US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

interestingly,
Trump plan to stop military exercises with South Korea catches Asia allies by surprise
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

President Donald Trump’s proposal
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
following his meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jung Un bear some similarity to a previous proposal by China to end the standoff on the Korean Peninsula known as “freeze-for-freeze,” whereby the U.S. and South Korea will suspend exercises in exchange for a freeze on North Korea’s nuclear program.

However, there was no indication that the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
have agreed to such a freeze at the summit, with both sides instead signing a communique that pledged to work towards a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula among other things, although details on how to achieve this remained to be worked out.

The announcement to stop the exercises appears to have taken both militaries by surprise, with U.S. Forces Korea spokeswoman Lt. Col. Jennifer Lovett telling Reuters that the command “has received no updated guidance on execution or cessation of training exercises” while NBC has reported a South Korean military official as saying that they needed “to find out the exact meaning or intention behind his comments.”

Regional watchers that spoke to Defense News have also expressed surprise at Trump’s remarks, although they also agreed that more details about the end to the exercises need to be made available before a more accurate assessment can be made about impact on regional security and the U.S. alliance with South Korea.

Dr. Collin Koh, a Research Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies’ Maritime Security Program, told Defense News that the main question was “whether a blanket moratorium on all USFK exercises would be implemented, or some form of scaling back or removal of certain elements,” noting the various exercises include both defensive and offensive elements. North Korea’s main complaint about the exercises is directed at the long-range power projection capabilities such as strategic bombers, aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines and amphibious assault forces at the exercises, along with the notion of “decapitation” of the key DPRK political and military leadership.

That assessment was shared by Professor Kim Jae-Yeop, a visiting professor from the Graduate School of National Defense Strategy at South Korea’s Hannam University who said that it was unclear if President Trump was talking about only ending the participation of strategic assets at such exercises. He also pointed out that a similar suspension to such exercises occurred in 1992, during a previous effort at negotiating an end to North Korea’s nuclear program.

However, both experts cautioned against unilaterally and abruptly ending the joint exercises, with Kim noting that unless North Korea is willing to dismantle its nuclear program and arsenal quickly, Trump’s move will “inevitably bring about criticism for undermining the alliance with South Korea.” Koh warned that while “there is a delicate balance there to strike between this operational-strategic imperative and the political one, a total moratorium on the exercises could be seen as debilitating to peacetime maintenance of operational readiness for a wartime scenario.”
 
Friday at 8:44 PM
May 30, 2018 now
Get ready for the JSTARS recap showdown
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
a summary inside
Key lawmaker in favor of JSTARS recap cancellation, movement to alternate approach
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Should the U.S. Air Force cancel the JSTARS recap? One of Congress’ biggest defenders of the original JSTARS ground surveillance planes seems to think so.

Republican Sen. David Perdue represents Georgia, home of Robins Air Force Base and where the service keeps the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
planes.

So he was skeptical when the Air Force announced this February its intention to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and instead funnel that money into building a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that would perform ground surveillance and battle management missions.

But on June 12, Perdue told reporters he no longer feels like it’s a great idea to invest money in the JSTARS recapitalization program, citing Air Force concerns that a business jet-sized aircraft would not be survivable in a war against a near-peer adversary.

“I do agree that wasting money on trying to recap this plane that’s not going to have access into denied airspace began to make no sense,” Perdue said at a Defense Writers Group breakfast.

“When you had a change in leadership and [Defense Secretary] Gen. [Jim] Mattis started looking at this thing, he said: ‘Wait a minute. In a very limited capital environment, let’s take that capital and build a capability that can go into both [contested and non-contested areas].’ And I support that.”

Instead of buying 17 new JSTARS planes — basically modified commercial jets outfitted with a large ground moving target indicator radar — the Air Force wants to invest in a new concept called the Advanced Battle Management System.

Through ABMS, the service would finance upgrades to existing aircraft such as a new radar for MQ-9 Reaper drones or new communications gear for the E-3 early warning planes, as well as more money to network these assets together.

Last week, the Air Force announced that Robins AFB would be the home for the ABMS commmand center — a decision that was applauded by Perdue as well as Sen. Johnny Isakson and Rep. Austin Scott, other members of the Georgia delegation.

Congress has the ultimate say on what the military finances, and it could force the Air Force to go through with JSTARS recap procurement. So for now, the JSTARS recap remains in source selection, with Boeing,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
still in contention for an engineering, manufacturing and design contract.

The current inventory of E-8Cs was derived by modifying used Boeing 707s, so even though the planes became operational in the early 1990s, the airframes are gaining and in need of replacement.

That has lawmakers, including Perdue, worried the Air Force might be unable to field ABMS in time for the E-8Cs’ retirement — which could be complete in the mid- to late 2020s.

“They have pulled the ABMS forward so that on paper they have closed the gap. It takes money to do that,” Perdue said. “We’re going to see. With the money that’s in there right now, it can avoid the gap. But I’m very concerned about the capability gap.”

The Senate Armed Services Committee, on which Perdue sits, wants to allow the Air Force to cancel the JSTARS recap, followed by Congress authorizing more money to expedite ABMS.

However, both House defense committees want to force the Air Force to carry on with the JSTARS recap, and include money and language that would require it to award an EMD contract.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
yeah what you posted looks like a different type of modularity, not the one I "love", which would be
Jack-Of-All-Trades-Master-Of-None type
Jura It's based on the same idea. IE that you can change a Vehicles mission by swapping modules. Tomorrow... err today when the show opens they are supposedly going to have changed the IFV KF41 on display from an IFV which it was unveiled as to a Command vehicle.
The Idea is the same as the LCS where in roll the ship into port the idea was you have a prepared space and can drop into it a module to change the mission set from say ASW to surface warfare because the equipment would be in the module just needing to be plugged in.
For an Army this could be advantageous for repair of damaged vehicles or in the event where you have a change in mission needs.
 
...
The Idea is the same as the LCS where in roll the ship into port the idea was you have a prepared space and can drop into it a module to change the mission set from say ASW to surface warfare because the equipment would be in the module just needing to be plugged in.
...
USN LCS = Swiss Army Knife Of The Seas

gamechanger! transformational! revolutionizing naval warfare! modular! cheap!
 

icbeodragon

Junior Member
Or perhaps he got tire of serving for an undeserved master that causes a lot of heartaches and headaches to Americans through the regime changing over the decade and he wants a change of scenery in government?

So again, he was not true to his oath. Good thing he's out.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
The Cockerill 3000 series turret is of interest and I am posting this video here as it's been offered as part of the US Army's Mobile Protected Firepower ( light tank) program. The Cockerill can be reconfigured to mount any number of gun systems from as low as a 20mm though 25mm, 30mm, 35mm, 40mm, 50mm autocannons or 75mm, 90mm 105mm tank guns. there is even said to be a option for a 120mm smooth bore high pressure ( Tank gun)
 
More modularity, even if ad hoc.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Contract Awarded for US Submarines’ Expanded Launch Capacity
New Virginia-class module triples cruise missile payload and enables future weapons.

By Steven Stashwick
June 14, 2018

BAE Systems has been awarded a contract to build Virginia Payload Modules (VPM) that will more than triple the number of cruise missiles future Virginia-class attack submarines can carry, while providing them the flexibility to accommodate a range of future weapons still under development.

The Virginia-class is the U.S. Navy’s most modern nuclear-powered attack submarine, built to replace the aging Cold War-era Los Angeles-class attack submarines. The first ten Virginias were built with twelve individual vertical launch tubes in their bow section for launching Tomahawk cruise missiles. Blocks III and IV of the class, which will eventually comprise eighteen boats, replace the twelve individual vertical launch tubes with two large-diameter tubes that accommodate round canisters that hold six Tomahawk missiles each, simplifying the reloading process.

The new modules will effectively turn future Virginia-class subs into mini guided-missile subs.

In the early 2000s, the U.S. Navy converted its four oldest Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines, designed to carry nuclear missiles, to carry up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles in canisters of seven that fit into the submarine’s large-diameter launch tubes. These original canisters were the inspiration for the large-diameter bow tubes installed on the later Virginias. As the Ohio guided missile submarines reach retirement in coming years the VPM-equipped Virginia-class submarines will replace some of their lost strike capacity.

Nine of the ten planned Block V Virginia-class submarines will be built with the Virginia Payload Module. The module will lengthen the midsection of the Virginia’s hulls to accommodate four large-diameter vertical launch tubes able to carry the same canisters installed on the converted Ohio-class submarines that hold seven Tomahawk cruise missiles. The additional tubes will allow the Virginia’s to carry up to 40 Tomahawk cruise missiles instead of twelve.

The tubes’ large diameter will also allow the Virginias to carry future, larger weapons, like a future hypersonic weapon, a top priority for the Defense Department to compete against China and Russia.

Maneuverable hypersonic weapons travel at greater than five times the speed of sound, making them exceptionally difficult to defend against. Most U.S. hypersonic weapons efforts fall under the Conventional Prompt Global Strike program, whose goal was to enable a conventional strike against a target anywhere on earth in under an hour.

Last October, the U.S. Navy successfully tested a hypersonic conventional prompt strike vehicle at a test range in Hawaii that utilized the same kind of Ohio-class launch tube that will be installed with the Virginia Payload Module.

Concerned about China’s advanced anti-ship missiles and maturing hypersonic weapons, procuring hypersonic strike capabilities was a top priority for Admiral Harry Harris, the former head of U.S. Pacific Command. Admiral Philip Davidson, his relief at the now-renamed Indo-Pacific Command shares Harris’ concern, and testified that a hypersonic capability was essential to compete, deter, and win against China.

Hypersonic weapons are also the Pentagon’s top research and engineering official highest technical priority. In Undersecretary of Defense Michael Griffin’s first public remarks since taking office recently, he said that his goal was to leapfrog the hypersonic advances made by Russia and China, which some other defense officials admitted have already surpassed the United States’ efforts.

“I didn’t take this job so that we could regain parity with our adversaries,” he explained, “I want to make them worry about catching up with us again.” He said that if China deploys a tactical or regional hypersonic weapon system they would be able to hold U.S. carrier strike groups and forward naval forces. In response, the United States needs to be able to defend against hypersonic systems, vulnerability identified in an Air Force Studies Board report in 2016, and have an equivalent offensive capability to hold Chinese forces similarly at risk.

Without its own hypersonic capabilities of its own, the United States would be forced to either let China have its way, or respond with nuclear weapons, Griffin concluded, “and that should be an unacceptable situation for the United States.”
 
Top