US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Jura The idiot · Apr 6, 2018

Mar 9, 2018

Jura said:
just pictures as I have to go now (source is
This Is Boeing’s Play For MQ-25 ‘Stingray’

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
):

and Boeing Chooses Rolls-Royce Engine for MQ-25 Offering

Apr 5, 2018
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
has chosen
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to make the engine for its MQ-25 offering in the three-way competition to become the U.S. Navy’s Stingray, an unmanned, carrier-based tanker aircraft.

Boeing’s MQ-25 Program Director Don “B.D.” Gaddis says its “T-1” flying prototype is as an advantage in its quest to prevail in the hunt for the fixed-price contract to develop and produce four aircraft. Boeing’s two competitors,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, are operating with design concepts.

Boeing will use the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
engine, flown by the Air Force’s high-altitude
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and Navy’s Triton UAVs. “The engine itself has over 73 million hr. on it, so it’s a testament to the design maturity of the airplane and the engine,” Gaddis said.

The creation of a prototype gives Boeing a head start relative to its rivals, Gaddis said. To build it, the company drew on a design from October 2012, when the Navy was pursuing an
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

“What makes it unique is that it’s built,” Gaddis said. “We have already demonstrated a lot of the functionality with the deck handling and the software, the mission computer, the vehicle management system, the Rolls-Royce engine. We have already demonstrated a lot of this stuff. We have done almost everything short of flying the aircraft.”

Boeing has run the engine at low power and high power in different conditions. “The big one is the deck handling leading up to first flight after the [contract] award this summer,” the former Navy rear admiral said.

Other than the Cobham aerial refueling system pod, Boeing is not yet revealing other suppliers on the program.

Gaddis said Boeing’s ability to accept that risk on the program early on should help it now, given the Navy’s desire to award a contract in late summer. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson has placed the highest priority on schedule, Gaddis said. “Price is No. 2. He wants this airplane out there quickly. The [request for the proposals] and source-selection criteria reflect those priorities well.”

Jura The idiot · Apr 7, 2018

Mar 26, 2018

Jura said:
Dec 11, 2017
while
Videos Show Malfunctioning Saudi Patriot Missile Fired To Intercept Houthi SRBM Hitting Capital City Riyadh Instead
Read more at
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and here's the sales talk:
Nov 15, 2017

and here's the next level (LOL):
Army missile defense systems Patriot and THAAD talk in test
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Army’s two key missile defense systems —
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
— successfully talked in a test conducted by the Missile Defense Agency and the service at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, April 6.

The Army is planning to tie
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
together within in two years and received a surplus of funding in the recently passed fiscal 2018 omnibus spending bill to proceed with the effort.

Tying the systems together is critical to establishing
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and could enhance the development of the Army’s future AMD command-and-control system, the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
— or IBCS.

Both THAAD and Patriot picked up a live short-range Lynx missile target suing their radars and tracked the target individually, but both systems “exchanged messages through tactical data links and verified interoperability between the weapons systems,” according to an MDA statement.

No live interceptors were launched.

“These two weapon systems are vitally important as components of our layered ballistic missile defense system and it is critical that they are able to transmit data and communicate with one another,” MDA Director Lt. Gen. Samuel Greaves said in the statement.

The test supported the materiel release of the THAAD 3.0 software upgrades and meets requirements laid out in the FY16 National Defense Authorization Act for the MDA and Army to annually test interoperability and integration of THAAD and Patriot, the statement notes.

Driving the effort are the forces in South Korea where both THAAD and Patriot are deployed. THAAD is also deployed in Guam, while Patriot units are spread wider around the world. Patriot deployments are considered to be among the most taxing and lengthy ones in the Army.

Jura The idiot · Apr 7, 2018

Mar 17, 2018

Jura said:
Thursday at 5:24 PM
now this is very interesting:
"Just maintaining the status quo, keeping a future fleet at a size comparable to the Navy’s current 282-ship fleet, will still require buying new ships to replace those being retired from service. This plan would require average annual spending of $22.4 billion on shipbuilding, still more than what the Navy proposes spending on shipbuilding in FY 2019."
source is USNI News
CBO: 355-Ship Fleet Will Cost $6.7 Billion More Per Year Than Current Navy Budget Request
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

related is Report to Congress on Navy Shipbuilding and Force Structure
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

From the Report:
The current and planned size and composition of the Navy, the rate of Navy ship procurement, and the prospective affordability of the Navy’s shipbuilding plans have been oversight matters for the congressional defense committees for many years. The Navy’s FY2019 budget submission includes proposed increases in shipbuilding rates that are intended as initial steps for increasing the size of the Navy toward a goal of a fleet with 355 ships of certain types and numbers.

The Navy’s proposed FY2019 budget requests funding for the procurement of 10 new ships, including two Virginia-class attack submarines, three DDG-51 class Aegis destroyers, one Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), two John Lewis (TAO-205) class oilers, one Expeditionary Sea Base ship (ESB), and one TATS towing, salvage, and rescue ship. The total of 10 new ships is one more
than the 9 that the Navy requested in its amended FY2018 budget submission, 3 less than the 13
battle force ships that were funded in the FY2018 DOD appropriations act, and 3 more than the 7
that were projected for FY2019 in the Navy’s FY2018 budget submission. The three added ships
include one DDG-51 class destroyer, one TAO-205 class oiler, and one ESB.

The Navy’s FY2019 five-year (FY2019-FY2023) shipbuilding plan includes 54 new ships, or an average of 10.8 new ships per year. The total of 54 new ships is 12 more than the 42 that were included in the Navy’s FY2018 five-year (FY2018-FY2022) shipbuilding plan, and 11 more than the 43 that the Navy says were included in the five-year period FY2019-FY2023 under the Navy’s FY2018 budget submission. (The FY2023 column was not visible to Congress in the Navy’s FY2018 budget submission.) The 11 ships that have been added to the five-year period FY2019-FY2023, the Navy says, are four DDG-51 class destroyers, three TAO-205 class oilers, two ESBs, one TATS, and one TAGOS ocean surveillance ship.

The Navy’s FY2019 30-year (FY2019-FY2048) shipbuilding plan includes 301 new ships, or an average of about 10 per year. The total of 301 ships is 47 more than the 254 that were included in the Navy’s FY2017 30-year (FY2017-FY2046) shipbuilding plan. (The Navy did not submit an FY2018 30-year shipbuilding plan.)

The Navy’s goal for achieving and maintaining a fleet of 355 ships, released in December 2016, is 47 ships higher than the Navy’s previous force-level goal of 308 ships. The 47 ships that have been added to the force-level goal include one aircraft carrier, 18 attack submarines (SSNs), 16 large surface combatants (i.e., cruisers and destroyers), four amphibious ships, three oilers, three ESBs, and two command and support ships. The force level of 355 ships is a goal to be attained in the future; the actual size of the Navy in recent years has generally been between 270 and 290 ships. Section 1025 of the FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2810/P.L. 115-91 of December 12, 2017) states in part: “It shall be the policy of the United States to have available, as soon as practicable, not fewer than 355 battle force ships, comprised of the optimal mix of platforms, with funding subject to the availability of appropriations or other funds.”

The Navy’s 355-ship force-level goal forms part of a Navy vision for its future that the Navy refers to as the Navy the Nation Needs (NNN). The Navy says the NNN vision consists of six pillars—readiness, capability, capacity, manning, networks, and operating concepts. The 355- force-level goal is arguably most closely associated with the capacity pillar.

Although the 355-ship force-level goal is 47 ships higher than the previous 308-ship force-level
goal, achieving and maintaining the 355-ship fleet within 30 years would require adding more than 47 ships to the Navy’s previous (FY2017) 30-year shipbuilding plan, in part because that plan did not include enough ships to fully achieve all elements of the 308-ship force-level goal. CRS estimated in 2017 that 57 to 67 ships would need to be added to the Navy’s FY2017 30-year shipbuilding plan to achieve the Navy’s 355-ship fleet and maintain it through the end of the 30-year period (i.e., through FY2046), unless the Navy extends the service lives of existing ships beyond currently planned figures and/or reactivates recently retired ships. Similarly, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in 2017 that 73 to 77 ships would need to be added to a CBO-created notional version of the Navy’s FY2018 30-year (FY2018-FY2047) shipbuilding plan to achieve the Navy’s 355-ship fleet and maintain it not only through the end of the 30-year period (i.e., through FY2047), but another 10 years beyond the end of the 30-year period (i.e., through FY2057), unless the Navy extends the service lives of existing ships beyond currently planned figures and/or reactivates recently retired ships.

TerraN_EmpirE · Apr 7, 2018

Jura said:
Mar 26, 2018

Jura said:

Dec 11, 2017
while
Videos Show Malfunctioning Saudi Patriot Missile Fired To Intercept Houthi SRBM Hitting Capital City Riyadh Instead
Read more at Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and here's the sales talk:
Nov 15, 2017

Click to expand...

and here's the next level (LOL):
Army missile defense systems Patriot and THAAD talk in test
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Your over simplifying to the point of a strawman.
First As far as I can tell the Saudi's are using a older version of the PAC system. not THAAD. They do have THAAD on order but no evidence of delivery. There primary is the PAC 2 or PAC 2 GEM with a small number of PAC 3 systems updated circa 2014. THAAD uses a variant of the PAC3. but there is another side of the story. The Houthi missiles are short range, THAAD is not intended for short range missiles so it's not designed for that type of attack. That leaves the Pac 2 and few Pac 3 systems.
Of course 2 sides to every story. The missiles being fired by the Houthi's are modified SCUD systems the Burkan-2H that have been lengthened and lightened for longer range, This makes the missile a harder target, and by the way It's already a very hard task. I mean they are trying to hit a bullet with a bullet.

It's not impossible but the odds are in the same neighborhood as winning the Powerball. Back in the Gulf war the Iraqi's similarly modified there scuds and it did something interesting, as the missile goes into it's flight it hits the upper atmosphere and then very briefly enters space to flip about and begin reentry when that happens the weapon's lengthened and lightened nose cone hits the atmosphere and the missile basically disintegrates. It's reduced weight comes at the cost of structural integrity to give it longer range. So PAC radar suddenly reads not one target but two or three as the missile is shredded. So If you are the guy using this system upsides are longer range and self generating decoys. downside the missile is unpredictable and accuracy like a World war 2 V 2. You can hit a city.... maybe.

Farther making matters difficult is the kill method Patriots use a proximity fused explosive as a rule, (Although THAAD bypasses that for a hit to kill). The problem is that as the missile is already breaking up so the missile's computer is trying to identify the actual threat and launches at that but since it's out of control the interceptor will often loose track and when the patriot warhead fires it's supposed to break up a solid missile but the missile is already broken up so the computer takes the reading of the missile debris as a kill.

for an analogy Patriot was designed to stop a shotgun slug and to do this it fires Bird shot, where the SCUD based missiles being used by the Houthis are Buck shot.
Because of the Way these Burkan-2H SCUDs are built any missile defense system will have the same issues, Unlike the V2 which is actually the point of development for the Scud These system don't come down as a solid missile they some down in bits and pieces unlikely to even hit there designated target.

Jura The idiot · Apr 7, 2018

TerraN_EmpirE said:
Your over simplifying to the point of a strawman.
First As far as I can tell the Saudi's are using a older version of the PAC system. not THAAD. They do have THAAD on order but no evidence of delivery. There primary is the PAC 2 or PAC 2 GEM with a small number of PAC 3 systems updated circa 2014. THAAD uses a variant of the PAC3. but there is another side of the story. The Houthi missiles are short range, THAAD is not intended for long range missiles so it's not designed for that type of attack. That leaves the Pac 2 and few Pac 3 systems.
Of course 2 sides to every story. The missiles being fired by the Houthi's are modified SCUD systems the Burkan-2H that have been lengthened and lightened for longer range, This makes the missile a harder target, and by the way It's already a very hard task. I mean they are trying to hit a bullet with a bullet.
View attachment 46112
It's not impossible but the odds are in the same neighborhood as winning the Powerball. Back in the Gulf war the Iraqi's similarly modified there scuds and it did something interesting, as the missile goes into it's flight it hits the upper atmosphere and then very briefly enters space to flip about and begin reentry when that happens the weapon's lengthened and lightened nose cone hits the atmosphere and the missile basically disintegrates. It's reduced weight comes at the cost of structural integrity to give it longer range. So PAC radar suddenly reads not one target but two or three as the missile is shredded. So If you are the guy using this system upsides are longer range and self generating decoys. downside the missile is unpredictable and accuracy like a World war 2 V 2. You can hit a city.... maybe.

Farther making matters difficult is the kill method Patriots use a proximity fused explosive as a rule, (Although THAAD bypasses that for a hit to kill). The problem is that as the missile is already breaking up so the missile's computer is trying to identify the actual threat and launches at that but since it's out of control the interceptor will often loose track and when the patriot warhead fires it's supposed to break up a solid missile but the missile is already broken up so the computer takes the reading of the missile debris as a kill.

for an analogy Patriot was designed to stop a shotgun slug and to do this it fires Bird shot, where the SCUD based missiles being used by the Houthis are Buck shot.
Because of the Way these Burkan-2H SCUDs are built any missile defense system will have the same issues, Unlike the V2 which is actually the point of development for the Scud These system don't come down as a solid missile they some down in bits and pieces unlikely to even hit there designated target.

thought you would boast as Raytheon Nov 15, 2017

Jura said:
now Raytheon: Saudi-based Patriots intercepted over 100 tactical ballistic missiles since 2015
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

very interesting claim (middle, right):

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

TerraN_EmpirE · Apr 7, 2018

Actually I am not boasting I am stating the issue at hand. These modified Scud types are all but unpredictable, Patriot was never designed for this kind of missile, Heck I doubt any System in the World could really deal with them. The Houthi's themselves stated that one of there attacks was aimed at a Saudi Airforce base yet the missile was heading to the city of Mecca a full 30 miles off course when the Saudi's shot at it. It's a missile with to whom it may concern as the addressee. This also leads to the other side of that which is that they miss anything a lot.
They could land on someone's house maybe or they are more likely to crater the desert floor.

Jura The idiot · Apr 7, 2018

TerraN_EmpirE said:
Actually I am not boasting I am stating the issue at hand. These modified Scud types are all but unpredictable, Patriot was never designed for this kind of missile, Heck I doubt any System in the World could really deal with them. The Houthi's themselves stated that one of there attacks was aimed at a Saudi Airforce base yet the missile was heading to the city of Mecca a full 30 miles off course when the Saudi's shot at it. It's a missile with to whom it may concern as the addressee. This also leads to the other side of that which is that they miss anything a lot.
They could land on someone's house maybe or they are more likely to crater the desert floor.

well recently I've read a real world article, plus a discussion below it, at defense24.pl (in Polish so I don't bother with the link),

related not just to the Polish acquisition of Patriots (off topic here anyway), and the point is (I won't push it, actually I'm not going respond if there're comments)

countries should be careful when spending billions on HYPED Patriots (with just 120 degrees of radar coverage etc.) IF not integrated in the air-defense system

Jura The idiot · Apr 7, 2018

Nov 16, 2017

Jura said:
the first time I heard of him was ... Nov 3, 2017

Senate confirms Esper as Army secretary
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

now
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

“You fix your roof when it’s sunny out, and right now it appears to be sunny for the next couple of years," Esper said. "We have to do our best now to find those dollars so we can, again, apply them back to our priorities."

Dreading the potential return of sequestration cuts in 2020, the Army has started scouring over 800 acquisition programs for things it can cancel to free up funds for its
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
said. The review has already begun “racking and stacking” programs for analysis, Esper said at the Heritage Foundation this morning, but it will be “a long process” to which top leaders can’t give their full attention until the new
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
stands up this summer.

Esper’s deputy, Army Undersecretary
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, told me Tuesday
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in back-office functions like healthcare, IT contracting, and supply chain management that could free up money for the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, in that order). Secretary Esper’s remarks this morning were similar but more forceful, extending beyond services to procurement and eschewing polite language like “efficiencies” in favor of “cutting” and “killing.”

“We have to do our due diligence,” Esper said. “I need to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars to make sure that I can free up all the money I can. And it’s going to mean cutting programs, freeing money from current programs by either slowing them or killing them, whatever the case may be, to free up money for those higher priorities.”

Army leaders are already reviewing the service’s major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs) “on a monthly basis,” Esper said. But the new review will extend far beyond that to examine all 800-plus procurement programs the Army runs. Each will be judged on its individual merits, he said.

Esper is well aware that every program is important to someone, or else it would be a program. But, he said, “we just can’t continue to ramble along funding 800 programs,” trying to spread out the impact of cuts evenly so no one’s pet project takes too big a hit: “The days of spreading peanut butter are over.”

Sequestration Strikes Back?

Both Esper and McCarthy made clear that a major motivation for cuts is the Army’s fears for fiscal year 2020, when the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
expires and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
caps on spending (aka sequestration) may return.

After
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in 2018 and 2019, for which the service is grateful to Congress, the natural instinct might be to relax on fiscal discipline, Esper said, but that would be a mistake.

“You fix your roof when it’s sunny out, and right now it appears to be sunny for the next couple of years,” Esper said. “We have to do our best now to find those dollars so we can, again, apply them back to our priorities.”

The new review builds on the earlier Strategic Portfolio Analysis Review (SPAR) process, Esper told reporters after his public remarks. What he didn’t say was the crucial difference:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
did assess all 800-plus Army programs, but the service has never had such a clear list of priorities it was willing to make sacrifices for.

Will there be decisions on what to cut in time for the 2020 budget now being drafted? It’s too early to say, Esper answered, and a lot has to happen in the next few months.

“I’m pushing on a number of fronts right now,” Esper said. “We do need to do some more things with regard to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, (especially) who will command it,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
….But we have begun an effort to start looking at racking and stacking those programs and figure out, once we get them lined up, what do we cut, what do we postpone.”

The service is still figuring out its criteria for choosing what to keep or kill, Esper told reporters. Right now, he said, “I don’t have the answer. I think it’s going to take time. There has to be a process there by which we weigh it out and we look at each one individually.”

“It’s going to be a long process,” Esper said.

source is BreakingDefense

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

LOL at

eschewing polite language like “efficiencies” in favor of “cutting” and “killing.”

actually this quote made my day

Jura The idiot · Apr 7, 2018

Mar 15, 2018

Jura said:
Yesterday at 8:01 AM
and inside
Trump touting ‘space force’ puts Air Force in awkward spot
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:
Asked on Wednesday outside a House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee hearing whether there is a disconnect within the administration and whether the Air Force is taking Trump’s remarks seriously, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein said: “We’re taking it very seriously, and I’m looking forward to this conversation.

“I think the president stating openly that space is a war-fighting domain is exactly in line with what we’ve been thinking about, so this is really helpful to have a president and vice president really focused on space, like we are.”

now the story goes on as 'Space Force' Idea Isn't Dead, Intel Chief Says
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The U.S. is still mulling creation of a "Space Force" as a new branch of the military to counter the growing threat of Russian and Chinese anti-satellite weapons, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats said Wednesday.

"I think it's still under discussion" at the highest levels of government, Coats said of the Space Force proposal
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"There are a lot of efforts out there by more than one country relative to gaining space capabilities," Coats said at a breakfast with defense reporters. "That includes anti-satellite capabilities. We track that very, very carefully. We are fully aware of it.

"The question is: To what level does it rise that it would result in a new command? Whether we add a new command, that decision hasn't been made," he said.

The decision would have to be made by the Defense Department and be "pushed up to the president," Coats said.

Last year, the House voted to create a "Space Corps" in its version of the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, but the proposal failed to pass in the Senate.

At a House Armed Services Committee hearing last month,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Secretary Heather Wilson was non-committal on forming a separate Space Force while noting interest in the idea from Trump and Vice President Mike Pence.

The new National Defense Strategy recognizes space as a warfighting domain, Wilson said.

"I don't remember any president ever openly saying that," she said.

Wilson sidestepped on whether she would support a Space Force while noting that Trump has recreated the National Space Council under Pence's leadership.

She also hailed additional funding in the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that "accelerates our ability to deter and defend and protect our ability to operate and to win in space."

Air Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, has repeatedly warned in recent months of advances by Russia and China in developing anti-satellite weapons, while Coats' office highlighted the threat in February in the DNI's 2018 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community.

"Russia and China aim to have non-destructive and destructive counter-space weapons available for use during a potential future conflict," the DNI's report said.

"We assess that, if a future conflict were to occur involving Russia or China, either country would justify attacks against U.S. and allied satellites as necessary to offset any perceived U.S. military advantage derived from military, civil or commercial space systems," the report said.

At the session with defense reporters, Coats said, "We have to up our game if we're going to stay competitive. We have to become much more agile, more innovative, more creative."

In an address to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, California, last month, Trump said the new National Defense Strategy
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
"just like the land, air and sea. We may even have a Space Force -- you have the Air Force, you have a Space Force."

"We're doing a tremendous amount of work in space. I said, 'Maybe we need a new force -- we'll call it a Space Force,' " he said.

Air Force Brat · Apr 8, 2018

Jura said:
Nov 16, 2017
now
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

“You fix your roof when it’s sunny out, and right now it appears to be sunny for the next couple of years," Esper said. "We have to do our best now to find those dollars so we can, again, apply them back to our priorities."
source is BreakingDefense
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

LOL at actually this quote made my day

I like it, I really do!

US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Jura The idiot

General

Jura The idiot

General

Jura The idiot

General

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King

Jura The idiot

General

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King

Jura The idiot

General

Jura The idiot

General

Jura The idiot

General

Air Force Brat

Brigadier