US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Diverting From Norm, Army Sends Hill 2017-2018 Wish Lists
...
The first wish list is designed to meet the needs of a 476,000-strong active force in 2017 and the second list addresses 2018 plans for an active Army of 490,000. If Congress included all of the Army's "unfunded requirements" in its budget, the service has calculated it would need an additional $8.2 billion not included in 2017 and an additional $18.3 billion on top of its yet-to-be-released 2018 budget request
...
The Army would spend $1.8 billion beyond the 2017 budget to upgrade its armor formations, a direct answer to capability demands in Europe.

According to the list, the service would accelerate Abrams tank production by two Battalion sets -- recapitalizing older tanks into a new version.

Bradley Fighting Vehicle production would be sped up to build one cavalry squadron set. The Army would also ramp-up the pace to modernization of 140 Stryker armored fighting vehicles to the Double V-Hull (DVH) variant as well as the production of 18 M88A2 Hercules armored recovery vehicles, which would accelerate the pure-fleet of M88A2 for all Armored Brigade Combat Teams and ABCT support units.

Among other armor formation upgrades, the Army would procure battalion mortar capability for three ABCTs and would fund research and development to increase fire power of the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle with a 30mm gun.

US Army Europe has also lamented a capability gap in short-range air defense (SHORAD) and the wish list asks for $1.3 billion to pay for modifications to the Patriot Air and Missile Defense System, procures Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles, accelerates Stinger air defense system modifications and a service life extension program and also would fund modifications of the Army’s Avenger short-range air defense systems.
...
The Army is also asking for $2.5 billion for 10 new-build AH-64E Apache attack helicopters and advanced procurement for an additional 10 aircraft, 14 new-build CH-47F Chinook cargo helicopters, 17 LUH-72A Lakota light utility helicopters, and 12 additional Gray Eagle unmanned aircraft.
Not in the 2018 Budget?

In order to bring the Army’s end-strength up to 490,000 troops, which is 36,000 above what was originally programmed in 2018, the service needs $7 billion -- apparently not included in the 2018 budget request -- to build the force.

The funding would allow for the Army to add three Armor Brigades, one through conversion and two new. The service would also add an Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT), one Corps Headquarters and one Division Headquarters.
...
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/us-military-news-reports-data-etc.t1547/page-684#post-436770

Click to expand...

Why don't they buy the lasted M1A2 tank from GDLS? I'm talking about the diesel engine with all the other upgrades wich increase range, speed and over all efficency of operating the tank as the diesel engines are more fuel efficent and cheaper to operate then the current gas turbine. Also the deisel motors are better in performance because they operate better and don't get dammed in the desert ahttp://

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

other climates unlike the fuel thrusty gas turbines
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/us-military-news-reports-data-etc.t1547/page-685

Click to expand...

Jura said:

very interesting article

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I'm going to read it again ... now it's time to kid ourselves (OK not me

Click to expand...

TerraN_EmpirE for you :
Why don't they buy the lasted M1A2 tank from GDLS? I'm talking about the diesel engine with all the other upgrades wich increase range, speed and over all efficency of operating the tank as the diesel engines are more fuel efficent and cheaper to operate then the current gas turbine. Also the deisel motors are better in performance because they operate better and don't get Jammed in the desert a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

other climates unlike the fuel thrusty gas turbines
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/us-military-news-reports-data-etc.t1547/page-685

Click to expand...

USAF Wants to Add Five Fighter Squadrons

The Air Force wants to add five more fighter squadrons over the next five to 10 years, going from 55 to 60 total fighter squadrons. The service is planning to build up its Active Duty end strength to 321,000 by the end of this year, up from 317,000 last year, and by the end of 2018, it hopes to bring that number up to 324,000, Air Force spokesman Col. Patrick Ryder said Tuesday. The plan to add five more squadrons will take place on the “out years” of future budget planning, meaning in the late 2020s to 2030s, Ryder said. It is also too early to say what type of aircraft the squadrons would fly, though the service is building up its F-16 squadrons and planning to add 1,763 F-35s. The current number of fighter squadrons is enough to fly current operational needs, such as the air war targeting ISIS in Iraq and Syria, though more would be needed to face high-end threats, said Ryder. For comparison, the Air Force had 188 fighter squadrons in the early days of Operation Desert Storm.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Jura said:

Saturday at 10:29 AM
and now Northrop Grumman Drops Out of T-X Trainer Competition

source is DefenseNews

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

The decision leaves three, or maybe four, potential bidders on the 350-plane T-X program.

Northrop Grumman said it would not bid to build a pilot-training jet for the U.S. Air Force, despite spending more than four years quietly building a plane for the job. That leaves three potential bidders for the 350-aircraft, multibillion-dollar T-X program.

In a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, officials with Northrop and its partner BAE Systems said they made the decision after reviewing the Air Force’s parameters for the competition, issued in late December.

“The companies have decided not to submit a proposal for the T-X Trainer program, as it would not be in the best interest of the companies and their shareholders,” Northrop said in a statement.

That announcement was foreshadowed last week when Wes Bush — Northrop chairman, CEO and president — declined to commit to bidding to replace the Air Force’s decades-old T-38 Talon jets, also made by Northrop.

“We are presently assessing the terms presented by [the bidding parameters] to determine whether we see an appropriate business opportunity for us to submit a bid,” Bush said during a quarterly earnings call.

The departure is the latest shift in the bidding field. Last week, Raytheon and Italy’s Leonardo,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

to partner on the project. Leonardo — which makes a version of its M-346 trainer for Italy, Israel, Poland and Singapore — has not said whether it would submit a solo bid.

Northrop’s withdrawal leaves three potential candidates: The Lockheed Martin-Korea Aerospace Industries T-50, a new plane being pitched by Boeing and Sweden’s Saab, and another new plane being offered by Sierra Nevada Corp. and Turkish Aerospace Industries.

The Air Force responded to the announcement with an emailed statement on Wednesday morning. “The Air Force continues to believe there will be a robust competition for [Advanced Pilot Training], a.k.a. T-X, and continues to look forward to the results of the on-going source selection,” wrote Ann Stefanek, a spokeswoman for the service.

Lockheed has test planes in South Carolina, where it says it will build the jets if it wins. Boeing has been

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

its plane in St. Louis.

So who’s the favorite?

“We see the narrowing field as favoring Boeing/Saab odds to win the program, though this will remain a hard-fought competition,” Byron Callan of Capital Alpha Partners wrote in a Wednesday note to investors after Northrop’s announcement.

Northrop and its subsidiary Scaled Composites

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

at an airfield in the Mojave Desert since 2013. Company officials remained tight-lipped about activities related to the project, although aircraft spotters have posted pictures on social media of a small jet bearing the company’s logo.

And despite today’s announcement, Northrop’s CEO hinted last week that the T-X work was not done in vain. The firm’s investments “tend to have broader applicability,” Bush said.

Click to expand...

A Navy program office turned to an analytics and visualization tool to help optimize complex tasks.

The U.S. Navy’s shipbuilding office has a new weapon in its effort to efficiently allocate personnel, resources and budgetary dollars: software.

The Navy’s Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems—which Chief of Staff Greg Thomas described to Nextgov as the office “that turns ships into warships”—transitioned in recent years from human intuition to a software-based approach to make complex resource and human capital allocation decisions.

Thomas said PEO IWS—which has 450 employees and oversees 60 programs and 12 lines of business, such as radar, combat systems and navigation—was drowning in complexity. Making strategic and resource allocation decisions across sometimes stovepiped organizations and defending them to overseers was becoming a major challenge. It reached a tipping point about two years ago, Thomas said.

“What we wanted to do was figure out a way to get more rigor and granularity and analysis supporting why we have the people we have, and why we have them doing what we’re doing,” Thomas said.

PEO IWS turned to an analytics tool and visualization platform from Arlington, Va.-based Decision Lens, opting for a system that allows deputy program managers to run risk-based simulations based on various input parameters. In other words, computers model where some of the agency’s budgetary and human resources ought to go and spit out visualizations regarding how singular decisions impact the organization as a whole.

For example, the software can help executives decide whether it makes sense to assign large farm teams of less experienced employees to specific projects, or whether a smaller “lean and mean” team of highly experienced professionals is better suited for the job. It’s not just a dollars and cents that are factored in, either. Parameters might include the political sensitivity of a project or its cost, employee roles and whether functions are better left stove-piped. The software can also output where human resources should be removed and reassigned elsewhere, and what levels of exposure the organization should expect based on personnel move.

Importantly, Thomas said there’s a visual component that changes based on any input.

“Risk is quantified,” Thomas said. “We’ve got a meter, and when you make a change, you can see how the meter swings. If you add risk to the meter, it’ll swing and program managers will shy away from it. It’s taken our complexity and functions and our roles and integrated it into a single way of looking at things.”

Simulations can be run regularly to better assess short-term decisions, and Thomas said they’re also used by deputy program managers to make their case.

“Every deputy has to come in and say, ‘this is my number, this is how I’m organized, how I’ve shaped the organization and how I am now,’” Thomas said. “It’s made us more consistent and more rigorous without adding a huge burden.”

PEO IWS had an existing relationship with Decision Lens, using its software for budget prioritization, so Thomas said expanding the partnership to include big data-based human capital planning wasn’t difficult.

“We’ve taken [this software] farther on human capital than we ever did with budget prioritization,” Thomas said. “We always felt like we were under-resourced—like we didn’t have enough people. Now, we’re able to be more efficient with that squeeze on us and making better use of the people do have.”

The Navy’s move toward a software-based approach to strategic decision-making mirrors concurrent efforts across the federal government, according to John Saaty, who cofounded Decision Lens with his brother in 2005. Saaty told Nextgov the company now sells software to 60 different federal agencies, with its status as a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

provider helping business.

Saaty said federal government’s enormous problem regarding waste, fraud and abuse, as well as increasingly tight budgets, have driven many agencies to turn to advanced software for strategic decision-making rather than a combination of “Microsoft Excel and people doing institutionalized manual processes and chasing their tail.”

Saaty likens the government’s challenges in strategic decision-making to those faced by professional sports teams. The team could draft a player based on hunches and limited data provided by scouts, or it could input a collection of quantitative data (such as 40-yard-dash time) and qualitative information (leadership skills, fit with team or behavior) “to prioritize what is best for the team and select the best player in the draft.”

Government, Saaty said, can do the same thing, “matching up talent with their most important, complex programs.”

Click to expand...