US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

according to DefenseNews Neither Congress nor the Pentagon have a path to a 355-ship Navy
40 minutes ago
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The great Navy buildup promised by U.S. President Donald Trump during his campaign is so far all talk and no action, and with progress on Capitol Hill stalled on almost all fronts, the Defense Department seems more likely to eat another round of sequester cuts than cut steel for a bunch of extra ships.

The defense appropriations bill — the means by which Congress sends money to the military — is stalled in the Senate, and experts say it’s likely to stay there until there is progress on a deal that would address the spending caps imposed by the 2011 Budget Control Act. And the dysfunction will almost certainly stymie any effort by the U.S. Navy to expand its fleet until Congress finds a way to resolve its internal conflicts or Defense Secretary Jim Mattis decides to strip funding from the other services to pay for a larger fleet.

But if navalists and shipbuilders are waiting for that, it may be a long wait. Mattis has told Congress that he thinks the fleet needs to grow but that he isn’t going to rob the other services to do it. Any substantial increase in the size of the fleet is contingent on 3 to 5 percent annual budget growth, which would be impossible under the current Budget Control Act.

On Capitol Hill, the prospect for some kind of “grand bargain,” one that would lift the spending caps and give the Defense Department the growth its looking for, is bleak, said Todd Harrison, a budget analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“I wouldn’t hold your breath for a grand deal,” Harrison said. “What usually comes is a kind of mini deal,” meaning an agreement that raises caps by a modest margin for a set period of time.

Shy of a deal that raises the caps — similar to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 that locked in budget levels in 2016 and 2017 above the caps — the Navy and the rest of the DoD will either operate for the year under continuing resolutions that lock in 2017-level spending or will endure an across-the-board cut, evenly slashing spending on every program the Navy owns to meet the caps.

That means that increased spending planned for programs such as the Ohio-replacement program — the new sea-based nuclear missile boats to replace those that are coming to the end of their life cycle — would start to face cuts. At the very least, the planned spending increases for the Ohio replacement would be smaller than budgeted for, which would kick the can down the road and force the Navy to draw from other programs under a more stable budget later, almost certainly cutting into money that could be used to grow the fleet.

Navy leaders have consistently said the Ohio replacement is the No. 1 budgetary priority for the service, but the boats cost anywhere from $5 billion to $6 billion a pop, depending on how you slice it. That’s a big cut from the Navy’s roughly $16 billion annual shipbuilding budget, according to a Congressional Budget Office rolling average.

On the plus side, however, the cuts won’t be as harsh as the 2013 budget sequestration that forced the Navy to cancel deployments and furlough shipyard workers to sneak in under its caps, said Bryan Clark, a former aide to then-Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert and an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

The sequestration caps increase every year under the Budget Control Act, so if whatever appropriations come out of Congress bust the caps, which they almost certainly will, the cuts will be less than the Navy planned for but probably more than a full-year continuing resolution, Clarke said.

“Relative to a full-year continuing resolution, the budget is going to go up,” he said. “It will be less than they planned for, though, so programs that were expecting a big plus-up will need a reevaluation. Programs that weren’t changing won’t be as affected.”

Under the current continuing resolution hashed out between Trump and the Democrats, the money runs out Dec. 8, meaning Congress needs to: reach a deal that raises the caps; extend the continuing resolution, forcing a tough budget vote in the middle of an election year; or shut down the government until lawmakers manage to do one of the first two options.

A bigger fleet? Yeah, but …

Aside from the congressional hurdles that must be overcome, Trump’s naval buildup aspirations must overcome a seeming lack of coherent vision of what a bigger Navy means or how it’s going to be paid for.

In June, when asked where he sees the Navy’s fleet in 2025, Mattis said in a House Armed Services Committee hearing that it depends on whether the Budget Control Act would be repealed, adding that he is prioritizing fixing the existing fleet.

“I would think it’s going to take a budget that’s probably up around 5 percent growth — real growth — in order to get towards where we want to go. Three percent growth will not suffice, I’ll tell you that. It’s going to be up over 5 percent.”

Navy leaders have even seemed to put the brakes on their own stated goal of a 355-ship fleet. The new secretary of the Navy, Richard Spencer, agrees the Navy needs to aim for 355 ships, but wants to understand what kind of ships and technologies the Navy will need in the future before putting lots of money toward the move.

During his confirmation hearing, Spencer appeared to walk back the Navy’s goal of 355 ships, but later clarified he was first trying to understand how the fleet should look.

“I totally agree, we need to grow the fleet for a bunch of reasons — presence, posture and delivery of force,” Spencer said in a Sept. 9 speech at the Navy Memorial. “But I can’t tell you I know what a ship looks like 15 years out.

“So I wanted to make sure everyone understands where I was coming from. I wasn’t hedging a bet. We really do have to understand technology and get our hands around it when we start looking out forward.”

The Navy’s top officer has also been focusing more on technology rather than the actual number of hulls, the kind of capability-over-capacity argument espoused by former Secretary of Defense Ash Carter that rankled former Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, who jealously guarded shipbuilding accounts.

Richardson has spoken of increasing networking within the fleet to spread out the Navy’s sensors and information sharing to cover a larger swathe of the ocean without adding lots of traditional ships.

In August, Richardson said that counting highly capable unmanned ships among the fleet would be a way to get closer to the 355-ship Navy, up from its current 278 ships, and said the Navy of the future would have to look different,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

“I can guarantee that it’s not going to be building more of the same thing we have right now,” he said. “Because that will not be the Navy that the nation needs to secure itself and promote its prosperity.”
 
Today at 6:14 PM
this is interesting (dated October 22, 2017):
EXCLUSIVE: US Preparing to Put Nuclear Bombers Back on 24-Hour Alert
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
interesting indeed, as Air Force Not Preparing to Put B-52s Back on Alert
10/23/2017
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Air Force says it is not making preparations to place its B-52 bombers on 24-hour nuclear alert, something the service has not done since the Cold War.

Defense One reported on Sunday that such a move was underway and pointed to “various improvements” that have been made recently at Barksdale AFB, La., including the refurbishment of “an old concrete building” where bomber pilots on alert were housed during the Cold War.

“We are not planning or preparing to put B-52s back on alert,” service spokesperson Capt. Mark Graff told Air Force Magazine in an emailed statement. “Preparations like updating base infrastructure,” including “updating alert facilities, munitions storage, dining facilities” did not indicate plans to change the status of the base’s B-52s, Graff added.

“Conducting exercises, and modernizing equipment are necessary to maintain a baseline level of readiness,” Graff said. “We do this routinely as part of our organize, train, and equip mission so our forces are ready to respond when called upon.”

Some of the updates at Barksdale are aimed at housing crews that operate the E-4B and E-6B command and control aircraft, Brig. Gen. Ed Thomas, USAF director of public affairs, told reporters at a Pentagon briefing Monday. Those aircraft are currently on alert, Thomas said, and the same facilities that house those alert crews could also be used to house B-52 alert crews in the future. But Thomas reiterated that there are no plans currently to place B-52 crews back on alert.
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
F-22 do since several years deployments there detachements of 6 - 12 in general 12, to deploy a F-22 full Sqn with 24 birds necessary 8 C-17s and with 700 C-5/17/130 USAF have a big advantage to project power and especialy carry ammunitions with the more big, French A-400M do very good job for that for the base in Jordania, the C-130 is more limited.
The 50 F-15s to Kadena with AESA radars are very decent but not ghosts

But we have in Europe shorter but first F-35 deployment cool Donald :cool:

Air Force F-35s coming to Japan in November

WASHINGTON — The Air Force’s F-35 is making its operational debut in the Asia-Pacific region, with 12 A-models set to arrive at Kadena Air Base, Japan, early this November for a six-month deployment.

More than 300 airmen from the 34th Fighter Squadron at Hill Air Force Base, Utah — including pilots, maintainers and other personnel — will deploy to Kadena to support the aircraft, Pacific Air Forces announced.

“The F-35A gives the joint warfighter unprecedented global precision attack capability against current and emerging threats while complementing our air superiority fleet,” said Gen. Terrence O’Shaughnessy, Pacific Air Forces commander. “The airframe is ideally suited to meet our command’s obligations, and we look forward to integrating it into our training and operations.”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Oct 8, 2017
R.I.P. and my condolences to their families.:(


2Untitled-1.JPG


Pentagon identifies fourth U.S. soldier slain in Niger ambush

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
the story (very sad) goes on as Top general provides new details on Niger attack
6 hours ago
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
I read with interest
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Army’s wheeled vehicle programs like
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
are leading it on the path to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, a modular approach to designing software and electronics that makes them easier to upgrade. That’s particularly critical when, facing Russian
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the Army is looking to improve Position, Navigation & Timing (PNT) on tens of thousands of vehicles.

“The killer use case for this, at least initially, is distributing Position, Navigation and Timing across our platforms,” said
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the Army’s Program Executive Officer for armored fighting vehicles like Strykers and tanks. The idea is to invent an “Assured PNT” solution once and then install it, plug-and-play, across a wide variety of vehicles that all use the same open architecture. “The savings associated with that, as opposed to modernizing every GPS receiver on your platforms (individually), is enormous,” Bassett told the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
here.

To give a sense of scale: Across the Defense Department as a whole, there are 260 different, proprietary, and often incompatible configurations of GPS and inertial navigation equipment, another participant said. And the Army has many more ground vehicles to upgrade than the other services have aircraft or ships, with over 4,000 Strykers in service alone.

The eight-wheel-drive Stryker is the first of Bassett’s programs to move to an Army open architecture called
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. (It’s an awful nested acronym: Vehicular Integration for C4ISR/EW Interoperability). VICTORY comes along with the installation of an in-vehicle Ethernet and other improvements on what’s called the Stryker DVH (Double Vee Hull) A1. Other armored vehicles such as the M1 Abrams tank and M2 Bradley troop carrier will move to the VICTORY standard as part of future upgrade packages called ECPs (Engineering Change Proposals).

Alongside the 8×8 Stryker is the smaller but, soon, much more numerous 4×4 Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. The planned buy of 50,000 JLTVs is meant to replace many (not all) of the military’s nimble but vulnerable
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and robust but lumbering MRAPs with a tactical truck that blends the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

“It’s our great model for open architecture,” said Maj. Gen. Niel Nelson, the Marine Corps’ assistant deputy commandant for combat development. The whole point of a tactical utility vehicle like the JLTV, or the Humvee and Jeep before it, is that you can
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, he told the conference, from hauling cargo to evacuating casualties to conducting reconnaissance. In modern warfare, that means you need to reconfigure software and electronics quickly too.

“JLTV comes as sort of a base truck (that) could get any number of radios and jammers and weapons stations and all sorts of things,” said
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the Army’s Program Executive Officer for combat support and service vehicles, who’s running JLTV for all the services. Thanks to open architecture, he told the conference, “what we’ve seen is the integration timeline and working thru the bugs and all of that is much, much quicker with the digital backbone that’s in the vehicle.” It’s possible to route information from multiple radios to a single screen, for example, rather than have a different display for each.

There have been hitches, the Army executives admitted. “To be very fair, adoption of VICTORY has been somewhat slow,” Bassett said bluntly at the start of his remarks.

So, added Davis, when JLTV solicited designs from industry in a formal Request For Proposal, “the first instantiation of the VICTORY standard wasn’t completely baked, but they rolled in pieces of it.” That means the VICTORY standard won’t be completely standard. Different programs that adopted it at different stages of maturity may have slightly different versions, although they can reconcile them over time.

More than any other service, Army faces tremendous problems of scale, which makes it hard to field one uniform standard across the service, said Rickey Smith, a retired colonel now with the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. “The VICTORY architecture is a good start,” he said, but it’ll take years to roll it out across the service. “Everybody’s not going to have it (at once). Do it in increments, do it in blocks”.

Nor is VICTORY the all-conquering open architecture for all purposes, even in the relatively narrow world of Army vehicles. Bassett, for instance, is also working on a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(MAPS), that will set common standards for radars, jammers, and mini-missiles that defend armored vehicles from incoming weapons, allowing plug-and-play upgrades as threats evolve. Meanwhile Army aircraft programs are working with the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
on an open architecture for avionics known as
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the Future Airborne Capability Environment. The Air Force and Navy have their own open architectures as well — and there’s not been much work on making them compatible.

“There are these DoD (Department of Defense) systems, but I do not see effectively at the DoD level, the federal level, a body of government common standards to make sure things are open,” said
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the Air Force’s director of IT acquisition process development. “It is possible that the open architecture the Air Force has might not be compatible entirely with the open architecture (another service) has.”

That said, Zabel went on, “I would argue that the nature of open architecture means that the incompatibility’s not going to be as bad when every system’s completely unique.” In other words, there might be dozens of different standards, but that’s still a lot easier to deal with than hundreds of individual systems.

To some degree, you do need different forms of open architecture — different standards — for different missions, several experts at the conference said. Flight-critical electronics on an aircraft moving hundreds of miles per hour, for instance, have to operate with a speed and precision that would be expensive overkill on a ground vehicle moving 40 mph. Submarines, helicopters, and trucks all need to track different kinds of data in different ways.

“One open architecture standard does not rule them all,” said Marcell Padilla, a former Navy pilot who now works on Army programs for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. “We need to have a combination of them.”
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
uss-anchorage-tests-himars-during-dawn-blitz-2017-530x338.jpg

HIMARS is fired from USS Anchorage (LPD 23) during Dawn Blitz 2017 over the Pacific Ocean, Oct. 22, 2017. Photo: US Navy
haven't heard of such an option yet:
USS Anchorage tests HIMARS during Dawn Blitz 2017
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

US Marines fired the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) from the flight deck of San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ship USS Anchorage (LPD 23) during the joint US Navy-Marines drill Dawn Blitz 2017.

The HIMARS is a weapons system made up of the M142 five-ton chassis vehicle and can carry either a launcher pod of six rockets or one MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS).

It enables Marines to engage targets within minutes after firing and features a greater range than traditional artillery, allowing smaller units to cover a larger area.

The October 22 demonstration on Anchorage consisted of HIMARS engaging a land-based target with a guided multiple launch rocket system unitary (GMLRS-U).

“We had two training objectives for today’s shoot,” said Army Maj. Adam Ropelewski, I Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF), lead planner for sea-based expeditionary fires. “The first training objective was demonstrating this capability and, second, we wanted to have good effects on the target. We achieved both objectives. We destroyed the target at 70 kilometers while at sea.”

This portion of Dawn Blitz validated the commander’s ability to integrate HIMARS with ships to conduct a sea-based strike.

The shoot was a success from the operator’s perspective as well. “We shot a rocket off Anchorage to validate that we, as HIMARS operators, can shoot off an LPD and successfully hit the target,” said Lance Cpl. Ryan Irving, a HIMARS operator assigned to 5th Battalion, 11th Marines.”

Dawn Blitz is a scenario-driven exercise designed to train and integrate Navy and Marine Corps units by providing a training environment where forces plan and execute an amphibious assault, engage in live-fire events and establish expeditionary advanced bases in a land and maritime threat environment to improve naval amphibious core competencies.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
uss-anchorage-tests-himars-during-dawn-blitz-2017-530x338.jpg


haven't heard of such an option yet:
USS Anchorage tests HIMARS during Dawn Blitz 2017
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
VEry nice capability.

If they can do it from a San Antonio, they could do it from Wasp.

Imagine lining up foru of those on a San Antonio, or 8-10 on a Wasp and delivering long range fore support to the troops ashore.

Nice move.
 
VEry nice capability.

If they can do it from a San Antonio, they could do it from Wasp.

Imagine lining up foru of those on a San Antonio, or 8-10 on a Wasp and delivering long range fore support to the troops ashore.

Nice move.
I didn't get it, I wouldn't have thought the USN had needed the USMC support in sea control! as in:

"Senior officials have been looking at how the Marine Corps, which is historically focused on land based operations, can support the Navy at sea and bolster the amphibious force’s ability to obtain and maintain “sea control,” in areas of current and potential future operations."

and

"The new capability also potentially gives the Marine Corps a piece of the sea control mission."

Marines Fire HIMARS From Ship in Sea Control Experiment With Navy
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The daytime launch of the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System on Sunday might have seemed like another training mission if the Marines hadn’t fired it from an amphibious ship operating at sea.

A detachment of Marines with Camp Pendleton, Calif.-based 5th Battalion, 11th Marines, set up the vehicle-borne launch system on the flight deck of amphibious transport dock USS Anchorage (LPD-23). Programmed with information about the objective – suspected enemy air defenses – on a nearby island, the HIMARS launcher fired off a rocket at a target 70 kilometers away.

Target destroyed, officials said.

The missile strike, coming during the biannual amphibious task force exercise Dawn Blitz off southern California, marked a big first for the Navy and the Marine Corps.

“The ability to project power from and at sea is critical,” Lt. Col. Tom Savage, operations officer with 1st Marine Expeditionary Brigade, told a small group of journalists at a briefing aboard USS Essex, the flagship for the exercise.
“It’s a significant capability.”

Senior officials have been looking at how the Marine Corps, which is historically focused on land based operations, can support the Navy at sea and bolster the amphibious force’s ability to obtain and maintain “sea control,” in areas of current and potential future operations.

Just in the past year, Gen. Robert Neller,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to launch various munitions against targets at sea and ashore. At the Modern Marine Expo in Quantico, Va., last month,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, Neller said “you’re going to see precision fire delivered off amphib ships, whether it comes out of tube guns or rockets or delivered from unmanned systems.”

HIMARS, a vehicle-launched rocket system first developed for the Army, is a land-based precision weapons system the Marine Corps uses for fire support against artillery, armor and air defenses. Its GPS-guided munitions travel well beyond the reach of its field artillery cannons. It’s transportable by C-130 Hercules aircraft. Each crew has a launcher, resupply vehicle and two resupply trailers, mobility that allows crews to quickly set up, fire and relocate.

The sea-based experiment during Dawn Blitz, which runs Oct. 20 to 29 with I Marine Expeditionary Force and 3rd Fleet forces, marked the first time the self-contained, vehicle-launched rocket system has been fired from an amphibious ship.

HIMARS “is very precise, which will minimize civilian casualties. It helps hit that target you want to hit and nothing else,” said Rear Adm. Cathal O’Connor, ESG-3’s commander.

Officials have wondered: What would happen – when deploying Marines bring it aboard ship – if we fired it at sea?

Unlike the steady base on land, a ship at sea “is a launch platform that is basically moving in four dimensions – time, pitch, roll, yaw,” said O’Connor, a veteran surface warfare officer, said in a media roundtable aboard Essex.

That could fray the nerves of any fire control team. So they worked with contractors to rework targeting software to hit targets at the Navy’s bombing ranges at San Clemente Island while underway. “We can be at sea and we have a mobile, maneuvering platform – hard to target – and now we are able to hit a fixed target ashore,” he said.

O’Connor said the target “could have been a surface-to-air missile. It could have been a radar site which was monitoring the area that we were operating in. It could have been a cruise missile site. Or it could have been a command-and-control center – all of which would impact our ability to go and operate where we want to be.”

“So the ability to launch that HIMARS from the sea to strike that target now suddenly says, hey I can use this capability on this ship and we can wire it together with the different sensors already in place and be able to impact that,” he said. With it, “I don’t necessarily have to launch an F-35; I don’t necessarily have to move the destroyer off its current mission to go intercept a target. I can use this same HIMARS launcher to reach that target.

“And then when I’m done, I can leave it there. I can build a base for it. I can break it down – because it’s at an expeditionary advanced base – and I can bring it back on a hovercraft.”

And once back on ship, Marines “can refit it and do all the maintenance they need to while we sail onto the next thing,” he added. That extra role “will give the folks in D.C. and the regional combatant commanders more flexibility.”

The new capability also potentially gives the Marine Corps a piece of the sea control mission.

...
... goes on below due to size limit
 
Top