And stronger space and cyber!
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
And stronger space and cyber!
I think that's a premature prediction since containing China is not new policy, rather I would say the latest round of ramping up instead of a shift is what's happening. The world economy continues to change and is in somewhat uncharted territory with currency manipulation by most major nations so there is no guarantee that the US-China economic relationship will remain unscathed or continue to be as strong a deterrent against conflict as it has been.
Bernard
Junior Member
This chart shows just how massive the US Navy is
The US Navy is the unquestioned dominant naval force in the world.
In terms of both absolute tonnage and technical superiority, the US Navy is the world's largest and most advanced maritime military force. The capabilities of the US Navy are further enhanced and augmented by its military alliances such as NATO, in which the US plays a .
The following graphic from shows every vessel serving in the US Navy as of April:
The backbone of the US Navy and the major tool of American power projection around the world is the aircraft carrier. The US employs 10 carriers in its fleet, by far the most of any nation. India, which its third carrier, has the second-most carriers in the world.
A second major advantage that the US has is its fleet of nuclear-powered ballistic missile and attack submarines. These vessels are capable of operating for months at a time between restocking supplies and function as a nuclear deterrent and can serve in a hunting role against enemy submarines and ships.
Read more:
Read more:
The US Navy is the unquestioned dominant naval force in the world.
In terms of both absolute tonnage and technical superiority, the US Navy is the world's largest and most advanced maritime military force. The capabilities of the US Navy are further enhanced and augmented by its military alliances such as NATO, in which the US plays a .
The following graphic from shows every vessel serving in the US Navy as of April:
The backbone of the US Navy and the major tool of American power projection around the world is the aircraft carrier. The US employs 10 carriers in its fleet, by far the most of any nation. India, which its third carrier, has the second-most carriers in the world.
A second major advantage that the US has is its fleet of nuclear-powered ballistic missile and attack submarines. These vessels are capable of operating for months at a time between restocking supplies and function as a nuclear deterrent and can serve in a hunting role against enemy submarines and ships.
Read more:
Read more:
See my:
Lots more pics there. Here are a couple of interesting ones.
Tell who she is exercising with in this picture, performing a SAR exercise:
...and in this exercise, watch-standers on one of the bridge wings observe numerous US Navy and JMSDF vessels in a joint exercise:
Good stuff!
Lots more pics there. Here are a couple of interesting ones.
Tell who she is exercising with in this picture, performing a SAR exercise:
...and in this exercise, watch-standers on one of the bridge wings observe numerous US Navy and JMSDF vessels in a joint exercise:
Good stuff!
Bernard
Junior Member
America readies its new 'smart' nuke
The U.S. Air Force is on the cusp of flight testing a new tail-kit assembly that will upend the old way of conducting tactical nuclear combat, should the United States ever enter a shooting match with a nuclear-armed state like Russia or China.
We're talking about an upgrade to the B61 thermonuclear bomb — the oldest nuclear gravity bomb in America's stockpile. The Boeing-built guidance unit adds range and accuracy, turning it into a "smart" nuke compatible with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and future Long-Range Strike Bomber.
The B61 entered production in 1968, and is still the Pentagon and NATO's go-to weapon for tactical and strategic nuclear combat.
The flying branch's weapons office at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida has been working with Boeing to design and develop the tail-kit assembly since 2012. The Air Force is scaling up the flight test program this year.
The tail kit will resemble a non-nuclear Joint Direct Attack Munition, with strap-on strakes for range, and tail fins guided by a GPS-aided inertial navigation unit.
The equipment will work even if America's navigation satellites are shot to pieces — a likely scenario during a nuclear war — and is hardened to survive the electromagnetic pulse generated by a high-altitude nuclear explosion.
Both the Air Force and Boeing have expressed confidence in the tail kit, and the $1 billion program is meeting its cost and schedule targets. But the program is marching toward a tougher phase of development, with a critical design review planned for later this year that will push Boeing's design to its limits.
"We don't anticipate any major risks associated with the tail kit assembly that can't be mitigated," Boeing spokeswoman Katie Kelly wrote in an email in January.
email in January.
()
Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons policy expert for the Federation of American Scientists, said he has serious reservations about the program. He added that cutting or canceling the B61 could save the government billions of dollars.
However, he believes the technology is there to produce a precision-strike gravity nuke — a concept the Pentagon first seriously considered in the 1990s.
"There might be individual challenges that are particular for this kind of weapon they have developed," Kristensen said. "But they have so much experience now with guided systems that I would be surprised if there were some real tough nuts that they wouldn't be able to crack or that would delay it significantly."
”There are so many precision weapons that have been produced and mated with so many different kinds of aircraft that I'd be surprised if there were major technical problems," he added.
According to the Air Force, developing the guidance kit might be the easy part. The National Nuclear Security Administration — which oversees America's nuclear warheads — has the tougher task of refurbishing the complete weapon. It's all part of an $8-billion life-extension program that will keep the nukes active until 2040.
The first fully-refurbished bomb won't be available until 2020, well after the tail kit enters service.
Today, there are five versions of the B61, including one ground-penetrating version to kill hardened bunkers. The government wants to cull the stockpile down to just two versions — a low-yield version, designated B61–12, and the bunker-busting nuke retained in its current form.
It falls to Sandia National Laboratories to consolidate 400 to 500 of these Cold War relics into the B61–12 variant.
"To date, Boeing and Sandia National Labs have completed several series of all-up-round level testing as well as fit checks and a captive-carry
flight test with the launch aircraft," the Boeing spokeswoman wrote. "Each test helps reduce risk."
Along with the flight test program, 2015 will be a big year for integrating the bomb onto existing aircraft.
The program office has the money to begin pairing the smart nuke with other aircraft — the B-2, F-16, and F-35A as well as the European PA-200 Tornado.
This month, the NNSA confirmed that an F-16, F-15, and a B-2 armed with advanced measurement devices have been zipping around Eglin and Edwards Air Force Base to collect vibration and flight environment data for the B-61's new tail kit. Those flights took place between July and December 2014.
"This series is the first of many flight tests for the B6–12 life-extension program," a Feb. 9 press statement noted. "The testing is a key building block between ongoing system ground testing and the first development flight test drop scheduled in fiscal year 2015."
The Air Force will test the first complete tail kit on an F-15E Strike Eagle using an inert bomb. If the flight tests are successful, Boeing will pass the design review and proceed to the next round of development, with a plan to deliver the first production unit in 2018.
There are a series of smaller flight tests planned throughout the year to test different components of the weapon system. But Air Force plans the complete developmental test flight in November.
The U.S. Air Force is on the cusp of flight testing a new tail-kit assembly that will upend the old way of conducting tactical nuclear combat, should the United States ever enter a shooting match with a nuclear-armed state like Russia or China.
We're talking about an upgrade to the B61 thermonuclear bomb — the oldest nuclear gravity bomb in America's stockpile. The Boeing-built guidance unit adds range and accuracy, turning it into a "smart" nuke compatible with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and future Long-Range Strike Bomber.
The B61 entered production in 1968, and is still the Pentagon and NATO's go-to weapon for tactical and strategic nuclear combat.
The flying branch's weapons office at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida has been working with Boeing to design and develop the tail-kit assembly since 2012. The Air Force is scaling up the flight test program this year.
The tail kit will resemble a non-nuclear Joint Direct Attack Munition, with strap-on strakes for range, and tail fins guided by a GPS-aided inertial navigation unit.
The equipment will work even if America's navigation satellites are shot to pieces — a likely scenario during a nuclear war — and is hardened to survive the electromagnetic pulse generated by a high-altitude nuclear explosion.
Both the Air Force and Boeing have expressed confidence in the tail kit, and the $1 billion program is meeting its cost and schedule targets. But the program is marching toward a tougher phase of development, with a critical design review planned for later this year that will push Boeing's design to its limits.
"We don't anticipate any major risks associated with the tail kit assembly that can't be mitigated," Boeing spokeswoman Katie Kelly wrote in an email in January.
email in January.
Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons policy expert for the Federation of American Scientists, said he has serious reservations about the program. He added that cutting or canceling the B61 could save the government billions of dollars.
However, he believes the technology is there to produce a precision-strike gravity nuke — a concept the Pentagon first seriously considered in the 1990s.
"There might be individual challenges that are particular for this kind of weapon they have developed," Kristensen said. "But they have so much experience now with guided systems that I would be surprised if there were some real tough nuts that they wouldn't be able to crack or that would delay it significantly."
”There are so many precision weapons that have been produced and mated with so many different kinds of aircraft that I'd be surprised if there were major technical problems," he added.
According to the Air Force, developing the guidance kit might be the easy part. The National Nuclear Security Administration — which oversees America's nuclear warheads — has the tougher task of refurbishing the complete weapon. It's all part of an $8-billion life-extension program that will keep the nukes active until 2040.
The first fully-refurbished bomb won't be available until 2020, well after the tail kit enters service.
Today, there are five versions of the B61, including one ground-penetrating version to kill hardened bunkers. The government wants to cull the stockpile down to just two versions — a low-yield version, designated B61–12, and the bunker-busting nuke retained in its current form.
It falls to Sandia National Laboratories to consolidate 400 to 500 of these Cold War relics into the B61–12 variant.
"To date, Boeing and Sandia National Labs have completed several series of all-up-round level testing as well as fit checks and a captive-carry
flight test with the launch aircraft," the Boeing spokeswoman wrote. "Each test helps reduce risk."
Along with the flight test program, 2015 will be a big year for integrating the bomb onto existing aircraft.
The program office has the money to begin pairing the smart nuke with other aircraft — the B-2, F-16, and F-35A as well as the European PA-200 Tornado.
This month, the NNSA confirmed that an F-16, F-15, and a B-2 armed with advanced measurement devices have been zipping around Eglin and Edwards Air Force Base to collect vibration and flight environment data for the B-61's new tail kit. Those flights took place between July and December 2014.
"This series is the first of many flight tests for the B6–12 life-extension program," a Feb. 9 press statement noted. "The testing is a key building block between ongoing system ground testing and the first development flight test drop scheduled in fiscal year 2015."
The Air Force will test the first complete tail kit on an F-15E Strike Eagle using an inert bomb. If the flight tests are successful, Boeing will pass the design review and proceed to the next round of development, with a plan to deliver the first production unit in 2018.
There are a series of smaller flight tests planned throughout the year to test different components of the weapon system. But Air Force plans the complete developmental test flight in November.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Okay So Here we go. First How is this different from TP?
Answer the Tracking point system is built into the Weapon from manufacture. this give the TP a few advantages and detractions vs the CWO.
The Tracking point system being built into the weapon at manufacture can move a number ot it's parts into the weapon for example the TP SA 556 has it's power supply in the Stock and most of it's it's controls integrated into the lower receiver it also swaps the Front sight post for a static muzzle reference reflector allowing the weapon to zero to the barrel.
The CWO as seen here however is intended to be added to the weapon post production. This has the Advantage that if the system is damaged or none operational for what ever reason All the User has to do is return it to the Quartermaster and swap in a new one. Also It can be mounted to other weapons like M110 or M249, but it has to be zeroed, the sight is going to have to carry it's own battery and the interface has to be either on the sight or a separate unit attached to the weapon through a control module or a Bluetooth tablet. this means that it's by nature going to be larger and bulkier then the tracking point system.
one thing that is a major plus is the back up optic. not every shoot needs the full computerized touch. The Synchronization system is also a great idea along with the IFF system. CWO Also has Fused sensor vision meaning a Night vision and Thermal modes for combat in all conditions.
Now as to interfacing with Exacto... not likely. As seen thus far this is a Carbine and assault rifle system Thus far there are no indications of EXACTO moving below a .50 caliber round. as to Sniper One Shot XG Again not likely to interface rather I think The One Shot XG would be modified with technologies from the CWO and interface with EXACTO.
Personally though I think the best option for the future would be to hybridize Tracking point and the CWO. The US Army is already working on it's next major build for the M4A1 the perhaps if the tech is ready we could jump to a M4A1++ a smart carbine.
Using the SA556 as a road map. We start with a improved M4A1 based carbine integrate into it improvements likely to be on the M4A1+ a mid length gas system, Improved barrel, Ambi bolt and magazine release, .
Then we integrate a accessory system, to reduce weight and bulk using a. with a battery in the stock and power feeds running to the optic as well as controls through the Trigger guard and control modules integrate a barrel reference and finally the gun sight which would include tracking point style targeting modes in day light, low light thermal and synchronized, selective fire modes with reflex and non line of sight in cover firing through helmet mounted displays.
The carriers are a huge power projection capability that the US has an undisrupted and currently unassailable advantage in.
The nuclear attack submarines are another similar area.
Equally clear is the unassailable advantage in terms of major, modern, sophisticated surface combatants.
The US currently has 22 AEGIS cruisers and 63 AEGIS destroyers (and will be building over 20 more over the next ten years). That's 85 DDG and CG sized vessels now, going up to near or over 100 in the future.
The largest navy currently, by comparison, has perhaps 12-18 such vessels.
Last edited:
Skywatcher
Captain
Not to mention all the operational experience that we Americans have in a blue water navy.
Yes...precisely.
I mean just look at this picture I posted above:
The US conduicts these very realistic exercises with numnerous different allies...and in a few cases with many of them together, every year.
South Korea, Japan, Australia, India, NATO, the UK, Cadada, etc., etc. They do all of those exercises every year...not to mention their own, US Navy individual exercises.
Others will do one or two...maybe three exercises a year. The US Navy is conduting dozens every year.
Now, that costs a LOT of money...and even in the down turns, the US economy has been able to support it.
So, yes, that training, those exercises, and that experience is another HUGE advantage that the US Navy enjoys.
Skywatcher
Captain
Actually, I wasn't thinking of economics.
To have any sort of containment work, one would need buy in from all the major Asian countries, which is never going to happen.