US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Bernard said:

Is it worth it to do these public advertising? I don't understand why something like this superbowl ad would make sense. Or even how the pro-bowl flyover with the F-35 made logical sense. I bet 98% of the people at the game cared nor knew what the F-35 is. Same with the Superbowl I bet 95% (or more) of the populations doesn't even knows about the LRSB program. Seems a waste of money to me. But that's just me.

Click to expand...

It will be one of the great weapons competitions of the 21st century. Northrop Grumman is competing against a team of Boeing and Lockheed Martin

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. The company has also created design teams to work on so-called

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

for the Air Force and the Navy.

With the Pentagon budget due out on Monday — and the bomber program expected to occupy

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

– Northrop Grumman will air its new ad during America’s hottest television ad event — the Super Bowl. The shrouded aircraft at the end of the ad is clearly intended to suggest either the LRSB or the next-generation fighter — or both.

The ad begins with the very old and very cool

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, a tail-less blended-wing plane. Next up is the B-2 bomber,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, which did what many thought would be very difficult, if not impossible — land and take off from an aircraft carrier

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

We don’t know much about the highly classified LRSB program, beyond the fact that the plane will be optionally manned, will boast advanced low observable characteristics, highly advanced sensors and may also include drones controlled by the bombers.

Northrop, of course, built the LRSB’s predecessor, the fabulous and fabulously expensive B-2 bomber, of which only 21 planes were built.

How big will this new program be?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, one of the country’s top defense budget experts, estimates the bomber will cost up to $25 billion for the bomber’s research and development costs. The Air Force plans to buy 100 aircraft and says the flyaway cost will be about $550 million per plane in 2010 dollars. Harrison notes the plane would already cost about $600 million in current dollars.

Harrison notes that funding the LRSB will swell to significant levels around 2020 just as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be reaching full production numbers, the effort to build America’s next-generation nuclear missile submarine — the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

— will be ramping up, the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

built by Boeing will be hitting full production and the Air Force’s next-generation trainer aircraft –

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

— will be bought in bulk.

That will make the competition for dollars within the Air Force and between the services intensely competitive, not to mention the competition between the defense companies for all that new revenue. Northrop is clearly positioning itself early and big to make sure taxpayers know what it is doing and to try and convince them it should be getting a big slice of what may be a shrinking or static budget pie.

I don’t think any defense company has advertised during the Super Bowl, but

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

during the 1970s and 80s, so I may be wrong. Regardless, Northrop’s bold strike is a clear sign of just how high the stakes are for the company as it competes for the bomber and for the next generation of fighter aircraft for the Navy and Air Force in a time of declining budgets.

If you want to know what a B-2 pilot thinks the LRSB should be capable of. read our the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Click to expand...

Sikorsky's Raider days away from spinning rotors
By:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

WASHINGTON DC
Source: Flightglobal.com
18:53 30 Jan 2015
Sikorsky is days away from firing the engines of its S-97 Raider, marking the first time the prototype’s coaxial rigid rotor blades will spin in preparation for first flight.

“We just burned our first fuel” on 28 January, when the auxiliary power unit (APU) was ignited for the first time, Steve Engebretson, Sikorsky’s director of military programme marketing, tells Flightglobal.

“The systems up to now have been running off ground power, but now we were able to do systems checks off the engine’s APU,” he says.

The APU is a small gas-powered engine that generates an electrical charge that then cranks the engine, in this aircraft a single General Electric GE-T706.

Raider uses coaxial rotors for vertical lift and a tail propeller for forward thrust. The combination allows for flight characteristics that are physically impossible for existing rotorcraft designs.

Within days Sikorsky will fire Raider I’s engine and spin the main rotors, Engebretson says. First flight will follow within a matter of weeks. That aircraft was built specifically for flight test. A second Raider is under construction and will function as a demonstration aircraft for potential customers.

Sikorsky has adopted a cautious test schedule leading up to first flight. There are no orders for the aircraft, which is designed to fly faster and be more maneuverable than traditional rotorcraft. Sikorsky is aiming to fulfill the US Army’s need for such an aircraft, but no programme of record exists. The company floated Raider as a replacement for the army’s

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Warrior armed aerial scout (AAS), but budget cuts have all but destroyed hope for that effort getting airborne.

The SB-1 Defiant, a scaled up version of the Raider designed in partnership with

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, is participating in the army’s joint multi-role technology demonstrator (JMR-TD) programme, but an example has not been built.

Sikorsky is going head-to-head in JMR-TD with Bell Helicopter’s V-280 Valor, a next-generation version of the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

built in conjunction with Boeing. The Valor also has not been built. The aircraft will eventually face off in a demonstration of technologies that can provide leap-ahead rotorcraft capability, including speeds above 230kt, improved range.

The programme will then feed into future vertical lift (FVL), which will eventually replace the Army’s entire fleet of rotorcraft beginning with the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

around 2040.

Sikorsky engineers are carefully testing the aircraft and its various systems, like its fly-by-wire flight controls, for any glitches. So far, no serious discoveries have been made that would delay the programme, Engebretson says. However, the Sikorsky missed the self-imposed deadline to fly the aircraft before the end of 2014.

“The good news is the team is very skilled at finding those 'whack-a-moles', wrestling them down and sorting them out and keeping it moving along,” Engebretson says.

Still, Raider’s first flight will be tightly controlled. No members of the public, military or media will be invited to see its inaugural liftoff, company officials have said.

[Correction: Sikorsky designed the SB-1 Defiant in cooperation with Boeing, not the Raider.]

Click to expand...

Jura said:

here's what breakingdefense.com has to say:


in

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

How many American consumers are looking to purchase a new long-range stealth super-bomber? None. So why would Northrop Grumman spend big bucks on producing such a glitzy ad and pay to have it run in Washington DC and Dayton, Ohio during the Super Bowl? Defense contractors have learned a thing or two from Steve Jobs.
The Long Life Cycle Problem
Outside some of the commodities markets, there are few industries bigger when it comes to individual deals than the arms trade, especially when it comes to the high-tech, 'bleeding edge' programs put forward by the U.S. Department of Defense. A single contract for an aircraft, tank or ship class can mean tens, and even hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue, and much more in the future when it comes to sustaining that weapons system and upgrading it to keep it viable over time.

The stakes for winning a 'banner' defense contract are not high, they are almost unfathomable.

This is especially true in today's fiscal and technological climate. In the 1950s, a fighter jet design could be retired in less than ten years of it entering active service. Over time, that lifespan has lengthened almost laughably. Today, we have front line fighter aircraft approaching 40 years old with no replacements on the horizon in the near term, and often the bigger they are, the older they are. Systems, like the B-52 Stratofortress and KC-135 Stratotanker, are on the books to serve until the type is nearly 100 years old!

What this means is that big defense contractors cannot lose a major contract and just chalk it up to tough luck and wait for next opportunity to come around. Why? Because there may not be another opportunity for half a decade, and by then who the hell knows where the focus on warfare will be. In 2065, bombers may take a back seat to new cyber weapons or nano and counter nano robotics.

Sure, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed and Boeing – America's consolidated list of big combat aircraft suppliers – have diversified into multiple business spaces within the defense industry over the years, but still, those aircraft contracts are tough to beat when it comes to steady income for decades.

So a contract like the Joint Strike Fighter, or now the Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B), can make or break the company that wins and loses it, at least as their military aircraft division is concerned. Why? Because with new aircraft development times lasting multiple decades, and the aircraft's life cycle being stretched out many decades after that, the competition may not get a chance at another similar contract for half a century. By then, the guys who won the last contract will be far ahead in know-how, much of it gained on the DoD's dime, than the ruins of what was 'the competition' long ago. So today, as budgets are under heavy strain, super-sized defense programs that promise many billions (or in the case of the F-35, trillions) of dollars in revenue over their life span are seen as a lifeline to future relevance as much as just another piece of a company's portfolio.

Click to expand...

​

Naval Today said:

Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Chosin (CG 65) recently conducted a pre-aim calibration fire.

During the drill, USS Chosin crew fired a short burst with the MK-15 Phalanx close-in weapons system and tested a 5-Inch 54-caliber Mk-45 lightweight gun. The drills were conducted in the Pacific Ocean on January 27 as part of the vessel’s routine training.

USS Chosin is named in honor of the Battle of Chosin Reservoir of the Korean War. Commissioned in 1991, the vessel is currently deployed in the Pacific Fleet, based in Pearl Harbor. Chosin has participated in Operation Southern Watch, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Click to expand...

The $561 billion budget request sent to Congress on 2 February contains a total $48.8 billion investment aircraft and related systems, up from $42.1 billion in the enacted fiscal 2015 budget.
None of the US Defense Departments major ongoing aircraft procurement programmes received less funding than in the current fiscal year, according to government budget documents. The Defense Department will purchase more of most major aircraft platforms than the current fiscal year.

Click to expand...

FORBIN said:

FY 16 for US avation seems appear better after several difficult years , to see with Congress now.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Again a fight between AF and Congress for A-10 sure Congress keep, its intervention against pleads for him, cheaper for use and AF can get different types of aircraft for each mission she has enough combat aircrafts.

More interesting USN keep all MH-60 for 2015 a decent or very decent number of C-130J, helos and P-8 again 16 per year total ordered 62 right now !
And UAV always many, few MQ-4 but U-2 remains in service.

For F-35 planned last year FY 16 ordered : 52 : 44A, 6B, 2C and there 57 : 44A, 9B, 4C a boost.

Fighters Contractor
FY14 FY15 FY16 request
F-35A LM 19 28 44
F-35B LM 6 6 9
F-35C LM 4 4 4
EA-18G Boeing 21 15 0
Subtotal 50 53 57
Mobility
KC-46 Boeing 0 7 12
C-130J LM 16 13 27
KC-130J LM 1 1 2
Subtotal 17 21 41
ISR/C2
E-2D NG 5 5 5
P-8A Boeing 16 9 16
MQ-4C NG 0 0 3
MQ-9 GA 20 24 29
MQ-1C GA 23 19 17
MQ-8C NG 2 5 2
RQ-21 Boeing 3 6 7
Subtotal 69 68 79
Total Fixed Wing 136 142 177
Rotorcraft
AH-64E Boeing 46 35 64
UH-60M Sikorsky 70 87 94
CH-47F/G Boeing 29 32 39
V-22 Bell Boeing 23 19 19
MH-60R/S Sikorsky 37 37 29
UH-72

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

37 55 28
A/U-H-1 Upgrades Bell Helicopter 22 28 28
Total Rotorcraft 264 293 301

Click to expand...

FORBIN said:

FY 16 for US avation seems appear better after several difficult years , to see with Congress now.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Again a fight between AF and Congress for A-10 sure Congress keep, its intervention against pleads for him, cheaper for use and AF can get different types of aircraft for each mission she has enough combat aircrafts.

More interesting USN keep all MH-60 for 2015 a decent or very decent number of C-130J, helos and P-8 again 16 per year total ordered 62 right now !
And UAV always many, few MQ-4 but U-2 remains in service.

For F-35 planned last year FY 16 ordered : 52 : 44A, 6B, 2C and there 57 : 44A, 9B, 4C a boost.

Fighters Contractor
FY14 FY15 FY16 request
F-35A LM 19 28 44
F-35B LM 6 6 9
F-35C LM 4 4 4
EA-18G Boeing 21 15 0
Subtotal 50 53 57
Mobility
KC-46 Boeing 0 7 12
C-130J LM 16 13 27
KC-130J LM 1 1 2
Subtotal 17 21 41
ISR/C2
E-2D NG 5 5 5
P-8A Boeing 16 9 16
MQ-4C NG 0 0 3
MQ-9 GA 20 24 29
MQ-1C GA 23 19 17
MQ-8C NG 2 5 2
RQ-21 Boeing 3 6 7
Subtotal 69 68 79
Total Fixed Wing 136 142 177
Rotorcraft
AH-64E Boeing 46 35 64
UH-60M Sikorsky 70 87 94
CH-47F/G Boeing 29 32 39
V-22 Bell Boeing 23 19 19
MH-60R/S Sikorsky 37 37 29
UH-72

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

37 55 28
A/U-H-1 Upgrades Bell Helicopter 22 28 28
Total Rotorcraft 264 293 301

Click to expand...

Officials defended the U.S. Defense Department’s proposed fiscal 2016 budget, even though it ignores spending caps mandated by existing law.

The Pentagon’s civilian leaders and top brass on Monday

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

for the year beginning Oct. 1. The spending request totals $585 billion, including a $534 base budget and a $51 billion war budget. That’s an increase of about $25 billion, or 4 percent, in funding from the current year.

The base budget must adhere to caps set forth by the 2011 deficit-control legislation known as the Budget Control Act. Otherwise, the law requires the spending plan to be sliced by automatic, across-the-board spending cuts via a process known as sequestration — to the tune of about $35 billion next year — unless lawmakers agree on an alternative plan.

Click to expand...

For new equipment, the Defense Department would spend $11 billion to buy 57

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

next year

Click to expand...