US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

FORBIN said:

A new Atk Recc Sqn in transition

Click to expand...

82th ABN OH-58D retired last flight replaced by AH-64



About 2/3 years ago 335 OH-58D in 10 Squadrons same size as Batalions but name for Cavalry units
each 21/30 helos emains now max 2 with 10th MTN Div and normaly 1st ID.
In more 3 units in 2 Av Br whose the 16th to Ft Lewis which have 2 IIRC first combat units have receive the E.

Replaced by AH-64A/D transfered from ANG which have in her 8 Div 1/2 by Div total 10 in more 3 in 2 independent Av Br , 13 bat normaly transfered all but maybe better keep 4 units

With the last order for 117, 290 AH-64 new or modified in E planned 690.

I think you are conflating 2 different technologies. I assume you are referring to the X-51A when you mention the Mach 5 vehicle which is a kerosene scramjet powered cruise missile. The hypersonic glide vehicles are boosted by a conventional rocket and then coast to target. The US HTV project had 2 failures but still generated a significant amount of data and validated the aerodynamics. A separate US glide vehicle is funded through the US Army with a more conventional body shape and that has succeeded in a long duration cruise flight from Alaska to Kwajalein. A second test however suffered from a booster explosion right on the pad. A 3rd test has been funded by Congress but it is being handled as a low priority.

China is definitely pursuing research much more aggressively (ie, spending more money and conducting more tests). The US seems to be deliberately foot dragging and past efforts tend to follow fits and starts followed by long pauses. The X-43 hydrogen scramjet tests which achieved Mach 10 flight (albeit for 10 seconds of active engine operation) occurred way back in 2004. The X-51A supposedly generated enough data to anchor the design models at a level of confidence sufficient to commit an official program of record. Which is where it has ended and will probably stay for the duration of the Obama presidency.

I am having trouble quoting for some reason, but just wanted to thank Equation and Srehl for the informative responses.

Holt_Allen said:

I am having trouble quoting for some reason, but just wanted to thank Equation and Srehl for the informative responses.

Click to expand...

You're welcome. As for quoting are you using Google Chrome? If not than you can quote by clicking on the "+" inside the box and drag down to "QUOTE label. You can than insert your quote from there. I hope I didn't confuse you.

I'm guessing Putin thinks this kind of behavior embarrasses Obama. I would think he would eventually realize Obama doesn't care. On the other hand, maybe Obama isn't the audience.

DoD: Su-27 Barrel Rolls Over RC-135

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Equation said:

You're welcome. As for quoting are you using Google Chrome? If not than you can quote by clicking on the "+" inside the box and drag down to "QUOTE label. You can than insert your quote from there. I hope I didn't confuse you.

Click to expand...

8 post in 10 years wooooww of course he did not know all the tricks but a good ratio 6 likes post more guy enough quiet this time here
MirageDriver have posted same number in half an hour

strehl said:

I'm guessing Putin thinks this kind of behavior embarrasses Obama. I would think he would eventually realize Obama doesn't care. On the other hand, maybe Obama isn't the audience.

DoD: Su-27 Barrel Rolls Over RC-135

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Yep, he don't know, and he most def does not care? We really ought to roll out a 1/2 dozen SR-71s out of moth balls and let the Russians try to catch them??? really, why put whole flight crews at risk, maybe escorted by a coupe of "unarmed F-22's and use that radar to burn down the bad boys birds???

there really is no winning with Russia/Putin, ignoring them is probably the best thing, unless they cross the line, then do what Turkey did.

Air Force Brat said:

there really is no winning with Russia/Putin, ignoring them is probably the best thing, unless they cross the line, then do what Turkey did.

Click to expand...

The problem though with Obama whether there is such a concept of a line. I think he is still trying to work out intellectually whether there was one on Syria. Lol.

Missile Defense Brain Multi-Tasks: Army IBCS Kills Cruise, Ballistic Missiles

The Army’s new

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

passed its third flight test on

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. In a particularly complex exercise, the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(IBCS) controlled two types of radar and two types of Patriot missile shooting down two types of incoming missile in the same engagement, contractor Northrop Grumman announced today. Next up for the program — its

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

to determine whether IBCS can move from development into production.

IBCS is intended to connect the current arsenal of stand-alone systems into a greater whole, one in which any shooter — including potential future weapons such as

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

— can get firing data from any sensor. In a previous test in November, for example, a low-altitude cruise missile threat evaded a Patriot radar but got picked up by a Sentinel — originally designed for short-range anti-aircraft fire, not missile defense. With both radars plugged into IBCS, the network fed the Sentinel’s targeting data to a Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) launcher for a successful shoot down.

In the field today, by contrast, Patriots can only take targeting data from their own purpose-built radars. The

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

back in May 2015 kept both Patriot radars and PAC-2 Patriot launchers, but connected them through IBCS instead of the Patriot system, proving the new network worked.

The most recent test was the most complex yet. Cued by both Patriot and Sentinel radar, ICBS sent a PAC-2 interceptor against an incoming cruise missile target and a PAC-3 against an incoming ballistic missile. While a low-tier adversary such as

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

might fire off just one missile at a time, even a mid-tier threat like

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

or

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

— let alone

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

or

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

— would likely launch

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. That makes multi-target tests particularly important.

Click to expand...