US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
USS Utah, now there is a name of a ship that is always willing to serve. The only other USS Utah was the BB31 a world war 1 era Florida class Battle ship. she served fairly well and was converted into a target ship in 1931. During the attack on Pearl Harbor the Utah which still looked like a fully operational battle ship, at least to the Japanese who mercilessly pounded the old Girl until she capsized. Yet even as she sank she scored a victory the bombs and torpedoes wasted on her were spared from more critical infrastructure. The Utah's sacrifice spared refineries and support areas critical to the coming war.
 
Aug 19, 2015
...
First Flight of USAF Tanker Delayed by a Month

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

and here we go:
Air Force’s KC-46A Refueling Tanker Makes First Flight
Boeing, the world’s largest aerospace company, earlier this summer said the first test flight of the new refueling tanker, known as Pegasus and based on the 767 twin-engine commercial airliner, would be delayed until late September or early October. The event was previously scheduled for the spring.

Even Mother Nature didn’t want to cooperate on Friday, as rainy weather delayed the flight by a few hours.

The Air Force plans to spend $49 billion to develop and build 149 of the planes to replace its aging fleet of KC-135s, according to Pentagon
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Boeing forecasts an $80 billion global market for the new tankers, according to Trading Alpha.

The Chicago-based company plans to deliver the first 18 KC-46As to the service by August 2017 despite a recent string of technical challenges on the program.

The plane’s fuel system is being fixed after workers mistakenly loaded a mislabeled chemical into it, among other problems — work that’s expected to cost more than $800 million, according to The Oklahoman, the largest daily newspaper in Oklahoma, one of the first three states where the airplane will be based.

The Air Force in 2013
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
for the aircraft Altus Air Force Base in Oklahoma, McConnell Air Force Base in Kansas, and Pease Air National Guard Base in New Hampshire.

In addition those related to the fuel system, wiring and software issues have also contributed to cost overruns totaling more than $400 million. The cost and schedule changes
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, including Sen. John McCain, a Republican from Arizona and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“I am concerned that the recent problems with the tanker modernization program could prevent the Department of Defense from delivering this critical capability to our warfighters as promised and on schedule,” he wrote in a recent letter to Defense Secretary Ashton Carter.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

...

I would rather see them keep the on Phalanx and add the SeaRAM as an additional defensive measure as opposed to replacing.

from what I figured, they wouldn't be both useful against the same attack, because:
  1. the Phalanx creates the cone of bullets against incoming threat(s), and through this cone the missile(s) from the SeaRAM would have to pass (since they're slower, but also flying in the general direction toward the target(s))
  2. once the warhead of the missile from the SeaRAM bursts, it's going to negatively affect the radar guidance of the Phalanx shooting in that direction (and this would be needed if there was more than just one threat coming)
but Jeff I know you didn't say they would be used this way! :)
 
...

SeaRam has been extensively tested...but I am unware of it being tested on a Burke yet.

...

I'll go on with thinking loud :) about SeaRAM testing and to

  1. what was the trajectory of the target at first (while the missile was acquiring it)?
  2. did the target make evasive maneuvers later? of what type?
  3. how the missile and the target collided?
  4. what would've happened in the case of a saturation attack (for example how would IR seekers of the missiles discriminate between its target / a missile "from salvo")

add:
#5: was a second missile launched quickly after the first, so that the second could take over the target if the first one missed?
#6: what IR-countermeasures were adopted by the target?

and I'll leave it at
(the real answers will remain classified for long enough, of course)
 

Brumby

Major
from what I figured, they wouldn't be both useful against the same attack, because:
  1. the Phalanx creates the cone of bullets against incoming threat(s), and through this cone the missile(s) from the SeaRAM would have to pass (since they're slower, but also flying in the general direction toward the target(s))
  2. once the warhead of the missile from the SeaRAM bursts, it's going to negatively affect the radar guidance of the Phalanx shooting in that direction (and this would be needed if there was more than just one threat coming)
but Jeff I know you didn't say they would be used this way! :)

It is my understanding under the layered defence concept, the Phalanx is a last ditch attempt against leakers plus the added benefit that being a bolt on, it is independent of main sensors and electrical power (should they be disabled in an attack). With the advent of increasing supersonic ASM's, the gun is deemed insufficient given the kinematic momentum of a supersonic projectile even if fragmented. The SeaRAM is meant to add distance to the defence. In theory, it augments rather than conflict in their application. Presumably, there is some form of priority engagement assignment between the two built into the software but realistically only a battle simulated testing and not functional testing would demonstrate true functionality. The testing as reported in the article I think is meant to work out the kinks between the AEGIS coverage and the SeaRAM because presumably the potential for overlap, indiscriminate cueing and false targeting.
 
Last edited:
Look at this freaking blimp :)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

sorta update:
How a $2.7 billion air-defense system became a 'zombie' program
JLENS was billed as the answer to an ever-expanding list of threats, from cruise missiles to explosive-laden trucks. But the blimp-borne radar system has yet to perform as promised.

Unknown to most Americans, the Pentagon has spent $2.7 billion developing a system of giant radar-equipped blimps to provide an early warning if the country were ever attacked with cruise missiles, drones or other low-flying weapons.

After nearly two decades of disappointment and delay, the system — known as JLENS — had a chance to prove its worth on April 15.

That day, a Florida postal worker flew a single-seat, rotary-wing aircraft into the heart of the nation’s capital to dramatize his demand for campaign finance reform.

JLENS is intended to spot just such a tree-skimming intruder, and two of the blimps were supposed to be standing sentry above the capital region. Yet 61-year-old Douglas Hughes flew undetected through 30 miles of highly restricted airspace before landing on the West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol.

At a congressional hearing soon afterward, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) demanded to know how “a dude in a gyrocopter 100 feet in the air” was able to pull off such an audacious stunt.

“Whose job is it to detect him?” Chaffetz asked.

It was JLENS’ job, but the system was “not operational” that day, as the head of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, Adm. William E. Gortney, told Chaffetz. The admiral offered no estimate for when it would be.

Seventeen years after its birth, JLENS is a stark example of what defense specialists call a “zombie” program: costly, ineffectual and seemingly impossible to kill.

In videos and news releases, Raytheon Co., the Pentagon’s lead contractor for JLENS, has asserted that the system is “proven,” “capable,” “performing well right now” and “ready to deploy today.”

A Los Angeles Times investigation found otherwise:
  • In tests, JLENS has struggled to track flying objects and to distinguish friendly aircraft from threatening ones.
  • A 2012 report by the Pentagon’s Operational Test and Evaluation office faulted the system in four “critical performance areas” and rated its reliability as “poor.” A year later, in its most recent assessment, the agency again cited serious deficiencies and said JLENS had “low system reliability.”
  • The system is designed to provide continuous air-defense surveillance for 30 days at a time, but had not managed to do so as of last month.
  • Software glitches have hobbled its ability to communicate with the nation’s air-defense networks — a critical failing, given that JLENS’ main purpose is to alert U.S. forces to incoming threats.
  • The massive, milk-white blimps can be grounded by bad weather and, if deployed in combat zones, would be especially vulnerable to enemy attack.
  • Even if all those problems could be overcome, it would be prohibitively expensive to deploy enough of the airships to protect the United States along its borders and coasts.
These findings emerged from a review of reports by the Pentagon testing office and the U.S. Government Accountability Office and from interviews with defense scientists and active and retired military officers.

Despite the system’s documented shortcomings, Raytheon and other backers of JLENS have marshaled support in Congress and at the highest levels of the military to keep taxpayer money flowing to the program.

They have done so in part by depicting JLENS as the answer to an ever-evolving list of threats: cruise missiles, drones and other small aircraft, “swarming” boats, even explosives-laden trucks.

Army leaders tried to kill JLENS in 2010, The Times learned. What happened next illustrates the difficulty of extinguishing even a deeply troubled defense program.

Raytheon mobilized its congressional lobbyists. Within the Pentagon, Marine Corps Gen. James E. “Hoss” Cartwright, then vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, arguing that it held promise for enhancing the nation’s air defenses.

At Cartwright’s urging, money was found in 2011 for a trial run of the technology — officially, an “operational exercise” — in the skies above Washington, D.C.

Cartwright retired the same year — and joined Raytheon’s board of directors five months later. As of the end of 2014, Raytheon had paid him more than $828,000 in cash and stock for serving as a director, Securities and Exchange Commission records show.

The Times sought comment from Raytheon and an opportunity to interview company officials about JLENS. In response, spokeswoman Keri S. Connors said by email that Raytheon “declines to participate in the story.”

Cartwright, who remains a Raytheon director, did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Philip E. Coyle III, who oversaw assessments of dozens of major weapons systems as the Pentagon’s director of operational testing from 1994 to 2001, said Congress should closely examine whether JLENS deserves any more taxpayer dollars.

The cost of a blimp-borne radar network extensive enough to defend the nation against cruise missiles “would be enormous,” Coyle said in an interview.

“When you look at the full system — all the pieces that are required — that’s when it gets really daunting,” he said.

JLENS is short for Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System — Pentagon-speak for airborne radar that is linked, or “netted,” to the nation’s air-defense network.

The radar is kept aloft by pilotless, helium-filled airships, each 242 feet long. At the blimps’ maximum altitude of 10,000 feet, the radar can see 340 miles in any direction, far beyond the limits that Earth’s curvature imposes on land- or sea-based radar.

The blimps are designed to operate in pairs. One searches widely for threats. The other is supposed to focus narrowly on airborne objects and transmit “fire control” data on their location, speed and trajectory.

If JLENS were working as intended, U.S. fighter jets or ground-based rockets would use the fire-control data to intercept and destroy an intruder.

The 7,000-pound airships are anchored to the ground by high-strength, 1-1/8-inch-thick Kevlar tethers, which also hold wiring for electricity. A ground crew of about 130 is needed to operate a pair of blimps around the clock.

Military planners have long been intrigued by the idea of hovering surveillance platforms that would allow radar to see beyond the horizon and stand guard for long periods.

The Army awarded the first JLENS contract in 1998 to a joint venture led by Raytheon, for an estimated $292 million.

Raytheon, headquartered in Waltham, Mass., assembled the radar. The blimps and ground equipment were built by TCOM L.P., based in Columbia, Md. Numerous subcontractors provided other components and services.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top