb Crye, owner of Crye Precision. Army officials also balked at paying for "printing fees" the company receives on MultiCam -- a small figure that amounts to about one percent of the 20 percent price hike uniform companies want to charge the Army for MultiCam, according to Crye.
In addition to Crye, the other finalists in the Army's Phase IV camouflage testing included ADS Inc., teamed with Hyperstealth, Inc.; Brookwood Companies Inc.; and Kryptek Inc.
And, ironically, in March 2013 the Army decided to drop the fifth finalist -- a government pattern developed at the Army's Natick Soldier Systems Center. The pattern, known as Scorpion, was too similar to one of the industry submissions, Army officials said.
It's similar to MultiCam because Crye developed the pattern with the Army for its Objective Force Warrior program in 2012. He later made small adjustments to the pattern for trademark purposes and called it MultiCam.
The unique blend of greens, browns and tans has been a favorite of Special Operations Command for almost a decade. The Army selected MultiCam in 2010 as the clear winner over several other patterns to issue to soldiers deploying to Afghanistan.
It's unclear when the Army will set a wear-out date for the UCP or start issuing uniforms printed in Scorpion.
Once contracts are awarded, it can take up to 20 weeks for the raw fabric to be printed in Scorpion, inspected and cut and sewn into uniforms, according to Kyli Hanson, program manager for Army Combat Uniforms for Blue Water Defense -- one of the U.S. military's primary uniform manufacturers.
"It's not an instantaneous change," said Hanson, who had not heard of the decision. She did say, however, that since Scorpion is similar to MultiCam, uniform companies will likely be able to use the same color Velcro, buttons and zippers.

Click to expand...

Scorpion Was developed by Crye Precision and Natick soldier systems. Crye later took the pattern and modified it creating Milticam the Army then took milticam and darkened the color pattern creating OCP. Scorpion was one of the Goverment entries into the phase IV trials. It was however withdrawn as the Commercial patterns worked better. now it's back. It's flirting with a woman, Dating her Daughter then asking her Grand mother to marry you.

Beefier carbines en route to Soldiers
May 22, 2014

By David Vergun, ARNEWS


The venerable M4 carbine has been used by Soldiers for decades. Now Soldiers are receiving the new M4-A1 configuration. Pictured here is Spc. Nicholas Haney, from the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, in Mosul, Iraq, in December 2005.
Soldiers at Fort Riley, Kan., take a look at their new M4-A1 carbines.
Comparisons of the M4 and M4A1
Army civilians at Anniston Army Depot, Ala., assemble parts needed to convert the M4 carbine to the M4-A1.
A laser etches "Auto" on a new M4-A1 carbine.
These newly converted M4-A1 carbines will soon be in the hands of Soldiers from the "Big Red One" at Fort Riley, Kan.
Army civilians at Anniston Army Depot, Ala., assemble parts needed to convert the M4 carbine to the M4-A1.
Related Links
Army.mil: Science and Technology News
Army News Service
WASHINGTON (Army News Service, May 22, 2014) -- A thicker barrel will absorb more heat in the new M4-A1 carbine, should a Soldier need to flip the selector to auto, according to Soldiers overseeing the new configuration now being added to the M4.

While shooting in the automatic mode is less efficient and not as accurate as firing in bursts, it has its place on the battlefield, explained Command Sgt. Maj. Doug Maddi, Program Executive Office Soldier, Fort Belvoir, Va.

"Soldiers need automatic capability while providing suppression fires during fire and movement," he said, noting that Soldiers deployed to Afghanistan asked for that and are now getting it, an option absent in the M4, which only fired in semi-automatic and bursts. A new drop-in trigger allows the A1 to function with the automatic setting.

Maddi and others spoke May 21, during a media roundtable, marking the milestone of the first Army unit to receive the beefed-up carbines, 1st Infantry Division, out of Fort Riley, Kan.

The beefier weapon is not unknown to the Army. Soldiers in U.S. Special Operations Command have been using M4-A1s since 1994.

The tradeoff in weight and performance is something Soldiers gladly accept, Maddi said, noting that the M4-A1 weighs 7.74 pounds, compared to the M-4's 7.46. The weight comparisons include the back-up iron sight, forward pistol grip, empty magazine and sling.

Another feature that's new on the A1 is an ambidextrous selector lever, something that's especially attractive to Maddi, who said he's a lefty who often gets left out when it comes to equipment design.

Doing the numbers, Lt. Col. Shawn P. Lucas, product manager Individual Weapons, Picatinny Arsenal, N.J., said the configuration conversion won't be finished until the half-millionth carbine is converted, by the end of 2019.

Priority for those receiving the A1s will obviously go to brigade combat teams that are high in the readiness cycle and likely to deploy, said Lucas, adding that Army headquarters and U.S. Army Forces Command use a readiness model with a lot of variables that are periodically adjusted, so providing a schedule of which units will get A1s and when, would be guesswork at this point.

Total program cost, including all the labor and hardware, is an estimated $120 million, he said.

Right now, conversions at Fort Riley are starting to get ramped up, with about 300 conversions being done a day, Maddi said. That works out to an entire brigade combat team getting A1s every week or so. And, those who are getting them are offering "resounding accolades."

Maddi said 2nd Brigade is receiving the new configuration even as one of their battalions is deployed conducting gunnery exercises. "Good units are able to do multiple things at multiple times, and I appreciate that."

CONVERSION PROCESS

The Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Ga., requested implementation of the conversion, in 2010. Reliability testing for the A1s was done at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., in 2013, to ensure "no harm" to performance following the conversion. After successful testing, Army headquarters gave the nod to begin the conversions, Lucas said.

Anniston Army Depot, Ala., then began receiving parts from large firms like Colt and from a number of small businesses. A team from U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command, Warren, Mich., assisted, he added.

The parts were then boxed up and shipped to Fort Riley, much like a dresser might be shipped to a customer with instructions on how to screw it all together.

But unlike a dresser that might come with instructions that are hard to understand, the A1 parts came with highly trained armament technicians to do the conversions, Lucas said.

Besides doing the assembly of the upper and lower receiver and bolt carrier group, the team brought along a laser engraver to re-mark the setting nomenclature, he said. "Safe, Semi and Burst" was changed to "Safe, Semi and Auto." Also, the "A1" was added to "M4."

The A1 conversions will probably not be the last word on the carbine, said Maddi, who expects it to continually evolve.

Every Soldier qualifies with the carbine, or the M16-A2 or M16-A4, twice a year. Their feedback, along with that of Soldiers returning from theater, will continue to be monitored and tweaks to the system are always possible, he said.

The small-arms community -- which includes Soldiers, special operators and those from the other services -- are discussing other performance enhancements like an extended forward rail, folding front sight post, match-grade triggers for designated marksmen, and integration of suppressors, he said, adding that at this time they're only "on the drawing board."

Maddi thinks Eugene Stoner, the designer of the M16 and its family of weapons, including the carbine, should be considered in the same august group as Colt, Smith & Wesson and Browning.

The M4, which Stoner designed several decades ago, was "a pretty good idea," Maddi said.

"Soldiers trust in it" and it consistently ranks first among all weapons in Soldier satisfaction surveys, he added.

So, he said, "the big question is, 'how do you improve on something that's already pretty darn good?'"

(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!

)

Click to expand...

Scorpion pattern and it's history

On F-35B Depot:

Posted on InsideDefense.com: May 23, 2014

FLEET READINESS CENTER EAST, NC -- Under tremendous pressure to deliver 10 modified jets to the Marine Corps in time to meet the service's desired initial operational capability schedule, the Navy's F-35B depot in North Carolina is fighting to adapt to the complexity of the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and a number of program-level issues as it comes close to finishing work on its very first Marine F-35.

JSF depot-level repairs and modifications are being performed at two Pentagon-run locations: the Ogden Air Logistics Complex, UT, which will service conventional-model F-35As and carrier-variant F-35Cs, and Fleet Readiness Center East (FRC East) at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, NC, responsible for the F-35B short-takeoff-vertical-landing version of the aircraft. Those depots are largely staffed by civilians and operate like businesses, with the same strengths and weaknesses as private-sector industrial centers. Inside the Navy visited FRC East on May 19 and spoke with three depot employees directly involved in modifying those B-model jets, and they described the many challenges they have been presented with in the roughly 10 months since the depot began accepting JSF aircraft.

FRC East is currently performing what are called Group 1 modifications -- a package of structural upgrades meant to replace or reinforce life-limited parts, problems with which were discovered in flight testing as a result of the F-35 program's concurrent development and production. The depot has one Marine Corps jet and a British aircraft in work, program office spokesman Joe DellaVedova said, and the Marine aircraft is about 30 days late, said Don Jeter, the F-35 task manager at the depot. The Group 1 modification is scheduled to take 120 working maintenance days, according to DellaVedova.

Falling behind on the first F-35 is not unique to FRC East -- the same occurred at Ogden ALC, as InsideDefense.com reported late last year. In a May 22 email, that depot's chief of F-35 sustainment, Lt. Col. Dave Moreland, said the facility wrapped up its first prototype jet in March and is on track to finish its second by July.

Jeter said that first Marine aircraft should be ready for delivery back to the F-35 unit in Yuma, AZ, on June 6, once it is finished with its low-observable coating restoration -- a challenging process under any circumstances, but especially so for FRC East personnel who are experienced aircraft technicians but have never had to develop expertise on stealthy materials. That fighter has been referred to as a validation/verification aircraft and is not one of the 10 that will count toward Marine IOC, which the service has adamantly stated it will achieve in the summer or fall of 2015.

Jeter's team will need to learn quickly from its initial experiences on the aircraft, as the depot will fill up with F-35Bs within the next several months. He said the facility was on track to induct a third jet on May 22 and will receive additional aircraft every four to six weeks until it hits its capacity of six Joint Strike Fighters at any one time. Those will generally go to MCAS Yuma or the Marine Corps' second operational squadron at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, SC.

Jerry Bennett, the depot's F-35 overhaul and repair supervisor, acknowledged the pressure the group is under but urged F-35 leadership to better understand the challenge of standing up a depot in a very short time frame, staffing it with technicians who have never worked on a Joint Strike Fighter, holding them to arbitrary time frames driven by Marine Corps IOC, and the sheer complexity of the aircraft. In recent months, F-35 Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan has repeatedly cited the need to get airplanes through the depot and equipped with needed modifications as the primary driver of meeting the Marines' and Air Force's program schedules.

"On this jet, if you make a mistake, it might not cost you a day. It might cost you a month on your schedule," Bennett said. "So you have to take the time to do it right the first time or you will miss your schedules. Everybody has to understand that if you rush something, that's what you're going to get. You're going to get a rush job, and this aircraft is not forgiving."

Bennett and Jeter said depot artisans are routinely working 40 to 80 hours of overtime each pay period and they both said they have worked close to 14 consecutive days at a time.

Program problems

The depot staff expressed excitement at the challenge of working on an airplane as cutting-edge as the F-35, which will probably sustain business at the facility for decades. They also went out of their way to praise the Lockheed Martin employees on site for sharing their JSF expertise and working very well with depot personnel. But the FRC East team voiced its frustration at a number of issues that need attention and improvement.

One is micromanagement from the F-35 joint program office. Jeter said the process for getting miniscule tasks which require additional time or money approved for execution is very cumbersome, especially when tied to an aircraft owned by an international operator. That approval process runs all the way to a JPO representative; as of quite recently, one has been assigned permanently to FRC East, which should help the speed of decision-making.

Jeter also described situations in which the JPO demands explanations for why a certain task took five hours of labor instead of four, an unprecedented level of scrutiny that drives inefficiency and takes time. He, Bennett and John Wesley Klor, an F-35 plane captain and airframes work leader at the depot, stressed that the technicians are still working on their first aircraft and have much left to learn about the best ways to perform certain actions on the JSF.

"In the big picture of things, to me it seems like it's a big waste of everybody's effort and everybody's time to worry about those small ancillary bites," Jeter said. "We're dealing with a $130, $150, $180 million aircraft and you're concerned over two or three man-hours worth of labor. To me, we're focusing on the wrong things a lot of the time."

Jeter was also critical of the F-35's Autonomic Logistics Information System, which is meant to manage all aspects of JSF logistics. He said the program remains immature and that ALIS training he received was insufficient. Moreover, it is unlike any other system used at FRC East to handle maintenance and supply chain processes, again giving depot staff large amounts of new material to get used to under significant time constraints. Problematically, one long-identified issue with ALIS is that it takes several minutes to perform basic functions. A vastly improved version of the program is expected for release next spring, according to Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor on the F-35 and ALIS.

Third, Jeter and Klor pointed to challenges with technical data on the F-35. The issue there is not a shortage of tech data, which might be expected given the aircraft's developmental status, but rather a flood of it that has made it difficult for maintainers to know where to turn for concrete information they need.

"The actual quantity of tech data we deal with is astronomical. It's huge," Jeter said. "The drawings and the prints and everything they provide for us are great, because we're used to legacy systems where they were drawn with a square and a rule and you've got this stuff now that's all [computer-aided design] drawn. That portion of it is great, but the quantity of it is huge."

Work remains to be done to build a better channel for communications between the depot in Utah, where Air Force jets are being modified, and FRC East. Moreland, the Ogden ALC official, said a "great partnership" exists between the two, and that they are in constant communication. Jeter said the two have shared some lessons and tips -- particularly as related to a fix to the auxiliary air inlet door and wing root rib that is common across all three F-35 variants -- but that the partnership has much room for growth. "The Air Force has their way of doing business, the Navy has their way of doing business, and even though we're doing the same thing, we don't communicate between the two very well," he said.

Finally, FRC East employees recognized that their depot itself has some resource constraints. ITN observed modification and maintenance hangars servicing V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, AV-8B Harrier fighters, CH-53 heavy-lift helicopters, H-1 utility and attack helicopters and others, all working at or close to maximum capacity. Bennett recognized that despite the F-35 program's notoriety and importance, the Defense Department units sending those other aircraft to the depot have requirements and time lines they need to meet as well, and it is neither practical nor desirable to pull the best technicians away from those activities to assign them to the Joint Strike Fighter.

"The customers don't want to know the F-35 took one of my best guys," Bennett said. "They don't want to hear it. They still want their stuff on time."

For now, the Pentagon's F-35 depots are only working on A- and B-model JSF jets. Moreland said the first carrier-capable F-35C for the Navy is expected to arrive in Utah in mid-fiscal year 2015.