US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


anzha

Junior Member
Registered Member
the byproduct of a search I've done in relation to another post in this thread:

at page 13 of 26 in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(the header CSR-10), quote,

Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen stated that the JSF’s joint approach “avoids the three parallel development programs for service-unique aircraft
that would have otherwise been necessary, saving at least $15 billion.” [superscript 29]

unquote; [superscript 29] is
"Letter from Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen to Rep. Jerry Lewis, June 22, 2000.
Transcript made available by Inside the Airforce. June 23, 2000"

Yet, the Pentagon informed Congress in 2010 the F-35 program was going to go 50% over the original estimates:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


That 50% climb is almost assuredly more than $15B.

re: F-35 successful or not:

not sure of that;

bu the way how do you measure the success of the F-35 program?
Replacing the aircraft before it with greater capabilities. The Harrier replacement alone works out as a 'success.'

as I said Yesterday at 9:15 AM, I think the funding of 6Gen is insignificant
As you noted, $2B was spent between 1995 to 2000 on the CALF/JAST/JSF. In two years, the NGAD has spent ~$900M (~$600M Y2K dollars). The F-35 started as a /DARPA/ Program that had to be transitioned into the rest of the Pentagon. Even then, there was resistance: the USAF wanted the MRF program, not the JAST and the USN wanted the AFX. The USMC realized tying them altogether was the only way /they/ would get a Harrier replacement.

Even adjusting for inflation, the NGAD will have spent the equivalent of what the F-35 did by FY21 in 4 years instead of 5 and it is attempting to do a far more focused aircraft development than the F-35 was. A better comparison would be the ATF program, which case, we'll be at the same amount of money spent (adjusted for inflation) as the ATF was in 1988 in FY20.

If I may ask, do you think the LRSB/B-21 is underfunded?
 
Yet, the Pentagon informed Congress in 2010 the F-35 program was going to go 50% over the original estimates:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


That 50% climb is almost assuredly more than $15B.
LOL


re: F-35 successful or not:



Replacing the aircraft before it with greater capabilities. The Harrier replacement alone works out as a 'success.'
OK

though I tend to think as in Aug 4, 2016
...
kinda abstract economics rule says one should look at what would've been achieved by alternative project(s) in comparison to the one actually procured ... for example if you had invested one mil into something, you should then compare your gain, of for example 100 Grand, to what you would've earned if you had invested into something else, and evaluate the actual investment based on this: had it been realistically possible to gain 200 Grand by investing that one mil differently, your 100 Grand surplus would be a failure LOL!
if you know what I mean


As you noted, $2B was spent between 1995 to 2000 on the CALF/JAST/JSF. In two years, the NGAD has spent ~$900M (~$600M Y2K dollars). The F-35 started as a /DARPA/ Program that had to be transitioned into the rest of the Pentagon. Even then, there was resistance: the USAF wanted the MRF program, not the JAST and the USN wanted the AFX. The USMC realized tying them altogether was the only way /they/ would get a Harrier replacement.

Even adjusting for inflation, the NGAD will have spent the equivalent of what the F-35 did by FY21 in 4 years instead of 5 and it is attempting to do a far more focused aircraft development than the F-35 was. A better comparison would be the ATF program, which case, we'll be at the same amount of money spent (adjusted for inflation) as the ATF was in 1988 in FY20.
could be I was wrong about "comically low" Yesterday at 9:15 AM
LOL


If I may ask, do you think the LRSB/B-21 is underfunded?
oh I wouldn't know as its funding is classified

Mr. Osborn now:
Details of the new B-21 Raider bomber that's a secret even to Congress
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
hmmm. Can't be that classified:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Development is to be completed 2025 and IOC is expected then.
inside the document you posted I can see
2017 1290m
2018 2004
2019 2314
2020 3009
2021 3056
2022 2945
2023 2665
_________
sum 17283

interestingly, "The development programme alone is estimated to cost $23.5 billion." according to 2015 FlightGlobal link
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


just thinking aloud
 

anzha

Junior Member
Registered Member
inside the document you posted I can see
2017 1290m
2018 2004
2019 2314
2020 3009
2021 3056
2022 2945
2023 2665
_________
sum 17283

interestingly, "The development programme alone is estimated to cost $23.5 billion." according to 2015 FlightGlobal link
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


just thinking aloud
And if you assume $2.5B to$3B for FY24 and FY25, you roughly get the number FG posted.

However, if we're going down /this/rathole, may I suggest we move it to the LRSB thread?

I posted here asking if you thought it was underfunded vs expectations as a comparison to the NGAD.
 
Oct 23, 2018
Sunday at 8:57 AMnow BreakingDefense pulled V-2 and Newton inside
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

We explore the possibilities, from cutting-edge hypersonics and 1,000-mile cannon to repackaged Tomahawk cruise missiles and updated Pershing ballstic missiles.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Russia claims US ignoring outreach on nuclear treaty dispute
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Russia wants to sit down with Pentagon officials for “open and specific” talks on
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the Russian Defense Ministry said Saturday.

The U.S. claims Russia is violating the INF treaty, and on Dec. 4 issued an ultimatum that Moscow come into compliance with the accord in 60 days,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Russia denies it’s in breach of the treaty.

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu sent his counterpart, U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis, a proposal for launching a dialogue three days ago, according to a statement Saturday.

But Russia says it hasn't received any official reply from the Pentagon, which spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said proves that the U.S. is unwilling to maintain professional dialogue with Moscow on security issues.

On Friday, the Russian mission to the U.N. submitted a draft resolution calling for the international community to support the INF treaty against Washington's threat of withdrawal, warning that a collapse of the treaty could undermine nuclear arms control across the board.

Washington began sounding off on a potential Russian violation of the INF treaty under President Barack Obama.

Under President Donald Trump, those allegations have been specified and coupled with threats of unilateral withdrawal from the landmark 1987 arms agreement, which banned an entire class of ground-launched missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,000 kilometers (310-3,100 miles).

The U.S. claims that
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, designated by NATO as the SSC-8, operates in ranges forbidden by the INF treaty. Russia has strongly and routinely denied the claim, at times throwing accusations of non-compliance back at Washington.

These claims have, at times, focused on U.S. deployment of anti-missile systems in Romania and Poland. Moscow takes specific issue with the U.S. Mk-41 vertical launching system used by these missile defense installations.

The Mk-41, derived from the U.S. Navy's Aegis missile system, can launch a variety of American missiles — including the sea-launched Tomahawk cruise missile, a weapon that would be banned by INF were it deployed on a ground-based launcher.

INF not only bans ground-based intermediate-range missiles, but their launchers too. And Moscow has seized on this point to claim the U.S. is responsible for destabilizing the INF treaty.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
  • ACQUISITION, LAND
Army Bradley Brigade Will Get Israeli Anti-Missile System: Iron Fist
By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on December 14, 2018 at 4:00 AM
WASHINGTON: Seeking to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the US Army will buy Israel’s
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Active Protection System for a brigade of its M2 Bradley armored vehicles, Breaking Defense has learned.

The decision comes after weeks of confusing statements by Army officials and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
fitting the high-tech active protection on a Cold War-vintage vehicle — one already upgraded to the limits of available space, weight, and electrical power. Full execution will also have to await the 2020 budget or at least a congressionally-approved reprogramming: The Army currently has only $80 million of the approximately $200 million required to buy and install Iron Fist on an armored brigade’s
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, plus spares.Meanwhile, the Army will continue testing Iron Fist on the Bradley — although it’s assiduously avoided the term “test” because of its legal implications in Pentagon procurement. Officially, the initial phase that Iron Fist has completed is merely “characterization,” while the second, more in-depth phase it’s entering now is “qualification.”
Whatever terms you use, the decision by the Army Requirements Oversight Council to buy a brigade of Iron Fist is not contingent on any particular level of performance in this new round of testing/qualification. (Presumably, though, some unexpected disaster could cause the service to reconsider).

That’s been a point of confusion after Army officials publicly contradicted each other at a recent conference in Detroit — one at which reporters were barred — but well-informed sources I’m unfortunately unable to identify made it unequivocally clear. The AROC has decided the threat is urgent, so the Army is not waiting on the test results: The only reason it’s not buying a brigade of Iron Fist immediately is that it’s $120 million short.

Nor is the Army currently considering an alternative to Iron Fist for Bradley, despite a “market survey”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that seems open to any company with an APS on offer. That Request For Information was another source of severe confusion, but I’ve been walked through the wording and it’s written so that only Iron Fist can qualify.
Specifically, the survey asks for information on “current market manufacturing capability to produce a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6 Active Protection System (APS)” —
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
means there’s already been a field-tested prototype — and “This APS shall have been proven and characterized on the Bradley Family of Vehicles (FOV).” (Emphasis ours). Iron Fist is the only active protection system that the Army’s “characterized” on the Bradley.

The only potential challenger is the Trophy APS, also Israeli, which is the only active protection system in the Western world that’s actually been mass-produced and used in combat — qualifying it as
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. (The Russians have plenty of APS in service, as Ukrainian anti-tank teams have learned to their sorrow, but they’re not in the running for a US Army contract).

The Army is already buying Trophy for four brigades of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
— a decision it also made without waiting for the results of Phase 2 “qualification” trials. Both the size of the purchase and speed testify to the Army’s confidence in Trophy’s track record and the importance it places on the Abrams.
In January, the Army will also evaluate Trophy for the eight-wheel drive Stryker troop carrier, having earlier
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. An APS from
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
is already in live-fire testing for Stryker, under a congressional mandate to explore additional options. Whichever the Army ends up choosing — if it chooses either — there’s no money yet set aside to actually buy an APS for Stryker, or even to complete Phase 2 “qualification” testing for it.

The Army has no current plans to try out Trophy on a Bradley, at all. However, Trophy’s manufacturer,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, did install
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
on an Israeli-owned Bradley and test it in Israel — at their own expense but with American observers.
Since the US Army didn’t run that test, it almost certainly doesn’t meet the Army’s definition of “proven and characterized.” Rafael and its American partner
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
could make a good case that their Israeli tests should count for something. But given how the market survey is worded, and how urgently Army leadership wants to upgrade the Bradley’s defenses, the odds are that IMI and its American partner,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, will get a sole-source contract for at least this first brigade.

All bets are off after that brigade, however. While it’s currently looking at off-the-shelf “non-developmental” options like Iron Fist and Trophy, the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, long-term program of record is to develop something called the Modular Active Protection System. MAPS aims to create a standardized control system with an open architecture that lets you mix and match subsystems from multiple vendors — a radar from here, an interceptor from there, a jammer from the other place — on a single vehicle. That way the Army could keep upgrading piece by piece with the best components from any company, without being beholden to one vendor for the system as a whole.

The Army also wants to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
with a cutting-edge
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that, among other features, is designed with active protection in mind, rather than having APS added on wherever it fits.

Those are worthy ambitions, but technically tricky to realize, and they’ll take time — with a non-negligible chance of turning into one of the Army’s periodic acquisition disasters. Meanwhile, the Army is buying what it can get right now.

The Army’s full statement to me on the Iron Fist decision is below, courtesy of Ashley John, public affairs director for Program Executive Officer – Ground Combat Systems (PEO-GCS). It’s somewhat opaque, so read it with the explanations above in mind:

“At the end of November, the Army Requirements Oversight Council met to assess the performance of the Bradley Expedited Active Protection System non-developmental solution (Iron Fist) and to determine if the system was suitable for urgent qualification and deployment. After reviewing the results of the Army Test and Evaluation Command’s testing, the AROC determined that the Iron Fist system improved the survivability of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle without meaningful impact to the vehicle’s performance or increased risk to dismounted Soldiers. The AROC directed that Bradley ExAPS move into the next phase of urgent qualification testing and in parallel plan for fielding of at least a brigade’s worth of capability on an urgent basis in accordance with existing approved requirements.”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So Abrams Trophy, Bradley Iron Fist.
My expectation is Iron fist on Stryker.
Although a version of Trophy was once demo'd on a Stryker. And both Rafael and IMI (Elbit) though there partners have created and shown versions of there "Family of Systems" on JLTV.
 

Top