Jura The idiot
General
based on
I did a google search with
uss+wasp+"combat+system"
and perhaps the most interesting was
Defence News 02/07/2012
Wasp To Get Combat System Upgrade, Return to Deployment Schedule
(it's no news so I'll leave it at that)
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
uss+wasp+"combat+system"
and perhaps the most interesting was
Defence News 02/07/2012
Wasp To Get Combat System Upgrade, Return to Deployment Schedule
(it's no news so I'll leave it at that)
Bernard
Junior Member
Why America's Enemies Fear the Army's AH-64E “Guardian” Helicopter
October 25, 2016
The U.S. Army will spend billions of dollars over the next decade to upgrade its iconic Apache helicopters to the latest—and most likely, last—variant, the AH-64E “Guardian.” Already battle-tested in Afghanistan, the Apache Guardian reflects the latest trends in U.S. military doctrine—namely improved response and loiter time, interoperability with drones, and the capability to engage maritime targets.
The Apache stands amongst a number of weapon systems such as the M1 Abrams tank and the F-15E Strike Eagle that entered service in the 1980s and proved their mettle in the 1991 Gulf War. Apaches fired the first shots of that conflict took out Iraqi low-band radars with Hellfire missiles, clearing the way for the initial strikes by F-117 stealth fighters. A total of 277 Apaches were deployed in the conflict, claiming the destruction of 278 Iraqi tanks as well as numerous so other targets—a high “rate of return” by the standards of most weapons systems. Only one Apache was lost in combat.
Attack helicopters are responsive and relatively precise means of unleashing heavy firepower where it’s needed most—but unlike main battle tanks or jet fighters, even an armored helicopter is vulnerable to low-tech machine guns, antiaircraft cannons and even rocket-propelled grenades, let alone surface-to-air missiles. In later conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, AH-64s continued to prove their deadly effectiveness, but couldn’t avoid losses from ground fire, including during an against the Iraqi Medina Division that a strike group of thirty-one Apaches badly shot up by heavy machine guns and anti-aircraft cannons.
The “Guardian” Apache was approved in 2012, fifteen years after the preceding AH-64D “Longbow” upgrade, which mounted an APG-78 radar above the rotor that allowed the Apache to detect and fire at ground targets outside of the line of sight. However, this increased the Apache’s unloaded weight by 15 percent, to 11,800 pounds, without increasing the engine power to compensate.
The new AH-64E addresses this by installing a trifecta of new systems: more powerful T700-GE-701D turboshaft engines, a modern face gear transmission system, and new composite rotor blades—increasing the AH-64E’s speed from 140 to 180 miles per hour. The Guardian Apache can thus arrive on the battlefield faster and loiter overhead for longer—57 percent longer,. New hydraulic “shock strut” landing gear also improve the Guardian’s crash resistance.
Another upgrade is a Manned-Unmanned Team (MUM-T) drone controller datalink enabling the Guardian’s copilot to remotely control and receive data from an orbiting Army MQ-1C Grey Eagle drone. This allows the Apache crew to observe the battlefield before they’ve arrived—and even to hover behind cover, waiting for a target to be identified by drone so it can make a devastating pop-up attack. The Apache crew can to paint targets with a laser or launch the drone’s Hellfire missiles.
The latest Lot 6 batch of Guardians includes updated fire-control systems that can identify and target shipsat sea, presumably to rain Hellfire missiles upon them. Clearly, this is aimed at making the Apache more relevant to any possible conflict in the Pacific—as well as possible skirmishes in the Persian Gulf. Although plans to make a naval version of the Apache died off long ago, U.S. Army Apache units anyway. British Apaches have already operated successfully from theHMS Ocean amphibious assault ship during the 2011 intervention in Libya.
In addition to upgrades to computer processors and software, there are also a number of useful new gizmos. A new Ground-Fire Acquisition System, installed on the tip of the wing stub, scans the battlefield with cameras for muzzle flashes from small arms, cannons and rocket-propelled grenades, and automatically slews the Apache around to deliver return fire with its thirty-millimeter cannon. Link-16 datalinks in later Guardian production lots will allow improved data sharing and networking with friendly forces. The computer software has also been upgraded with a Cognitive Decision Aiding System intended to ease the workload posed by routine piloting tasks.
The Apache Guardians when the First Battalion of the 229th Aviation Regiment deployed to southern Afghanistan for seven months. They reported an 87 percent readiness rate—above the expected 80 percent average. The unit’s commander noted that the Guardian’s ability to arrive on the battlefield faster and loiter longer disrupted Taliban tactics, pinning them down for longer periods while the Guardian orbited overhead. The Apaches networked with friendly drones on 60 percent of their sorties—not just with Grey Eagles, but also smaller RQ-7 Shadows and Air Force Reaper and Predator drones. This enabled the Apaches to identify and destroy targets faster, and thus achieve more with each sortie. However, training and doctrine on how to use the drones, and the Guardian’s datalinks aren’t fully functional yet with drone models other than the Grey Eagle.
Apaches also were deployed to Iraq in 2014 to provide air support to American troops in country, and several are reportedly launching.
The Apache is expected to remain in service until 2040. The latest contract, awarded in April, is to upgrade 117 Apaches for $922 million by 2018. Ultimately, 634 Apaches will be upgraded to Guardians, and once those are done, fifty-six brand-new AH-64Es will be produced. Many of the Apaches will serve in new active-duty Attack-Reconnaissance battalions, composed of Apaches taken away from the National Guard units to replace the retired OH-58 scout helicopter.
Fifty of the new Guardians will also enter service with the British Army, and another fifty of its Apache Longbows will be upgraded. Other countries slated to receive AH-64Es include India (twenty-two), Indonesia (eight), South Korea (thirty-six), Saudi Arabia and Taiwan.
Will there be future upgrades to the Apache after the Guardian? Boeing definitely thought so, and sketched up a proposed AH-64F with a variety of flight-performance enhancements, including more powerful engines, new stub wings to provide better lift while cruising and an articulating tail rotor.
However, the Army has recently in pursuing another major Apache upgrade—because it needs the funding to introduce its next generation Future Vertical Lift chopper, by 2030. New armaments, however, are possible: Boeing has suggested for destroying drones, while an AH-64 recently the Brimstone antitank missile.
The Guardian may be the last of the Apaches—but it looks likely to see a lot more action in the decades to come.
Sébastien Roblin holds a Master’s Degree in Conflict Resolution from Georgetown University and served as a university instructor for the Peace Corps in China. He has also worked in education, editing, and refugee resettlement in France and the United States. He currently writes on security and military history for War Is Boring.
: U.S. Army Flickr.
October 25, 2016
The U.S. Army will spend billions of dollars over the next decade to upgrade its iconic Apache helicopters to the latest—and most likely, last—variant, the AH-64E “Guardian.” Already battle-tested in Afghanistan, the Apache Guardian reflects the latest trends in U.S. military doctrine—namely improved response and loiter time, interoperability with drones, and the capability to engage maritime targets.
The Apache stands amongst a number of weapon systems such as the M1 Abrams tank and the F-15E Strike Eagle that entered service in the 1980s and proved their mettle in the 1991 Gulf War. Apaches fired the first shots of that conflict took out Iraqi low-band radars with Hellfire missiles, clearing the way for the initial strikes by F-117 stealth fighters. A total of 277 Apaches were deployed in the conflict, claiming the destruction of 278 Iraqi tanks as well as numerous so other targets—a high “rate of return” by the standards of most weapons systems. Only one Apache was lost in combat.
Attack helicopters are responsive and relatively precise means of unleashing heavy firepower where it’s needed most—but unlike main battle tanks or jet fighters, even an armored helicopter is vulnerable to low-tech machine guns, antiaircraft cannons and even rocket-propelled grenades, let alone surface-to-air missiles. In later conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, AH-64s continued to prove their deadly effectiveness, but couldn’t avoid losses from ground fire, including during an against the Iraqi Medina Division that a strike group of thirty-one Apaches badly shot up by heavy machine guns and anti-aircraft cannons.
The “Guardian” Apache was approved in 2012, fifteen years after the preceding AH-64D “Longbow” upgrade, which mounted an APG-78 radar above the rotor that allowed the Apache to detect and fire at ground targets outside of the line of sight. However, this increased the Apache’s unloaded weight by 15 percent, to 11,800 pounds, without increasing the engine power to compensate.
The new AH-64E addresses this by installing a trifecta of new systems: more powerful T700-GE-701D turboshaft engines, a modern face gear transmission system, and new composite rotor blades—increasing the AH-64E’s speed from 140 to 180 miles per hour. The Guardian Apache can thus arrive on the battlefield faster and loiter overhead for longer—57 percent longer,. New hydraulic “shock strut” landing gear also improve the Guardian’s crash resistance.
Another upgrade is a Manned-Unmanned Team (MUM-T) drone controller datalink enabling the Guardian’s copilot to remotely control and receive data from an orbiting Army MQ-1C Grey Eagle drone. This allows the Apache crew to observe the battlefield before they’ve arrived—and even to hover behind cover, waiting for a target to be identified by drone so it can make a devastating pop-up attack. The Apache crew can to paint targets with a laser or launch the drone’s Hellfire missiles.
The latest Lot 6 batch of Guardians includes updated fire-control systems that can identify and target shipsat sea, presumably to rain Hellfire missiles upon them. Clearly, this is aimed at making the Apache more relevant to any possible conflict in the Pacific—as well as possible skirmishes in the Persian Gulf. Although plans to make a naval version of the Apache died off long ago, U.S. Army Apache units anyway. British Apaches have already operated successfully from theHMS Ocean amphibious assault ship during the 2011 intervention in Libya.
In addition to upgrades to computer processors and software, there are also a number of useful new gizmos. A new Ground-Fire Acquisition System, installed on the tip of the wing stub, scans the battlefield with cameras for muzzle flashes from small arms, cannons and rocket-propelled grenades, and automatically slews the Apache around to deliver return fire with its thirty-millimeter cannon. Link-16 datalinks in later Guardian production lots will allow improved data sharing and networking with friendly forces. The computer software has also been upgraded with a Cognitive Decision Aiding System intended to ease the workload posed by routine piloting tasks.
The Apache Guardians when the First Battalion of the 229th Aviation Regiment deployed to southern Afghanistan for seven months. They reported an 87 percent readiness rate—above the expected 80 percent average. The unit’s commander noted that the Guardian’s ability to arrive on the battlefield faster and loiter longer disrupted Taliban tactics, pinning them down for longer periods while the Guardian orbited overhead. The Apaches networked with friendly drones on 60 percent of their sorties—not just with Grey Eagles, but also smaller RQ-7 Shadows and Air Force Reaper and Predator drones. This enabled the Apaches to identify and destroy targets faster, and thus achieve more with each sortie. However, training and doctrine on how to use the drones, and the Guardian’s datalinks aren’t fully functional yet with drone models other than the Grey Eagle.
Apaches also were deployed to Iraq in 2014 to provide air support to American troops in country, and several are reportedly launching.
The Apache is expected to remain in service until 2040. The latest contract, awarded in April, is to upgrade 117 Apaches for $922 million by 2018. Ultimately, 634 Apaches will be upgraded to Guardians, and once those are done, fifty-six brand-new AH-64Es will be produced. Many of the Apaches will serve in new active-duty Attack-Reconnaissance battalions, composed of Apaches taken away from the National Guard units to replace the retired OH-58 scout helicopter.
Fifty of the new Guardians will also enter service with the British Army, and another fifty of its Apache Longbows will be upgraded. Other countries slated to receive AH-64Es include India (twenty-two), Indonesia (eight), South Korea (thirty-six), Saudi Arabia and Taiwan.
Will there be future upgrades to the Apache after the Guardian? Boeing definitely thought so, and sketched up a proposed AH-64F with a variety of flight-performance enhancements, including more powerful engines, new stub wings to provide better lift while cruising and an articulating tail rotor.
However, the Army has recently in pursuing another major Apache upgrade—because it needs the funding to introduce its next generation Future Vertical Lift chopper, by 2030. New armaments, however, are possible: Boeing has suggested for destroying drones, while an AH-64 recently the Brimstone antitank missile.
The Guardian may be the last of the Apaches—but it looks likely to see a lot more action in the decades to come.
Sébastien Roblin holds a Master’s Degree in Conflict Resolution from Georgetown University and served as a university instructor for the Peace Corps in China. He has also worked in education, editing, and refugee resettlement in France and the United States. He currently writes on security and military history for War Is Boring.
: U.S. Army Flickr.
Bernard
Junior Member
All Cyber Mission Force Teams Achieve Initial Operating Capability
All 133 of U.S. Cyber Command’s Cyber Mission Force teams achieved initial operating capability as of Oct. 21, Cybercom officials announced today.
Reaching the IOC milestone is a testament to the Defense Department’s focus on developing cyber capability and capacity, as outlined in DoD’s Cyber Strategy, officials said.
“One of the reasons DoD has done exceptionally well to rapidly train and build this force is that each branch of the military services has come to the conclusion that cyber is a mission set that requires dedicated expertise over time,” said Navy Adm. Michael S. Rogers, Cybercom commander, director of the National Security Agency and chief of the Central Security Service. “That wasn’t always the case, and I have to compliment the services, the services’ cyber component leadership and the entire team for all of the extremely hard work to achieve this goal.”
Initial operating capability means that all Cyber Mission Force units have reached a threshold level of initial operating capacity and can execute their fundamental mission.
Assessment of Capability
IOC is an assessment of capability, officials explained, and is not designed to represent the overall combat readiness for the Cyber Mission Forces teams. Rather, they said, it reflects a team’s overall progress toward achieving full operational capability and serves as standard baseline in building the 133 teams.
The Cyber Mission Force currently comprises about 5,000 individuals across the 133 teams. By the end of fiscal year 2018, the goal is for the force to grow to nearly 6,200 and for all 133 teams to be fully operational, officials said, adding that full operational capability is tied to a validation that all Cyber Mission Force teams are capable of operating at full mission capacity.
The next major milestone is for all teams to be at full operational capability by Sept. 30, 2018, Rogers said, “because our experience is that it takes about two years to get a team from the time we stand it up to fully mission-capable.”
As of mid-October, nearly half of the Cyber Mission Force teams had already achieved full operational capability Cybercom officials said. Still, they added, given the rapidly developing and dynamic nature of the cyber domain, Cyber Mission Force teams in development — “build-status” — have played a vital role in supporting missions to safeguard the nation against cyberattacks since their inception in 2013.
“The reality is, because of the dynamics of cyber, we have needed to apply capacity as soon as we’re generating it,” Rogers said. “And so we find ourselves in a situation – a little unusual in the military arena – wherein as soon as we get a basic framework, we have been deploying the teams and putting them against challenges.”
Focus Aligns with DoD Cyber Strategy
The focus of Cybercom’s Cyber Mission Force teams aligns with the DoD Cyber Strategy’s three primary missions: Defend DoD networks and ensure their data is held secure; support joint military commander objectives; and, when directed, defend U.S. critical infrastructure.
Specifically, Cyber Mission Force teams support these mission sets though their respective assignments:
The Cyber National Mission Force plans, directs, and synchronizes full-spectrum cyberspace operations to deter, disrupt, and if necessary, defeat adversary cyber actors to defend the nation. Its “defend the nation” missions include:
Read more:
All 133 of U.S. Cyber Command’s Cyber Mission Force teams achieved initial operating capability as of Oct. 21, Cybercom officials announced today.
Reaching the IOC milestone is a testament to the Defense Department’s focus on developing cyber capability and capacity, as outlined in DoD’s Cyber Strategy, officials said.
“One of the reasons DoD has done exceptionally well to rapidly train and build this force is that each branch of the military services has come to the conclusion that cyber is a mission set that requires dedicated expertise over time,” said Navy Adm. Michael S. Rogers, Cybercom commander, director of the National Security Agency and chief of the Central Security Service. “That wasn’t always the case, and I have to compliment the services, the services’ cyber component leadership and the entire team for all of the extremely hard work to achieve this goal.”
Initial operating capability means that all Cyber Mission Force units have reached a threshold level of initial operating capacity and can execute their fundamental mission.
Assessment of Capability
IOC is an assessment of capability, officials explained, and is not designed to represent the overall combat readiness for the Cyber Mission Forces teams. Rather, they said, it reflects a team’s overall progress toward achieving full operational capability and serves as standard baseline in building the 133 teams.
The Cyber Mission Force currently comprises about 5,000 individuals across the 133 teams. By the end of fiscal year 2018, the goal is for the force to grow to nearly 6,200 and for all 133 teams to be fully operational, officials said, adding that full operational capability is tied to a validation that all Cyber Mission Force teams are capable of operating at full mission capacity.
The next major milestone is for all teams to be at full operational capability by Sept. 30, 2018, Rogers said, “because our experience is that it takes about two years to get a team from the time we stand it up to fully mission-capable.”
As of mid-October, nearly half of the Cyber Mission Force teams had already achieved full operational capability Cybercom officials said. Still, they added, given the rapidly developing and dynamic nature of the cyber domain, Cyber Mission Force teams in development — “build-status” — have played a vital role in supporting missions to safeguard the nation against cyberattacks since their inception in 2013.
“The reality is, because of the dynamics of cyber, we have needed to apply capacity as soon as we’re generating it,” Rogers said. “And so we find ourselves in a situation – a little unusual in the military arena – wherein as soon as we get a basic framework, we have been deploying the teams and putting them against challenges.”
Focus Aligns with DoD Cyber Strategy
The focus of Cybercom’s Cyber Mission Force teams aligns with the DoD Cyber Strategy’s three primary missions: Defend DoD networks and ensure their data is held secure; support joint military commander objectives; and, when directed, defend U.S. critical infrastructure.
Specifically, Cyber Mission Force teams support these mission sets though their respective assignments:
- Cyber National Mission Force teams defend the nation by seeing adversary activity, blocking attacks, and maneuvering to defeat them.
- Cyber Combat Mission Force teams conduct military cyber operations in support of combatant commands.
- Cyber Protection Force teams defend the DoD information networks, protect priority missions and prepare cyber forces for combat.
- Cyber Support teams provide analytic and planning support to National Mission and Combat Mission teams.
- JFHQ-C MARFORCYBER supports U.S. Special Operations Command;
- JFHQ-C ARCYBER supports U.S. Central Command, U.S. Africa Command and U.S. Northern Command;
- JFHQ-C FLTCYBER supports U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Southern Command; and
- JFHQ-C AFCYBER supports U.S. European Command, U.S. Strategic Command, and U.S. Transportation Command.
The Cyber National Mission Force plans, directs, and synchronizes full-spectrum cyberspace operations to deter, disrupt, and if necessary, defeat adversary cyber actors to defend the nation. Its “defend the nation” missions include:
- When directed by the president or secretary of defense, defending the U.S. and its interests against cyberattacks of significant consequence and defense of the nation’s critical infrastructure when significant consequences may include loss of life, significant damage to property, serious adverse U.S. foreign policy consequences or serious economic impact on the United States.
- Alignment to the most sophisticated cyber adversaries: nation-state cyber adversaries and non-nation-state or emerging threats.
Read more:
Jura The idiot
General
... but Admiral: Attacks Like Those on USS Mason Will Become More Common
source is USNI News
Sweet, merci
Jura The idiot
General
... exactly: "what is amazing is, in the next few years, everywhere the Navy goes, if you’re not in a submarine, you better watch out because every crappy country will be able to launch high-speed missiles at you and the propagation of that is going to be amazing" (some Vice Admiral inside https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/us-military-news-reports-data-etc.t1547/page-629#post-421623)
You preach to a convinced many times as Jeff i have talking about especialy for Virginia and their capabilities not only it also tactics, Strategic employment also.
From several years a more important number of countries have supersonic anti-ships missiles and in Asia some combattants classes have 16 missiles, a power x 2.
And very possible later others countries get supersonic anti-ships missiles and as i have say for defense against it with eventualy severals attacks eventualy saturating...a true combattant of first rank need 16+SAM in fact and 24 - 32 + ( French Navy tactic is launch 2 SAM vs a missile, eventualy possible 1.5 /1 it is more safe to 1/1 more dangerous... remains after Ciws and ECM...) and Bergamini, new FTI etc...are 1st rank but 2nd class and don' t forget VLS problem or reloading...
Back to USN for an ex we can envisaged with the very goog charts fom Brumby ( and confirm my feeling i have before see it ) for % of missiles,
A Burke have 10 cell's x 4 ESSM : 40 + 45 SM-2/6 : 90 very capable for defense
ESSM have a big advantage 4 in acell so power x 4 but SM-2/6 can eventualy fired aircraf before he lauch in praactice SM-2MR used 118 km a bit short vs much new AShM supersonic/subsonic i precise, SM-6 excellent ! 250 - 400+ km but more rare, expensive.
For SM-3 10 % do about 10 but very expensive stock limited used first in fact after cell's free for ESSM/SM-2/6 in general
Last edited:
It is a matter of range between attacker missiles and defender missiles Standoff missile, in more conditioned by the size of the salvo and ofc quality of missiles the two last things doing the power of the salvo or for only a missile.
And USA are going with their new/futur SM-6, AGM-158C up to 400 and 1000 km gain in fact re gain this battle for 2020's, to consider AGM-158C is subsonic so despite stealth less capable vs defense than a supersonic.
LOL almost each year spending bill no worry Mr Jura