US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Sep 20, 2017
Aug 24, 2017

and according to DefenseNews New nuclear cruise missile program appears safe going forwardsource:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
kinda update:
Don’t Kill the Nuclear Cruise Missile
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The CBO’s recent cost-cutting recommendation discounts the loss of capability and risks of cancelling the next-generation ALCM.

Critics of the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
have
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
a recent Congressional Budget Office
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that says stripping the nuclear triad of current and proposed air-launched cruise missiles, or ALCMs, would save some $30 billion over three decades. But the office’s analysis discounts how this would undermine military capability and incur substantial risk.

For example, CBO concludes that the United States can eliminate the ALCM without shrinking its arsenal of survivable nuclear weapons — the ones that an enemy cannot be sure of destroying, and which therefore help deter large-scale nuclear attack. If CBO is right about the ALCM, giving it up would have no impact on stability with Russia.

Unfortunately, CBO is wrong. It arrived at this conclusion because it relied on the New START Treaty
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, which counts each deployed nuclear-capable bomber as a single deployed nuclear warhead. In other words, the nuclear gravity bombs and cruise missiles the United States and Russia can load onto their bombers are not counted against the treaty limit of 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads.

This rule is perfectly fine for the purpose of arms control. Both countries know that each deployed bomber can carry more than one nuclear weapon. But using the counting rule to assess the military implications of eliminating the ALCM is deeply misleading.

The United States can, in theory, arm its 41 nuclear-capable B-52H bombers with 20 cruise missiles apiece, for a total of 820 warheads. To be clear, the real number might be smaller, depending on the actual size of the cruise missile inventory, but it would still range in the hundreds.

Why does this matter? Bombers are difficult for an adversary to destroy in a nuclear attack because they can disperse and conduct airborne alerts. The ability to put hundreds of survivable nuclear weapons on U.S. bombers improves stability. On the other hand, unilaterally eliminating these survivable weapons would create a dangerous disparity with Russia, which can arm its bombers with as many as
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. In a crisis, this mismatch could provide Russia with coercive leverage and undermine strategic stability. CBO’s analysis does not reflect this risk.

The United States could partially regain some of the survivable nuclear weapons it would lose by putting additional warheads on its submarine-launched ballistic missiles. (Doing the same to America’s ICBMs would not enhance survivability because silo-based missiles are not as survivable as mobile bombers and submarines.)

Unfortunately, every warhead on a submarine counts against the New START treaty limit of 1,550 deployed weapons. The United States would essentially shift survivable systems from “discounted” ALCMs to treaty-accountable SLBM warheads. Thus, in order to truly regain survivable warheads
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the United States would need to make proportionate reductions to its ICBMs. Alternatively, it could withdraw from the treaty — at the cost of scrapping an important tool for managing the nuclear relationship with Russia.

The CBO report also concluded that eliminating the ALCM would not reduce the United States’ low-yield nuclear options, apparently because bombers and tactical aircraft could still drop gravity bombs. Effective low-yield options are
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
for deterring an adversary from
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in conventional conflicts. Unfortunately, here too the CBO’s conclusion is wrong, both quantitatively and qualitatively.

The United States cannot offset the ALCM’s low-yield contribution, provided by the W-80 warhead, by putting more warheads on its ICBMs and sub-launched missiles. As currently configured, U.S. ballistic missiles carry warheads that do not provide
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Thus, the United States would lose hundreds of low-yield nuclear weapons.

Eliminating U.S. bombers’ ability to deliver nuclear weapons from standoff range would also decrease the effectiveness of U.S. low-yield nuclear options. The gravity bomb and the cruise missile are fundamentally different weapons. Put simply, ALCMs are more effective. To deliver gravity bombs against a set of targets, a bomber must fly to each one, sequentially. In contrast, the ALCM allows a bomber to hold multiple targets at risk over a vast geographic area. Even the CBO report notes that “Cruise missiles are more difficult for air defenses to detect and track than bombers.” But for some reason, CBO’s analysis did not translate the loss of the cruise missile into an overall decrease in low-yield capability.

There are also longer-term risks to eliminating the ALCM. U.S. nuclear forces do not fulfill their deterrence role in a vacuum. We must assess their attributes relative not only to the strategic forces that potential adversaries field today, but also the forces they might possess in the future. And the United States must hedge its strategic posture against geopolitical and technological changes.

There might
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
arms control treaty when New Start expires in 2021 or 2026, at which point there will be no binding constraints on Russia’s nuclear forces. Possessing a significant number of survivable ALMCs to upload if Russia attempts to escape approximate nuclear parity would be valuable.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
might make it easier to locate submarines, in which case mobile bombers armed with up to 20 ACLMs would help sustain the survivability of U.S. nuclear forces. Similarly, if air-defense advances make it impossible to deliver gravity bombs, the ALCMs standoff range would sustain the effectiveness of U.S. low-yield options.

These examples demonstrate how the ALCM contributes to the resiliency of U.S. nuclear forces across a range of plausible futures. Policymakers and analysts need to weigh this valuable attribute against saving $28 to 30 billion over thirty years.
 
now the AirForceMag story (dated 11/21/2017):
F-22s, B-52s Lead New Wave of Strikes Targeting Taliban Finances in Afghanistan
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

US forces in Afghanistan took advantage of new authorities to target the Taliban’s finances over the weekend, unleashing a tidal wave of airpower including B-52s, F-22s, and F-16s targeting opium production in the mountains of the country.

On Saturday, Afghan Air Force A-29 Super Tucanos conducted the first strikes, hitting two opium production facilities in northern Helmand Province in a step to hit the Taliban “where it hurts”—their finances, US Forces-Afghanistan Commander Gen. John Nicholson said during a Monday briefing. On Sunday, B-52s and F-22s coming from outside of Afghanistan, along with F-16s, hit eight more opium production facilities in a series of airstrikes.

The strikes are part of the US government’s new South Asia strategy, which includes new authorities allowing Nicholson to use airstrikes on financial targets in addition to military targets.

“These new authorities allowed us to attack the enemy across the breadth and the depth of the battlespace, and also functionally to attack their financial networks, their revenue streams,” Nicholson said. Previously, US Forces-Afghanistan was only authorized to strike targets in defense, if American forces were in the area, Nicholson said. This made hitting targets such as training camps and support infrastructure more difficult, he said. “So the new authorities have been significant in enabling us to get after the enemy in new ways,” he added.

The strike marked the first time the F-22 was publicly disclosed to have conducted a mission in Afghanistan. It was selected because of its ability to use the GBU-39B small diameter bomb, a decision to try to limit collateral damage, Nicholson said. The strike hit a production facility in Musa Qala, and video showed two structures in a complex destroyed, while another was left standing.

The F-22 Raptor “is one of our most advanced fighter aircraft,” Nicholson said. “This aircraft was used because of its ability to deliver precision munitions, in this case a 250-pound bomb, small-diameter, that causes the minimal amount of collateral damage.”

The B-52 strike was the largest of the weekend, with more than 50 barrels of opium “cooking” at the time it was hit, Nicholson said. The B-52 dropped “several” 2,000-pound bombs, which “completely obliterated the facility,” he said.

B-52s have been flying regularly “over the horizon” from their base at Al Udeid AB, Qatar, to conduct strikes inside Afghanistan. US officials told Air Force Magazine in Kabul earlier this year that the bombers would fly about once per week for strikes, sometimes carrying 30 or more bombs, and that this pace was likely to increase.

US aircraft this year have had their highest operations tempo in Afghanistan since 2012. US forces spent “hundreds of hours” watching the Taliban and developing targets for these strikes, and the pace of strikes seen over the weekend will continue, he said. There are between 400-500 Taliban drug-producing sites in the area that can be targeted, he said.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Wednesday at 9:11 PM

and also STRATCOM head would push back on illegal nuclear launch order
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
this is What Hollywood would like to be in the Nuclear football
maxresdefault (4).jpg
The Big Red doomsday button.
of course reality is very different It was always ALWAYS!! intended to be a 2 man system inside the case are a Envelope with the Emergency Broadcast system instructions, a Menu of Attack plans, the location of Emergency Continuation of Government sites where the President can evacuate to. and the Authentication codes card aka The Biscuit. This last piece has sometimes been carried and LOST by the President. Including both Clinton and Carter.
The Actual case is not handcuffed to the carrier but has a strap to make carrying the heavy case easier. The Case is aluminum made by Zero Halliburton with a classy black leather jacket and said to weigh 44 pounds and has a combination lock. no communications system is ever said to be in the case Although sometimes seen are Antennas it may be that some units have a satellite radio well others don't need one as the President would be near a communications node already including Marine one, Air force one, the Situation room, or the Motorcade.
The Sec Def cannot Veto but he can object. he must confirm the Identity of the President is legitimate. as stated above if the Sec def fails in his mission he can be relieved but then the President has to call his successor.
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Voted 700 billions ! remains to signed by Trump no problem and after BCA...decision in a month
can be also an increase but inferior according "caps", complicated !!!
Yet sure minimum one increase of about 5 % last years in general 3 %
I add the 3 eventuals Virginia to the chart SSN-774 class with last deal for 10 USN have one for " free "

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Monday, November 20, 2017

WASHINGTON - Congress passed an FY18 defense authorization bill that includes $700 billion in discretionary funding for national defense. The total includes $605.5 billion for the Pentagon's base budget, $20.7 billion for defense programs in the Department of Energy, and $7.9 billion for other defense-related activities. Total national security spending in the base portion of the budget would amount to $634.2 billion, which is around $85.2 billion above the $549 billion limit under the Budget Control Act. The legislation also contains another $65.7 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations that is not subject to BCA spending caps. The House passed the bill on November 14 by a vote of 356-70, and the Senate passed the legislation by voice vote on November 16.

Congress has authorized an increase of $20.9 billion for military procurement in FY18, and $2.3 billion for research, development, test and evaluation. These figures do not include acquisition funding from a November 2017 supplemental budget request that has also been integrated into the bill.

The legislation increases airpower for all the major services, adding funding for an additional 20 F-35s, 10 F/A-18s, six V-22s, 10 AH-64s, eight CH-47s, five UH-60s, seven AH-1Zs, one HC-130J, six MC-130Js, four KC-130Js, two KC-46As, three P-8As, and six MQ-1 extended-range Gray Eagles. Lawmakers also approved a seven-year multiyear procurement deal for the remaining planned V-22 aircraft.

Lawmakers support the Navy's effort to build a fleet of 355 ships, and the legislation adds funding for an additional DDG 51 destroyer, one Littoral Combat Ships, one LPD 17 or LX(R) amphibious ship, one Expeditionary Sea Base, and five LCAC 100s (also known as Ship-to-Shore Connectors). The bill authorizes the Navy to enter into multiyear contracts for up to 15 destroyers and 13 Virginia class submarines. The multiyear agreements being drafted by the Navy currently only cover 10 destroyers and 10 submarines.

The bill also adds funding for 29 Abrams M1A2 SEP v3 tanks, 33 M2A4 Bradley vehicles, 35 M88A2 Hercules recovery vehicles, 75 ATACM missiles, 60 RAM Block II missiles, 576 Stinger missiles, and 373 Javelin missiles. Another $1.7 billion is added for cyber warfare efforts.

The bill supports the White House's supplemental budget request, which focused largely on missile defense programs. The legislation provides an additional 16 SM-3 Block IB interceptors, 50 THAAD interceptors, and 147 Patriot MSE missiles. The bill also authorizes up to 28 additional Ground-Based Interceptors, and requires the secretary of defense to develop a plan for increasing the overall number of interceptors from 44 to 104.

Compared to the FY18 request, the authorization bill increases the active Army end strength by 7,500 troops , plus an additional 500 Guard and 500 Reserve troops. The Marine Corps end strength is also increased by 1,000 Marines.

Lawmakers included acquisition reform provisions that aim to provide additional oversight for service contracts, facilitate commercial-off-the-shelf procurement process, transition part of the contract audit process to the private sector, and streamline acquisition regulations. The bill does not support a House proposal to establish a Space Corps within the Air Force, but it does call for a cyber posture review to clarify the U.S. cyber defense policy and strategy.

Despite the significant funding increase provided in the authorization bill, the Pentagon is not guaranteed to actually see this money. In fact, the FY18 spending will likely fall well below the mark set by the House and Senate armed services committees. In the end, it is up to congressional appropriators to determine how much funding the military receives, and those appropriators remain constrained by the Budget Control Act.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Mirage F-1 solded to US compagnies 2nd link you have many pics from Châteaudun French Air base where old birds are stored all types even sometimes new Rafale temporarily only logistic base

48° 3'11.10"N 1°22'16.19"E and yes i see my Jaguar also :)

SABCA reconfigures the Mirage F-1
Recognized specialist in the modernization and maintenance of combat aircraft, SABCA has just won a new contract, namely the handling of Mirages F-1 taken by the company Atac to the French Air Force. These 63 aircraft, once reconfigured, will be used to simulate enemy planes during training of the pilots of the US Air Force. Maneuverable, reliable and economical, the F-1 Mirages still have a bright future ahead of them.
As a first step, SABCA won the packaging, moving and storage of all the aircraft purchased, as well as a contract for the refurbishment of the first 5 aircraft. SABCA hopes to obtain an additional contract for about 30 aircraft, while knowing that the rest of the fleet will be used as a spare part. The strengths of the Belgian manufacturer are significant and particularly its experience on this type of aircraft which it has already modernized the Spanish and Moroccan fleets in the past.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

ATAC! The second life of the Mirage F1 of Châteaudun
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Mirage F1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Nov 1, 2017
oh really?
America’s nuclear weapons will cost $1.2 trillion over the next 30 years
10 hours ago
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
now though according to BreakingDefense
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Todd Harrison is one of the best defense budget folks around. Like many budget weenies (that’s the technical term) he really cares about how people come up with cost estimates because the underlying assumptions for them can lead in radically different directions. One example is the recent estimate on how much the next generation of nuclear weapons will cost by the relentlessly nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. This estimate differed by an earlier report by an impressive $800 million. Why, and what does it all mean? Read on! The Editor.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the total cost to build America’s new nuclear forces will be
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
over the next 30 years, adding another number to a cluttered and confusing set of estimates already circulated by the Department of Defense (DoD), independent think tanks, and CBO itself.

In particular, CBO published a report earlier this year estimating that nuclear forces would cost
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
over the next 10 years. What is not immediately obvious is that CBO used different methodologies in these two reports, and the differences have a significant impact on the results and how they should be interpreted.

The first and most obvious difference is the time period of each estimate. The latest CBO estimate of $1.2 trillion covers a 30-year period — 2017 to 2046. CBO’s estimate from earlier this year only covered 10 years. Since the new estimate covers a period that is three times longer, on the surface it appears to make sense that the costs would be three times higher. But the cost estimates also differ in how they account for inflation. The CBO estimate from earlier this year is in then-year dollars, meaning inflation is included. In contrast, the latest CBO estimate is in constant 2017 dollars, which means inflation is removed from the costs. If inflation was included in the new estimate, the costs would be higher.

The third difference is perhaps the most important to understand. The new CBO estimate uses the full costs of dual-use systems, specifically bombers that have both nuclear and non-nuclear missions (the B-52s and B-2s already in operation and the B-21s currently in development). It counts the full costs of operation, maintenance, and personnel to support the existing aircraft and all of the research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) and procurement costs of the B-21. Previous CBO estimates included only 25 percent of the costs for B-52s and B-21s and 100 percent of the costs for the B-2s. Including the full costs of all nuclear-capable bombers in the latest estimate makes the costs of the airborne leg of the triad higher than CBO’s previous methodology.

While I commend CBO for its thorough and careful analysis and for clearly stating its assumptions, I do not agree with its decision to include 100 percent of the costs of these dual-use systems. My reasoning is straightforward: bombers are primarily used for non-nuclear missions, and the vast majority of their costs are not due to the nuclear mission. If the United States had no nuclear weapons, it would still need to operate, maintain, and modernize its fleet of bombers.

This is not true for the other legs of the triad because sub-launched ballistic missiles (and the submarines that house them) and ground-based ICBMs only have a nuclear mission, so it is appropriate to include their full costs. But using the full costs of the bombers fundamentally changes the scope of CBO’s estimate to extend beyond just nuclear forces.

The inconsistencies this creates are evident in CBO’s own analysis. One of the options the report considers is eliminating the airborne leg of the nuclear triad. In calculating the savings from this option, however, CBO does not count all of the bomber-related costs as savings even though the option completely eliminates this leg of the triad. Instead, it concludes that
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
In other words, it only counts 20 percent of the cost of the B-21 as savings.

That is a tacit admission that the other 80 percent of its costs are not nuclear-related and therefore should have never been included in the overall $1.2 trillion estimate. It is also notable that CBO treats dual-use tactical fighters differently than bombers. In its latest estimate, as well as in previous estimates, CBO only includes the fraction of the costs of nuclear-capable tactical fighters that is attributable to the nuclear mission. Indeed, it would be ridiculous to count the full costs of all F-16s, F-15Es, and F-35As as nuclear costs. It does not make sense to count the full costs of bombers as nuclear costs for the same reason.

The question then becomes, how much of the bombers’ costs should be allocated to the nuclear mission? This is a matter of analytical judgement similar to the assumptions CBO already makes regarding the fraction of costs it uses for nuclear-capable tactical fighters. It is hard to know precisely how much of the bombers’ costs are due to nuclear-related requirements, but some guides already exist. In its written response to questions from Congress earlier this year about nuclear modernization costs,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
with its estimate of the B-21’s costs that said, “These amounts represent the nuclear-related costs for the B–21 program which are estimated at 5%.” Similarly, the share of bomber operation and sustainment costs due to the nuclear mission can be estimated by the fraction of the bomber force on nuclear alert at any given time.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that 25 percent of the costs for existing B-52s (and future B-21s) is due to the nuclear mission based, in part, on the fact that about 25 percent of B-52s are on nuclear alert at any given time.

Regardless of the specific percentage one decides to use, CBO should not include the full costs of dual-use systems in the overall costs of U.S. nuclear forces. It needlessly overstates the costs due to nuclear forces and can lead to misperceptions about how much can be saved by eliminating certain parts of the nuclear triad. While nuclear-capable bombers are the dual-use systems that affect overall costs the most, there are other dual-use systems that have the same issue. For example, CBO includes the full costs of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in its estimates despite the fact that these systems are also used for many non-nuclear missions.

Many more people will hear the $1.2 trillion figure than will read the report and understand these nuances. That’s why it is important to make assumptions in the analysis that enhance the public debate rather than complicate it.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Yesterday at 8:55 PM
cross-posting from
F-22 Raptor Thread
about Raptors bombing poppy fields:
U.S. F-22 Stealth Jets Perform Raptor’s First Ever Air Strike In Afghanistan Employing Small Diameter Bombs
Read more at
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
now DefenseTech:
The US Just Flew a Stealth Fighter to Bomb Drug Labs in Afghanistan
The
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
has unleashed the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
stealth fighter in Afghanistan for its first
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the Defense Department said Monday.

The F-22s were joined by
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to conduct an expanded strike mission — called the new offensive campaign — against the Taliban’s revenue stream, said
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Gen. John Nicholson, commander of the NATO-led Resolute Support mission and U.S. Forces Afghanistan.

The Raptor “was used because of its ability to deliver precision munitions — in this case, a 250-pound bomb, small-diameter, that causes the minimal amount of collateral damage,” he said during a teleconference briefing in Kabul.

“This target was also a Taliban narcotics production facility in Musa Qala. So I want to draw your attention — as you look at this strike, you’re going to see that inside this compound are multiple structures, and we destroy only two of them, while leaving the third standing, which we do to avoid collateral damage,” Nicholson said.

The F-22s launched
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, where the stealthy, fifth-generation jets reside for operations in the Middle East. The Raptors are part of the 95th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron out of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, Florida.

The mission was aided by “refueling support from KC-10s and KC-135s, ISR platforms and command and control aircraft,” said Lt. Col Damien Pickart, Air Forces Central Command spokesman.

“Along with Air Force assets, our joint partners contributed to the fight with strike support from U.S. Marine Corps High-Mobility Rocket Systems (HIMARS), and ISR capabilities from U.S. Army assets,” Pickart said in a statement.

Nicholson said using a variety of aircraft together provided a larger range of bombs necessary for the mission.

“We’re looking for a mixture of ordnance in the air over the targets so that, as we make the final decision on the use of which weapon, based on concerns about collateral damage, we needed to have a variety of airframes available with different kinds of munitions,” he said.

“And so that was the purpose [of the F-22]. It wasn’t because of some of the other capabilities of that aircraft,” he added.

The Raptor has played a crucial yet evolving role in air operations over Syria and Iraq, including its high-value mix of weapons.

The F-22 wields the AIM-9X Sidewinder missile; the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM); the precision-guided GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb (SDB); and the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
-guided GBU-32
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(JDAM).

One F-22 pilot who spoke with
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in June said the Small Diameter Bomb is more likely to be used, especially in the counter-Islamic State fight in urban areas where the Raptor is conducting precision strikes.

“We carry the low collateral damage weapon, the Small Diameter Bomb GBU-39, to precisely strike enemy combatants while protecting the civilian population,” said Lt. Col. “Shell,” an F-22 pilot and commander of the 27th Squadron on rotation at Al Dhafra. He spoke to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
on the condition that he be identified by his call sign.

“We also can carry the 1,000-pound JDAM GBU-32 used for targets where there is less-to-little collateral damage concern,” meaning a larger blast for attack.

Regarding Sunday’s bombing run, Nicholson said airstrikes have been and will continue to be on the rise.

For example, the Air Force dropped more than 900 weapons in August and September combined, up from 270 for the same timeframe last year,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

“We’ve used airpower —
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
than any year since 2012,” Nicholson said.

...
... vid follows inside; source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Jun 6, 2017
LOL now but the topic set me off Feb 8, 2017
recently my "favorite": the USAF puts forward "awesome" ideas how to get the funds, common! would you put ads on the aircraft maybe?!
Yesterday at 8:38 AM

Air Force Wants, But Can’t Afford, New B-52 Engines
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
anyway Air Force Eyes Replacing B-52 Enginessource:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
now noticed the article (dated November 20, 2017)
The US Air Force Has Taken Another Step Toward Re-Engining its B-52s
oh really?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

seeing is believing, won't even repost the text
 
Top