asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Forbin how many Ticos have BMD?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Forbin how many Ticos have BMD?
Forbin how many Ticos have BMD?
...as of right now...five and 25 Arliegh Burke DDGs.
USS Antietam (CG 54), Yokosuka, Japan
USS Shiloh (CG 67), Yokosuka, Japan
USS Lake Erie (CG 70), San Diego CA
I don't know which Atlantic fleet CGs are equipped with BMD.
[video=youtube;-WPE_4bqQXc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WPE_4bqQXc[/video]
Lockheed Martin said:MARINETTE, Wis., Oct. 18, 2014 -- The Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT]-led industry team launched the nation's seventh Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), Detroit, into the Menominee River at the Marinette Marine Corporation (MMC) shipyard.
The ship’s sponsor, Mrs. Barbara Levin, christened Detroit with the traditional smashing of a champagne bottle across the ship's bow just prior to the launch.
"It is a privilege to serve as the sponsor of the future USS Detroit and to participate in the major milestones along the way to her assuming her place as part of the great U.S. Navy fleet", said Mrs. Levin. I also look forward to an ongoing relationship with her courageous crews and their families throughout the ship's lifetime."
Following christening and launch, Detroit will continue to undergo outfitting and testing before delivery to the Navy in 2015.
“It is an honor to continue supporting the U.S. Navy with these capable and flexible warships,” said Dale P. Bennett, executive vice president of Lockheed Martin’s Mission Systems and Training business. “The Lockheed Martin-led team’s LCS design is lethal, survivable, and affordable.These ships will help the Navy achieve its goal to increase forward presence, and can be upgraded or modified quickly to meet future missions.”
The U.S. Navy awarded the contract to construct Detroit in March 2011. The ship is one of five LCS currently under construction at Marinette Marine.
“On behalf of Marinette Marine, we are incredibly proud to build these ships for the U.S. Navy,” said Jan Allman, MMC president and CEO. “We continue to streamline our processes and leverage the craftsmanship and skills of our employees in producing these high quality vessels for our warfighters.”
The Lockheed Martin-led industry team is building the Freedom-variant ships, and has already delivered two ships to the U.S. Navy. USS Freedom (LCS 1) completed a successful deployment to Southeast Asia in 2013. USS Fort Worth (LCS 3) will deploy to Southeast Asia in 2014. Milwaukee (LCS 5) will be delivered to the U.S. Navy in 2015. Detroit (LCS 7) was christened and launched on Oct. 18, 2014. Little Rock (LCS 9), Sioux City (LCS 11) and Wichita (LCS 13) are under construction. Billings (LCS 15) will begin construction this year.
Earlier this year, the Navy funded Indianapolis (LCS 17) and LCS 19, which is yet to be named..
Bernard
Junior Member
You Spot, I Shoot: Aegis Ships Share Data To Destroy Cruise Missiles
Imagine you’re a sniper. Imagine the bad guys are coming — but you can’t see them yet. Imagine your spotter can see them — but only because he’s miles away from where you are, with a better view. Now imagine that when you put your eye to your gunsights, you see the view through his. You fire. You hit the target. It goes down.
Replace the sniper and spotter in this scenario with a pair of 9,000-ton warships, replace the bad guys with incoming anti-ship cruise missiles, and replace your sniper rifle with a Raytheon SM-6 Standard Missile: Now you’ve got what actually happened in a recent Navy test whose results were announced today. For the first time, one Navy ship shot down a simulated cruise missile — two of them in a row, actually — that its own radars couldn’t see, relying entirely on data relayed from another vessel. (In this case, the shooter was the Aegis cruiser Chancellorsville, the spotter was the Aegis destroyer Sampson).
That “cooperative engagement capability” is crucial to the Navy’s vision of a future fleet that acts as a single network, each part sharing the data gathered by the whole. This is a concept that then-thinktanker Robert Work — later Deputy Secretary of the Navy and now Deputy Secretary of Defense — promulgated in 2008 as the Total Force Battle Network. It’s the bedrock of the program called NIFC-CA (Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air), which will link Navy ships, fighters, and E-2D Hawkeye radar planes into a single network. Instead of each ship or plane only being able to fire on threats it can see with its own sensors — which may be at the last minute or even too late, given how low and fast some cruise missiles move — the fleet as a whole can engage incoming enemies as soon as anyone sees them. That lets you stop the threat as far away as possible and gives you the best chance of surviving against a Chinese-style “anti-access/area denial” system.
The USS John Paul Jones test-fires an SM-6 in June
The USS John Paul Jones test-fires an SM-6 in June
“If you’ve got a number of ships that are now networked and communicating across a wide range of water,” said Raytheon’s program director for the Standard Missile-6, Mike Campisi, “and several of them have SM-6s, they can now communicate… and say ok, who has the best firing solution here? Who’s going to fire? How are we going to do that?”
One caveat: In this test, the mock cruise missile did show on the shooter ship’s radar at the very end of its flight, Campisi explained to me this afternoon. But the entire engagement, from launch to kill, relied entirely on data from the spotter ship, Sampson. “At the end when the shooting ship [Chancellorsville] could actually see the target, it wasn’t providing any data to the missile at that point,” Campisi told me. “The [SM-6] missile was on its own,” he said, making its final approach in a fully active self-guiding mode. The target flashed on the Chancellorsville‘s screen for a fraction of a second: “We’re talking hundredths of a millisecond,” he said. “‘I see it — oh it’s gone.’”
Raytheon SM-6 missiles have done such “engage on remote” test firings before, including one last year using the Army’s JLENS radar blimp. But in the previous tests, the spotter was always airborne, rather than a surface ship as was the case for the first time in this test. A flying spotter enjoys a much wider field of view than a spotter down on the surface, a major tactical advantage, but converting data from an airborne radar to a shipboard one is a technical challenge.
Because this test involved two Aegis radar/fire control systems talking to each other, Campisi said, it was actually easier than previous ones involving two different systems. “We’re always worried,” he told me, “[but] after looking at all of the data, it ended up being far more mundane than we thought.”
What a cool article
Last edited:
Yes...cooperative engagement.
It is something the US Navy has had for some time...but this is the first time (I believe) that it has been conducted utilizing the new SM-6 missile.
VEry cool.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Revenge of
I think they should Go whole hog and resurrect the United Defense M8 Armored Gun System, In particular there was a Hybrid powered variant packing a 120mm cannon called the Thunderbolt Armored Gun System (Block II) it had band tracks a autoloader advanced armor and could even carry four scouts.
U.S. Army in the Market for ‘Light’ Tanks
By Sandra I. Erwin
Army paratroopers gave up their tanks in 1997. Now they want them back.
“The infantry needs more protection and more firepower,” says Col. Ed House, Army Training and Doctrine Command manager for the infantry brigade combat team.
Even in these times of deep budget cuts and a projected steep decline in purchases of military hardware, senior Army officials believe that a light tank is a high priority that should be funded. In a future war, they contend, Army airborne forces would parachute into a warzone equipped with only light weapons and might have to confront more heavily armed enemies.
Army leaders understand that, after 12 years of war, the infantry brigades have a “capability gap,” House says in an interview from Fort Benning, Ga. “The forcible entry forces we put in harm’s way lack sufficient protected firepower platform.”
The current plan is to provide the XVIII Airborne Corps — a fast-to-the-scene 911 force — a flotilla of light tanks that can be flown by C-130 cargo planes and parachuted into the warzone.
Light tanks existed in the Army’s inventory from World War I until the end of the Cold War. Production of the 16-ton Sheridan ended in 1970 after approximately 1,700 vehicles were delivered to the Army. The last unit to operate the Sheridan was the 3d Battalion, 73d Armor Regiment of the 82d Airborne Division, which was inactivated in July 1997 following a wave of cost cutting. The Army considered buying a replacement for the Sheridan, the Armored Gun System, but that program was terminated after the Army had bought just six vehicles.
House says the goal is to replicate the functions of 3-73 although he admits it will be hard to locate a modern version of the Sheridan. “The tough part of this is to find a vehicle that fits in the back of a C-130 and can descend by parachute,” he says. “The Sheridan did that pretty well back in the 1990s.”
Training and Doctrine Command officials are scoping the market for existing vehicles that could perform a similar role as the Sheridan.
Up to 140 candidates are being considered, says Col. Rocky Kmiecik, director of mounted requirements at the capabilities development and integration directorate.
Even though tanks are tracked vehicles, the Army is open to wheeled alternatives. The vehicle has to be air droppable, must have enough ballistic protection against 14.5 mm and .50 caliber rounds, and be able to drive off road.
“This is not what you would use for patrols in Iraq,” Kmiecik says.
Because of the budget crunch and a relatively tight deadline of 24 months, the Army does not intend to spend money on a new design and expects to choose a vehicle from the open market.
Kmiecik says the field of potential candidates will be narrowed down to 10 vehicles. Army officials will evaluate them in preparation for writing a “requirements document” that will inform a future solicitation to interested vendors. “There are a lot of good vehicles out there,” he says. “We are not set on a specific caliber gun.”
Whichever vehicle is selected will be turned over to the XVIII Airborne Corps for trials.
Air assault forces have made a convincing case that they need their own firepower, especially in urban fights where civilians and combatants are in close proximity, Kmiecik says. Infantry troops can call for fire support from Air Force or Navy strike fighters, but commanders worry about air-to-ground bombs killing civilians, he says. The other concern is that enemies are likely to be concealed in machine gun bunkers or in other covered position where “you can’t shoot naval gun fire or drop air force bombs,” Kmiecik says. “We do need a capability on the ground to fight localized threats. Light skinned vehicles with machine guns mounted are easier to defeat with a Sheridan.”
After a light tank is selected, the Army would buy a handful for testing. The tentative plan is called 4-14-44: Four vehicles at the platoon level, 14 at company and 44 for a full battalion.
The current effort to acquire a light tank brings flashbacks to October 1999 when then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki announced the Army would put its heavy armor past behind and transition to a lighter force. He wanted light vehicles that could be more easily transported to combat zones, which would allow the Army to respond to crises.
Shinseki’s vision resulted in the Future Combat Systems, a projected $200 billion modernization plan to equip the entire Army with high-tech vehicles, robots and communications systems. FCS suffered from technological overreach, cost overruns and its inability to deliver a vehicle that could survive roadside bombs in Iraq. It finally got the ax in 2009.
Asked whether the light tank program picks up where FCS left off, Kmiecik insists that is not the case. “This is absolutely not FCS,” he says. “This is not the end-all be-all combat vehicle of the future.”
While it seeks a light tank for the infantry, the Army continues to pursue a replacement for its heavy armor under a separate program called Ground Combat Vehicle.
Although the light tank is not meant to fill in the FCS void, Army officials acknowledge that there is still an unmet need for a powerful gun that can be transported by C-130 and move fast in all types of terrain. The Iraq War and the advent of the improvised explosive device put that pursuit on hold. To survive in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. vehicles were loaded with tons of armor, at the expense of speed and off-road mobility. “Over the last 12 years of conflict, on the materiel side, we’ve been moving to protection, protection, protection. And justifiably so, given the environment we’ve been in,” Kmiecik says. “We are looking at going back and achieving that balance among protection, mobility and lethality.”
House cautions that the light tank program only meets a niche requirement. “Let’s not confuse this discussion as some sort of Army modernization effort or modernization strategy,” he says. “This is going to be a very deliberate process. This is an opportunity to provide a capability in support of a specific mission. It is not some huge undertaking to change the ICBTs [infantry brigade combat team] in the Army,” he adds. “We do not see every IBCT riding around in light tanks.”
One of the vehicles that might be considered a light-tank candidate is the eight-wheeled Mobile Gun System, a 105 mm tank gun mounted on a light-armored Stryker vehicle made by General Dynamics Land Systems.
The current MGS, however, would have to be hardened with additional blast protection and upgraded with a new suspension to make it more mobile, Army officials say.
General Dynamics spokesman Peter Keating says the company could make those modifications to the vehicle at the Army’s request, but will have to wait for the final requirements. To save time and money, he says, the Army should make an open call to vendors and have a shootout. If a suitable vehicle is found, Army officials have to “be disciplined enough to not modify it, as that is what drives cost up,” he says. “You are not going to find a light tank out there with MRAP [mine resistant ambush protected] like protection. Someone could build one but it’s not available now.”
I think they should Go whole hog and resurrect the United Defense M8 Armored Gun System, In particular there was a Hybrid powered variant packing a 120mm cannon called the Thunderbolt Armored Gun System (Block II) it had band tracks a autoloader advanced armor and could even carry four scouts.
Aviation Week
Lockheed Joins Northrop In Protesting USAF 3DELRR Deal
Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
Amy Butler
Thu, 2014-10-23 20:15
Lockheed Martin has joined Northrop Grumman in protesting Raytheon’s win of a U.S. Air Force air defense radar contract potentially worth $1 billion.
“We believe that we offered the most affordable and capable solution for the program and have strong grounds for this protest,” according to Lockheed’s Oct. 22 statement.
Northrop Grumman filed its protest of the Air Force’s Three-Dimensional Expeditionary Long-Range Radar (3DELRR) source selection Oct. 21. Both companies received debriefings on their losses last week.
The Air Force stopped work on Raytheon’s contract upon receipt of Northrop’s protest notification; such a halt is typical to allow Government Accountability Office auditors time to review the source selection. Raytheon won the $19.5 million development contract for the new air defense radar system, which will replace aging TPS-75s, on Oct. 7.
Andrew Hajek, Raytheon’s 3DELRR program director, attributes his company’s win to Raytheon’s 15-year investment in a foundry to develop and produce Gallium Nitride (GaN) semiconductors, which offer improved power output over older Gallium Arsenide systems.
The competition was for the lowest price, technically acceptable proposal. Lockheed’s contention that its proposal was the “most affordable” could indicate the company is disputing how the Air Force assessed the risk – and therefore cost – for its bid. However, a company spokeswoman did not provide details on the protest claims.
Northrop did not cite a rationale for its protest.
Raytheon’s contract is to design an active electronically scanned array radar in the C-band and provide three units to the service. The Air Force plans in a follow-on contract to buy 32 more radars.
International sales could reach as high as 100, says Lt. Col. Kevin Sellers, the Air Force’s 3DELRR program manager.
The GAO must rule on the protests within 100 days of the filings. The next step in the process is that the Air Force must file a report with the auditors in 30 days addressing the claims of the protests.
Source URL:
U.S. war planners focus on advisers in Anbar
Oct. 24, 2014 - 07:03PM |
By Andrew Tilghman
Staff writer
FILED UNDER
News
Related Links
Overnight French raid destroys IS arms center
U.S. official: Iraq army not ready to repel Islamic State
Coalition airstrikes in Syria killed more than 500
U.S.: Iraq says troops will go on offensive
Top U.S. military planners want to expand the limited advise-and-assist mission in Iraq and are talking to allied partner nations about potentially putting non-American troops on the ground to help support the fight against Islamic State group militants, according to several military officials.
The high-level discussion of expanding the support mission comes as the Iraqi army struggles to stop the advance of the militants, who are mounting large-scale attacks in northern and western Iraq. The result could be to push foreign military advisers to Iraqi units closer to the ground-level war-fighting operations, most likely in Anbar province.
Several U.S. Central Command officials familiar with the Iraq mission who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity said U.S. forces are advising the Iraqi army at the division and headquarters levels.
“We are in a number of planning iterations of, ‘What does that look like to go to a lower level to more responsibly be able to advise at division and brigade levels? What are the implications ... in terms of the numbers?” a CENTCOM official said.
About 1,400 U.S. troops are in Iraq, including 600 assigned to support Iraqi security forces in joint operations centers in Baghdad and Irbil and also in 12 teams of special operations troops working alongside high-level Iraqi military leaders. The remaining 800 U.S. service members are assigned to security posts around the U.S. Embassy, other American facilities and the Baghdad airport.
For now, no U.S. military advisers are in Anbar province, where Islamic State forces are gaining ground in the Euphrates River valley between the town of al-Qaim on the Syrian border through Fallujah and the neighborhoods on the western outskirts of Baghdad.
More support in Anbar
Getting more support to those Iraqi units in Anbar is an emerging priority.
“When are we going to put advisers in Anbar? I can’t tell you when. But I can tell you there is whole lot of discussion and planning going on as to how we can help the Iraqis move forward with their plan,” a CENTCOM official said. “Our coalition partners are interested in doing this. There is a lot of discussion among them about where the advisers should be placed.”
U.S. officials declined to say which coalition partners are talking about deploying military advisers to Iraq. While other militaries from Europe and the Middle East have participated in the American-led airstrikes on Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria, the ground-level mission in Iraq today involves only U.S. and Iraqi troops.
Recent gains by the jihadists, particularly in Anbar, are forcing U.S. planners to acknowledge that the Iraqis need more support to roll back the militants.
“I would not say that the Iraqi army is broadly on the counteroffensive right now,” a CENTCOM official said.
“We need to help the Iraqi army take the counteroffensive, and that is going to require a more sustained effort,” he said.
“To do that, we think there are some longer-term train-and-equip efforts that we have to undertake in Iraq along with our coalition partners. That goes beyond just advising and assisting. It goes to the issue of institutional training and institutional reform.”
Such long-term efforts likely take many months, the official said, adding: “This is not a U.S. timetable; it’s an Iraqi timetable.”
No boots on the ground
U.S. military officials remain insistent that no consideration is being given to putting U.S. troops on the ground in a combat role in Iraq. And those officials also emphasize that ultimately ending the Islamic State group’s reign across Iraq’s Sunni regions will require big political changes that can reconcile warring Sunni and Shiite factions.
U.S. and Iraqi officials hope to replicate the same strategy used in 2007-08 in Anbar that drained support from the extremists by courting local Sunni tribal leaders.
But progress remains limited because many tribal leaders want to see whether Iraq’s new Shiite-led government and Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi follow through on promises to share power and oil revenue with the Sunnis.
“In many ways, they are waiting to see where [Iraq Prime Minister Haider] Abadi’s government is going,” a CENTCOM official said.
“The Sunni tribal leaders are part of our strategy, clearly,” an official said. “But part of what we have to do is make sure we don’t squander our own credibility with respect to where the Iraqi government under Abadi is going to go. ... I don’t think we’re in a position to make any promises on behalf of the [Iraqi] government.
“At the end of the day, we can push only so far,” the official said.
The Islamic State is a unique and unfamiliar enemy in part because it blends the characteristics of a traditional nation-state and a terrorist group. Militants are seizing territory and amassing conventional forces but also sometimes display traits of an insurgency by blending into the population and intimidating residents with high-profile attacks.
U.S. planners are optimistic that the the tide can be turned against the militants. But how the group might respond remains a mystery.
“Will they turn into Nazi Germany hunkering down in Berlin?” a CENTCOM official said. “Will they turn into [al-Qaida in Iraq] and distribute in the population?
“How do they evolve when they start to die?”
Virginia subs to get berthing changes for female crew
Oct. 23, 2014 - 06:00AM |
By David Larter
Staff writer
FILED UNDER
News
Sub designers are puzzling out how to fit enlisted women into the berthings on the Virginia-class attack submarines already in the force.
“Right now we are doing the work to do the design changes for the in-service Virginias,” said Rear Adm. David Johnson, the program executive officer for submarines, in a Thursday speech.
“Frankly the tough part is to integrate the enlisted berthing and the chief's quarters. The officers are fairly easy to adapt to, but the enlisted berthing and the chief’s quarters you have to do a little bit of work on the ships and we're trying to do that as affordably and non-disruptively as possible,” Johnson said.
Johnson, speaking at the Naval Submarine League’s annual conference in Fairfax, Virginia, said that getting mixed-gender crews on as many subs as possible was a priority. The sub force began its integration in late 2011 with the arrival of female officers — roughly 50 of them now serve aboard 14 boomer crews — and officials are now moving towards the next steps of integrating attack boats and enlisted crews.
“We are looking forward to mixed-gender officer, chief petty officers and enlisted on our submarines going forward,” Johnson said. “It's a must, it's the right decision and we're moving forward.”
A task force led by the recently disbanded Submarine Group 2 recommended that enlisted women and chief petty officers begin serving on attack boats as the Block IV Virginia-class subs begin fleet service around 2020; these vessels are being designed with fully integrated crews in mind.
Rear Adm. Phillip Sawyer, head of Submarine Force Pacific, said retooling the current Virginias would not move up the timeline for getting women into attack boat crews.
The first Virginia-class attack subs to be integrated are the Virginia and Minnesota, which are slated to receive female officers in early 2015. Enlisted women will begin serving on the Ohio-class boomers as soon as 2016.
navyreco
Senior Member
Now that is a strange one 
Kongsberg showcased a Vertical Launch Joint Strike Missile (VL JSM) during AUSA 2014
You should have seen the guy's face when I pointed the fact that Lockheed Martin name was on the missile
Kongsberg showcased a Vertical Launch Joint Strike Missile (VL JSM) during AUSA 2014
AUSA 2014 (Association of the US Army) may be an army event (which our affiliate website Army Recognition was covering) an eminently naval product was showcased, from our knowledge for the first time, at the Kongsberg booth: A vertical launch version of the Norwegian company's anti-ship missile.
Nobody at the Kongberg booth at AUSA could comment on the reason why this model was showcased at an army event, and nobody could confirm if it was the first time Kongsberg was showing a vertical launch version of the missile. From our own knowledge it very much was.
[...]
What triggered Navy Recognition's curiosity even further is the fact that Lockheed Martin is mentionned on the VL JSM model. Nobody at the Kongsberg booth during AUSA could comment on this either, but one person admitted it was a "strange". Contacted about this one week ago, nobody at Kongsberg got back to us yet while our contacts at Raytheon and Lockheed Martin said they were still looking into it.
It was anounced in July this year that Raytheon Company and Kongsberg Gruppen have formed a teaming agreement to provide new solutions for the Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) mission. As a centerpiece of the agreement, the companies will develop the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) for air-launched OASuW applications.
Why Lockheed Martin's name appears on the VL JSM is still a mistery, our own guess is that Kongsberg and Lockheed Martin are working together to integrate the missile with the MK 41 vertical launch system (made by Lockheed Martin). It has to be noted however that a VL JSM would be a direct competitor to Lockheed's LRASM Long Range Anti-Ship Missile for OASuW increment 2.
You should have seen the guy's face when I pointed the fact that Lockheed Martin name was on the missile
Jura The idiot
General
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
B-1 Lancer flying over Kobane, they are stationed in Qatar and making regular flights over Iraq and Syria
Taken a few weeks ago
Taken a few weeks ago