US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Well this is odd.
US, Chinese aircraft in 'unsafe' encounter in South China Sea
By: Mike Yeo, February 9, 2017
MELBOURNE, Australia — The U.S. Pacific Command detailed what it called an "unsafe" close encounter between a U.S. Navy P-3 Orion aircraft and a Chinese aircraft Wednesday.

The two planes reportedly flew within 1,000 feet of each other in the general vicinity of the contested Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea.

Maj. Rob Shulford, a spokesman for PACOM, told Defense News that “on Feb. 8 (local), an interaction characterized by U.S. Pacific Command as 'unsafe' occurred in international airspace above the South China Sea between a Chinese KJ-200 aircraft and a U.S. Navy P-3C aircraft.”

He also said that "the U.S. Navy P-3C was on a routine mission operating in accordance with international law," adding that the “Department of Defense and U.S. Pacific Command are always concerned about unsafe interactions with Chinese military forces."

There have been no other details about the relative flight paths of both aircraft at the time of the encounter, which has been described as “inadvertent,” although other reports said that the American P-3 had to alter course to avoid an aerial collision.

The Chinese aircraft involved has been identified as a Shaanxi KJ-200 Airborne Early Warning aircraft, which suggests this was unlikely to be an intercept of the P-3 by the Chinese.

The KJ-200 carries a phased array radar inside a long, rectangular housing mounted on struts on top of its fuselage. The aircraft is used by both the People’s Liberation Army Air Force and the air arm of the People’s Liberation Army Navy, or PLAN, to provide air surveillance.

It is unclear to which branch of China’s armed forces the aircraft involved in this latest encounter belongs, although PLAN KJ-200s have been known to operate from air bases on China’s southern Hainan Island, 530 miles from Scarborough Shoal.

The aircraft are usually on temporary rotations to Hainan, being normally assigned to the PLAN’s 2nd Air Division, 4th Regiment based at Laiyang in Shandong Province, northern China.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
the series:

Apr 28, 2014

Look at this freaking blimp :)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Sep 28, 2015
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.


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

Oct 29, 2015
Sep 28, 2015


now:
update.
the Blimp is Down.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It apparently deflated on it's own.


goes on:
Army denies all claims for damage caused by runaway blimp
The U.S. Army is denying 35 claims for more than $1.5 million in damage caused when a blimp broke loose in Maryland and came to rest in the Pennsylvania countryside in 2015.

Army Spokesman Dov Schwartz said in a statement Friday that the Army had determined that no government employees or agencies were responsible or negligent in the incident.

The decision was first reported by pennlive.com.

The unmanned surveillance blimp broke from its mooring at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland and floated over Pennsylvania for hours on Oct. 28, 2015, causing electrical outages as its tether hit power lines.

Schwartz says a defense contractor was responsible for the installation and maintenance of the tethering system on the blimp.
source is ArmyTimes
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
reposting fromYemen Crisis/Conflict & the "Decisive Storm" Coalition
thread:

according to DefenseNews US beefing up Red Sea presence
Responding to a growing number of dangerous incidents in waters around Yemen, the US Navy is expanding its presence in the Red Sea, especially around the Bab el Mandeb strait at the southern entrance to the waterway.

The destroyer Cole was tasked on Feb. 3 with patrolling in the region, days after a suicide boat attack by Yemeni Houthi rebels on the Saudi frigate Al Madinah off the port of Al Hudaydah killed two sailors on the warship. Two other suicide boats in the attack were driven off by gunfire.

Now, Pentagon sources say two more destroyers are likely to be stationed in the Red Sea, patrolling opposite ends of the 1,400-mile long body of water. A US assault ship also is staying in the region, carrying attack aircraft and Marines of the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit.

The destroyers could come from the George H. W. Bush carrier strike group, which was operating in the Mediterranean Sea as late as Feb. 10. The destroyers Laboon and Truxtun are part of the group, which left Norfolk Jan. 21 and is headed to the Central Command region in the Middle East on a regularly scheduled deployment. Whether or not directly associated with tensions in the region, the entire group needs to pass through the Suez Canal and the Red Sea to get to its eventual assigned operating areas.

The destroyers carry significant anti-air and anti-missile weapons as well as Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles.

For the record, the Pentagon would not confirm nor deny the movements. Christopher Sherwood, a Defense Department spokesman, would only say that, “the US Navy maintains a continuous combat-ready force within the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Arabian Sea, Gulf of Aden, and Red Sea to protect the free-flow of commerce, reassure our allies and partners and deter acts of aggression against our forces and our partners.”

The waters around the Bab el Mandeb are quite familiar to US Navy warships, which have patrolled in the Gulf of Aden since about 2008 against Somali-based pirates. With rare exceptions, all US Navy warships transiting from the Mediterranean Sea to the Indian Ocean and the Pacific pass through the strait, including aircraft carriers and submarines.

Ironically, it was at the strategic Yemini port of Aden on the Gulf of Aden where the Cole was famously attacked by an al-Qaeda suicide boat in October 2000. The destroyer nearly sank and the attack killed 17 sailors and wounded 39. It remains the deadliest attack on a US Navy ship by a terrorist group.

Saudi Arabia has been engaged in a hot war in Yemen since early 2015, supporting the Sunni government of Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi against Shia Houthi rebels led by former president Ali Abdullah Saleh and backed by Iran. The political situation is compounded by the presence of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), who hold about a quarter of Yemen’s mid-eastern section.

The country is in turmoil. According to a November report by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, more than 10,000 Yemenis have been killed in the civil war, and out of a total population of about 27 million, nearly 19 million are defined as being in need of humanitarian or protection assistance.

The conflict in Yemen’s western region, held by the Houthis, has been spreading to the sea as government forces have begun a series of offensives to retake seaports on the Red Sea. According to news reports, the Saudi-led coalition began an offensive Jan. 6 to drive the Houthis from the coast. As they have fled, Houthis reportedly have mined harbors with sea mines and shore facilities with land mines.

On Jan. 29, the US staged a raid in Yemen in an attempt to gather intelligence on AQAP activities. One US Navy SEAL was killed in the action, which turned into a bloody fire fight with multiple casualties on the ground and ended with the loss of an MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft. While it is not clear where the SEALs were staged from, the extracted SEAL Team Six reportedly was flown to the Makin Island, where the wounded sailor died.

President Trump termed the raid a “winning mission” that killed 14 al-Qaeda and garnered useful intelligence. Others criticized the action, with the New York Times reporting that “almost everything that could go wrong did.” There are conflicting reports as to whether or not the Yemeni government has withdrawn permission for US special forces to operate in the country.

Nevertheless, incidents in the Red Sea have visibly been on the rise. On Oct. 9, for the first time in history, a hostile surface-to-surface missile was fired at US Navy ships as three units were operating in the southern Red Sea. The destroyer Mason destroyed one of the missiles while another missed. Several other incidents reportedly had taken place in the days leading up to the direct missile attack.

On Oct. 13, the destroyer Nitze retaliated and launched Tomahawk cruise missiles against three coastal radar sites in Houthi-controlled territory.

Earlier, on Oct. 1, Houthi forces carried out a devastating missile attack on an aluminum ferry operated by the United Arab Emirates. The vessel, once operated by the US Navy as the high speed vessel Swift, had to be abandoned and was largely burned out.

Security agencies also report a growing number of attacks on merchant ships in the region by small boats firing rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons.

While the Pentagon declined to respond directly to queries for this story, Defense Department spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis told Stars and Stripes on Feb. 4 that the stationing of the Cole in the Red Sea was “for no other reason than to respond to Bab el Mandeb incidents.”

“When we see things like what happened to the Saudi frigate earlier this week take place it gives us great pause," Davis told Stars and Stripes. "This is on top of other things we've seen -- to include the well-known missile attempts against U.S. ships last fall -- we've seen evidence that the Houthis are laying mines in the waters outside at least one of their ports. We officially have great concern for the freedom of navigation there.”

The region around the Bab el Mandeb and the Gulf of Aden is full of international naval and military activity. The European Union has maintained regular patrols against Somali-based pirates in the Gulf of Aden since late 2008, using warships from Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, the Ukraine and the United Kingdom. China, Russia and Iran have maintained their own anti-piracy patrols, and China is building a small base in Djibouti to support the operations.

The US-led multi-national naval partnership of the Combined Maritime Forces provides two major operating elements around the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. Combined Task Force 150 (CTF 150) is responsible for maritime security and counter-terrorism, while CTF 151 is tasked with counter-piracy. Another unit, CTF 152, handles security operations in the Persian Gulf. There are 31 member nations in the CMF.

A number of nations, including the US, have military activities of various sizes in Djibouti, on the western side of the Bab el Mandeb across from Yemen. US Marine forces aboard deployed amphibious ready groups – including the ARG centered on the Makin Island – routinely exercise in and around Djibouti.

Saudi Arabia is reported as in the final stages of an agreement with Djibouti to establish a base there, and Arab media report that the United Arab Emirates, a key ally of Saudi Arabia in the anti-Houthi conflict, is building a military base at the Red Sea port of Assab in Eritrea.

James Pothecary, an analyst with Allan & Associates, writing in November for the Center for International Maritime Security, noted that “any concerted naval action in the area will face determined resistance. Unlike the Somali pirates of the late 2000s, Houthi fighters are ideologically motivated, trained, battle-hardened, and well-armed. Moreover, they have freedom of movement in areas of south-western Yemen under their control.

“While international naval power, supported by air power and special forces, will likely be able to contain the threat, full elimination of Houthi capability is an unrealistic objective without substantially more committed resourcing,” Pothecary wrote for CIMSEC.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

JudgeKing

New Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Sergeant Major of the Army Dan Dailey wants to know if soldiers support a return of the World War II "pinks and greens" uniform, and Army Times has launched a survey to find out.

The short survey was emailed to about 28,000 active-duty Army Times subscribers on Tuesday, so be sure to check your email for your chance to submit your opinion. Otherwise, sound off in the comments below.

Results of the survey will be shared with Dailey, and it will be used to help inform future decisions. If the uniform is brought back, the intent would be for it to be an optional uniform, one that's more formal than the Army Combat Uniform but less formal than the Army Service Uniform worn now.

The old school "pinks and greens" seem to be popular among soldiers - many of you asked for it when Army Times last fall asked soldiers to send in any and all uniform changes they'd like to see.
“I think the Army should have a khaki working uniform for officers and [noncommissioned officers] in office positions,” one soldier wrote. “Think World War II Army.”

Some soldiers said the uniforms recapture a so-called “golden era.”

“I nominate World War II pinks and greens-style uniforms to make a return,” another soldier wrote. “It’s classy as hell, has a solid historical look, and you can tell the person wearing it is in the Army.”

Do you like the throwback uniforms? Would you like to have the option of wearing it instead of the Army Service Uniform?
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Interesting
Current Readiness of U.S. Forces
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


An great men and the right plans need USN :cool: eventually FREMMs disponibe o_O
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

...
How did you build a strong relationship with Congress and what arguments sustained their support?

We had many strong and experienced Navy supporters in Congress. First among them were Senators John Stennis, Scoop Jackson, John Tower and former SecNav John Warner. Our message to Congress was loud and clear: We had a disciplined logical strategy that would lead to American maritime superiority and success at sea. To carry out that strategy successfully, we needed a 600-ship Navy. And, recognizing that such a navy would undeniably cost money, we committed ourselves to fundamentally change Navy weapons development and procurement, bringing costs down dramatically.

We did this by restoring authority and accountability to officials, not to bureaucracies. Gold-plating and a change order culture were ended, which enabled fixed-price contracts and annual production competition. Navy shipbuilding actually had a net cost underrun of $8 billion during the Reagan years, the first and only time in history. Congress saw that we kept our word and did what we said we would, and gave us its support year after year.

The new administration is seeking to build a 350-ship Navy. What will it take to achieve this goal sooner than later, and should this buildup be used as an opportunity to augment existing force structure?

First, it will take immediate enunciation of a clear, compelling strategy. Next, as the fleet shrank from 594 to the current 274, the Defense bureaucracy has grown. Bureaucratic bloat must be slashed immediately through early retirement, buyouts, and natural attrition. Next, the kind of line management accountability that marked the Reagan years can end constant change orders and enable fixed price competition.

In addition to these deep reforms it will of course take an immediate infusion of more money. And it will take an immediate refocus on drastically ramping up competition within the defense industry.

With regard to force structure, the Navy desperately needs frigates. We do not need more LCSs nor can they be modified to fill the frigate requirement. We do not need to have a wholly new design as there are several excellent designs in European navies that could be built in American yards with the latest American technology. Indeed, the now-retired Perry class could easily be built again with the newest weapons and technology.

Naval aviation needs more and longer range strike aircraft. The advanced design F-18 can help fill this need with a program to procure a mix of both F-35s and advanced F-18s with annual buys, effectively competing the two aircraft for the optimum lowest cost mix.

The Navy faces multiple competing demands for resources including deferred maintenance that is hampering readiness and insatiable combatant commander demand for greater capacity. Additionally, the rapid rate of technological change is opening up numerous possibilities for new capabilities. Where should the Navy prioritize its investments to ensure credible combat power going forward?

There are some who argue that the dismal state of readiness must be dealt with first, and then the procurement of a larger fleet after. That would be a mistake. The priority is to achieve balance. Readiness and sustainability must be dealt with simultaneously with embarking on procuring the necessary new ships and aircraft.

In the 1980s I was a vocal proponent of 15 carrier battle groups. But I was no less an advocate for 100 attack submarines. The Navy defends the nation across the entire spectrum of conflict—from what my old shipmate CNO Jim Watkins called the “violent peace,” through deterring and controlling crises around the world, to fighting and winning wars and deterring nuclear holocaust. That’s a tall order, but a necessary one.

The Navy needs to be able to pummel targets ashore, land Marines and SEALs, sink submarines and surface ships, knock sophisticated airplanes and missiles out of the sky by the dozens, lay and neutralize mines, get the Army’s and Air Force’s gear to the fight, and use both hard kill and soft kill power to do all that, as required.

The force structure needed to perform successfully at sea across that range of operations is extraordinarily varied, and must be continually balanced and adjusted, as we did with our 600-ship force goal all through the 1980s. It can be done, and the new administration and Congress must do it.
...
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top