US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


Friday at 7:41 AM
very interesting
Boeing Lands Contracts With Upfront R&D Investing
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
anyway
Boeing Defense grows revenue despite another KC-46A delay and higher costs
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Boeing Defense, Space & Security’s third quarter revenue grew 13.5% to $5.7 billion year-over-year, despite its KC-46A Pegasus tanker programme struggling with another delay and highest costs.

Boeing had anticipated delivering its first KC-46A aerial refueling tanker to the US Air Force on 27 October, but now says five unresolved category-1 deficiencies, including two related to sunlight glare on the camera that guides the aircraft’s refueling boom, mean it will not be delivered until sometime in November or December. The Chicago-based aerospace manufacturer was contracted to deliver the first batch of 18 KC-46s by August 2017, but missed that deadline after production issues.

Growing revenue in the defence division was primarily driven by increased sales of government satellites, KC-46A tankers and F/A-18 fighters, as well as unnamed weapons products, Boeing says. In September, the USAF awarded Boeing a $2.9 billion contract for 18 additional KC-46A tanker aircraft, bringing the total number of tankers ordered to 52.

Despite generating higher revenue, the company’s defence division lost $245 million in the quarter. Losses were caused by $691 million in charges related to planned investments in the USAF’s T-X jet trainer and US Navy’s MQ-25A Stingray carrier-based unmanned refueling aircraft programmes – two new production contracts recently won by the company – and $64 million related to cost growth on the KC-46 tanker programme, the company said on 23 October.

Boeing Defense anticipates upfront investments in its T-X and MQ-25A production lines will be offset by future sales opportunities.

“We anticipate the T-X to be a franchise programme for much of this century,” says chief executive Dennis Muilenburg on an earnings call. “Beyond the current US Air Force contract, [there are] potential global market opportunities for both trainer and light attack platforms of up to 2,600 aircraft plus ground-based trainers and advanced simulation technologies, representing a $40 billion multi-decade platform and services opportunity.”

The company anticipates the MQ-25A representing a market opportunity of greater than $20 billion, for more than 200 production and derivative aircraft, he adds.

The order backlog at Boeing Defense was $58 billion, of which 31% represented orders from customers outside the USA, the company says. The division raised its annual revenue guidance by 2.3% to $22.5 billion and $23 billion.

The KC-46A programme is still working through Phase II of a USAF receiver certification, which encompasses successfully refueling eight different types of military aircraft. On 26 October, the programme announced that it had just completed testing with the Boeing B-52 and Boeing F/A-18 and only had to test refueling the Boeing F-15 to complete the phase.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
It’s impossible to tell tone through text, so I will assume you just respond that way as a matter of brevity. No I hadn’t heard of it, there are ways around it, based on the information you kindly provided.
Yes there are but as a rule those ways only come in if the products in question are not currently available from domestic makers or are so superior that existing equivalent are found obsolete, if such happened then one of two things occurs. First an attempt to upgrade existing systems to match or over match or If that is not possible Licencing.

CAMM is good but is it something that doesn't match an existing US product? No. The RIM 162 ESSM is a pretty close match. Perhaps not as advanced but that can be updated to.
 
Oct 21, 2018
it's the SDF here so China related part of
Trump says US is ending decades-old nuclear arms treaty with Russia
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:

"Administration officials believe the treaty has put the US at a disadvantage because China does not face any constraints on developing intermediate-range nuclear missiles in the Pacific and it does not allow the US to develop new weapons.
Trump, speaking with reporters on Saturday, referenced China when explaining his reasoning for pulling out of the agreement.
"Unless Russia comes to us and China comes to us and they all come to us and say, 'Let's really get smart and let's none of us develop those weapons.' But if Russia's doing it and if China's doing it and we're adhering to the agreement, that's unacceptable," Trump said.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the head of US Pacific Command, Adm. Harry Harris, told Congress that approximately 95% of China's missile force would violate the INF Treaty if they were part of the agreement.
now this:
Aegis Ashore Could Have New Role Post INF Treaty Says Former Pentagon Official
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Converting Aegis Ashore facilities in Poland and Romania into land stations for cruise missile coupled with already available sea-based and air-launched missiles would complicate Kremlin planning on how to defend itself from attack or strike targets in Europe, a former U.S. defense official on Wednesday.

In a telephone conference call with reporters, Abraham Denmark, director of the Asia program at the Wilson Center and a former Pentagon official, said the two facilities “could fairly readily be turned” from defensive posture against Iranian ballistic missiles threatening Europe to an offensive capability targeting Russia. This would be a “direct threat” contention the Kremlin has said violated the existing treaty and was the American goal from that start in deploying the missiles, radars and fire control systems so close to its borders.

With the United States’ announced plans to withdraw from the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces treaty between Washington and Moscow and not having such a land-based missile in its inventory, conversion indeed might be an option in American military planning.

In setting the stage for the discussion and question-and-answer session, Robert Litwak, senior vice president at the Wilson Center, said American administrations since 2014 have publicly called out Russia for its development and deployment of a new set of mobile intermediate range cruise missiles as violating the treaty.

Russia, in response, kept pointing to Aegis Ashore, American and NATO armed drones and the dummy missiles used in targeting exercises as INF treaty violations.

The treaty, one part of a series of arms control agreements, reached during the Cold War did not cover all kinds of intermediate-range missiles.

“INF meant nothing for ships at sea” or missiles launched from aircraft, Matthew Rojansky, director of the center’s Kennan Institute, said. These were among the United States’ strongest military capabilities in deterring Soviet aggression in Europe.

Looking at the strategic situation in Europe now,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Construction problems, however, have slowed the work in Poland and it will not be operational until 2020, a Senate Armed Services subcommittee was told earlier this year.

In the Pacific, Japan has announced the awarding of contracts for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

“The U.S. does not have capabilities [for a mobile land-based intermediate range missile] on hand” now or in the immediate future to counter Russia, China or any other power, Litwak said.

NATO allies, as well as Japan, have expressed concerns about the United States’ walking away from the treaty and likely would not be receptive to stationing new American intermediate-range missiles on their soil. This runs counter to the Cold War experience.

American plans to deploy Pershing II missiles with atomic warheads along the Iron Curtain to meet growing Soviet missile threats in Europe were marked by large protests, but the governments in the NATO countries stayed firm. Ultimately, the missiles were deployed.

Litwak said Europeans see the treaty today “as a pillar of European security architecture.” The treaty only involves the United States and Russia. Other nuclear powers, such as China, France, the United Kingdom, India and Pakistan, are not involved; and neither are Iran, North Korea and Israel.

The Trump administration, on the other hand, weighs the treaty “as a constraint on our sovereignty” rather than serving the national interest, he said. Rojansky added some in the administration could also see the move “as a way of exhausting the Russians through another arms race,” in effect “doubling down” on the Kremlin’s opening gambit of deploying its missiles and forcing it to up its defense spending in a time of negative or flat gross domestic product.

Looking to the Pacific, where China has an operational nuclear triad coupled with an intermediate range missile inventory, Denmark said Japan is very concerned about the American willingness to defend Tokyo in any showdown over its territorial disputes with Beijing and possibly from North Korea.

Noting Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s most recent visit to Beijing and the pomp, circumstance and military show surrounding it, he added, “Japan has been hedging” in light of Trump’s “criticism of alliances generally and Japan particularly,” he said.

While Europe is about land power the geography of Asia puts the emphasis on naval assets, Denmark said. China has made “significant investments that would violate the INF treaty” if it were a signatory and likely would keep it from joining any new agreement, he said.

Beijing’s development of its intermediate range missiles could reach not only American bases in Japan, but also Guam. Other potential targets could include Taiwan and India. “They’re all in on intermediate-range missiles” as a deterrent and a show of military strength.

But if converting Aegis Ashore would complicate Kremlin military planning so would deployment of U.S. mobile intermediate-range missiles to Alaska and Guam muddle Beijing’s, but here again there is no existing American system ready to deploy.

He conceded mobile land-based systems like those in China and Russia are “more efficient and can move about” more freely than an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer that costs almost $2 billion and carrying a limited number of Tomahawk cruise missiles.

“U.S. allies [Japan, the Philippines, Australia] are not terribly excited” about the U.S. decision to leave the treaty or the prospect of hosting American missiles aimed at China.

Rojansky said the move does throw into question whether Moscow and Washington will be able to update its strategic arms agreement in 2021.

There has been no serious proposal from Russia on either the strategic arms or INF treaty, Rojansky said. “It’s all or nothing” from nuclear weapons, to missiles, to cyber, space and conventional weapons. Likewise, on Capitol Hill, where Congress would have to ratify any new treaties, there is a “we do not trust the Russians” sentiment on any of these issues.

The reasons given are continued interference in American elections, active military support of Bashar al-Assad in the Syrian civil war and ongoing financial and arms support of Ukrainian separatists.
 
with all LCSs safely at harbor,
Navy Crafting Master Plan for New Era of Mine Warfare
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



ends with
Coffman said his definition of success on this effort would be “increased coherence to mine warfare and a so-called master plan. We’ll see what Adm. Richardson in the end, what he wants to do and how he wants to go with it, but my job is to get the work done between now and New Year’s and basically provide him some options.”
so let's wait and see
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
CAMM would be a nice fit for them :)
Yes they would...but I believe the ESSM has a significantly longer range (50 km in quad pack on MK-141 vs 25 km for the normal CAMM (which can also be quad packed I believe, but not on the MK-141 to my knowledge, and 45 KM for the CAMM-ER which I do not believe can be quad packed) and is a better fit for the Iddependence and Freedom LCS or FF version should they decide to put a Mk-141 VLS on them, and that the MK-141 is an easier fit in function and integration for them than the CAMM.

But no doubt, the CAMM would be good too if they worked them into the design somehow.

I do not believe the CAMM is capable of being fired from an MK-141...or am I mistaken in that?
 
... the CAMM-ER which I do not believe can be quad packed) ...
I quickly found they "Can be packed tightly"


LOL what exactly does "tightly" mean here? the vid linked inside the source where I found that chart
What Can The Royal Navy's New Sea Ceptor Missiles Do?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


shows a single missile in the launcher, tightly LOL
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
Yes they would...but I believe the ESSM has a significantly longer range (50 km in quad pack on MK-141 vs 25 km for the normal CAMM (which can also be quad packed I believe, but not on the MK-141 to my knowledge, and 45 KM for the CAMM-ER which I do not believe can be quad packed) and is a better fit for the Iddependence and Freedom LCS or FF version should they decide to put a Mk-141 VLS on them, and that the MK-141 is an easier fit in function and integration for them than the CAMM.

But no doubt, the CAMM would be good too if they worked them into the design somehow.

I do not believe the CAMM is capable of being fired from an MK-141...or am I mistaken in that?
If Japan can develop a Chu SAM Kai in quad pack for MK-41 it will be a winner.
Derived from AAM-4, the system can track up to 100 targets simultaneously and target 12 at the same time
Overall length; 4.9m
Diameter .28m
Weight; 460Kg
Warhead weight 73 kg
Range ; 60+Km
Speed ; Mach 4-5
Active homing AESA radar with GaN chips
 

Top