US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


you could've spelled at least
... Massad ...
right

anyway
Fixed position, limited elevation no traverse, Slow rate of fire. Fixed range.
didn't preclude the current Secretary of the Army from saying

"You can imagine a scenario where the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
feels it cannot get into the South China Sea because of Chinese naval vessels, [but] we can from a fixed location,"
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


his vision of the 21st century naval warfare is ... surreal
 

hkbc

Junior Member
My point is that it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility. The problems are the cost of the program. This is a very expensive gun built in segments and specially at that to.
Limitations of the gun and ammo vs utility. A 60 meter long barrel can't just be fitted to a turret. It's basically mounted and fixed in place each shot demands specialized loading and maintence. The projectile is under tremendous pressure and stress as it is fired. Far more than of a missile.

I don't see the super gun as more than an experiment.
As a weapon it might be cool but impractical. Fixed position, limited elevation no traverse, Slow rate of fire. Fixed range.
As I said an aspiration, some might go so far as to say fantasy!

More to the point let's say its a coil or rail gun and doesn't need a 60m barrel, just a power plant that's big enough for a small city. Where within a 1000 miles of the spratlys or paracels would such a weapon be sited? Not on any sovereign US territory since even with a 1000 mile range it's not going to reach.

From that which of China's many SCS neighbours would be queuing up for some US Army goodness because they hate China that much?

Now none of the actual SCS actors have ever joined in on a FoNP cruise just the usual litany of busy body US (White!) allies so if you're not going to tag a long on a joy ride why would you paint a giant target on your back so some US Army general can fulfill his wet dream of one upping the US Admirals?

After the initial shots it would have a couple or couple dozen Chinese missiles drop on it in a counter strike, one or two of those 'poor quality' Chinese weapons might 'miss' the intended target and 'accidentally' hit the host country's naval base or army camp instead, so maybe a bit of AEGIS ashore or THAAD around it for good measure? Just turned your sovereign country into a US military encampment, Ho Chi Minh and Emilio Aguinaldo would be spinning in their graves!
 

gelgoog

Senior Member
Registered Member
"You can imagine a scenario where the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
feels it cannot get into the South China Sea because of Chinese naval vessels, [but] we can from a fixed location,"
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
This is bonkers. In the XIXth century the French had the "Jeune Ecole". Basically the idea was to put the largest conceivable gun you could on a ship hull.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The Japanese actually pursued this approach, for example, but eventually came around to the idea that they needed a more balanced vessel. The ships had firepower, but the guns were hard to aim and reload, plus they could not easily defend themselves against enemy ships.

FWIW Gerald Bull was enamored with these things.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


All such large guns have historically proven not to be worth either their development or operational costs. You would be better off with cruise missiles I think.
A gun with a range like that would just be a huge target.
 
Last edited:
Dec 22, 2018
Apr 18, 2017
... and
USAF's Next Budget Request Will Include New F-15X Advanced Eagle Fighter Jets: Report

December 21, 2018
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
now
If the money is there, new and improved F-15s could be coming soon to the Air Force
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The U.S. Air Force could buy a new version of the F-15, known as the F-15X, as long as there is enough money in future defense budgets, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein told Defense News Saturday.

And regardless of whether the service does buy the new jets this year, Goldfein said the new aircraft won’t be taking money from the Lockheed Martin F-35.

“I’m not backing an inch off of the F-35” Goldfein said. “The F-35 buy that we’re on continues to remain on track. And I’m not interested in taking a nickel out of it when it comes to buying anything else in the fighter portfolio.”

The FY2020 defense budget has been the focus of speculation for months, and the Pentagon has still not released a final topline figure.

Original planning had called for a $733 billion topline, which dwindled down to $700 billion after calls from President Donald Trump to slash federal spending and then ballooned up to $750 billion after the intervention of then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.

In December 2018, Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson told Defense News that “all options are on the table," and on Saturday Goldfein acknowledged that the service had built multiple budgets as different figures were proposed.

“We built the [$]730[billion] budget, and we went in and did a drill said what if we only get [$]700[billion] and what do we subtract, and what if there was a [$]750[billion] budget?” he said.

Goldfein would not directly confirm that the Air Force has the money in the budget for the new planes. But he hinted strongly that the service would pull the trigger on acquiring them.

The F-15X is an improved model from Boeing, teaming a new airframe with an improved radar, cockpit, electronic warfare suite and the ability to carry more missiles, bringing in upgrades that have been developed for the F-15s sold to Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Late last year, Bloomberg reported that the Air Force was planning to request $1.2 billion for 12 of the fourth-generation jets in the 2020 budget request. The report said the aircraft would go to the Air National Guard to replace the olders F-15Cs, which date to the 1980s.

And that age is why the Air Force is looking at a new variant. The service currently has about 230 F-15C and D model aircraft in service. However, Goldfein acknowledged those aircraft don’t have the lifespan to make it to 2030 like other current fourth-generation aircraft, such as the F-15E, the F-16 and A-10.

“It [has] performed brilliantly, but the cost growth runs to a point to where you’re spending too much money," Goldfein said.

The Air Force’s decision to buy new F-15s came as a surprise late last year, as Air Force leadership had previously pushed back on the Boeing sales pitch. As recently as September 2018, Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said that the Air Force needed to prioritize buying fifth-generation aircraft.

"We are currently 80 percent fourth-gen aircraft and 20 percent fifth-generation aircraft,” she said at the time. "In any of the fights that we have been asked to plan for, more fifth-gen aircraft make a huge difference, and we think that getting to 50-50 means not buying new fourth-gen aircraft, it means continuing to increase the fifth generation.”

But, Goldfein said Saturday that the decision to possibly refresh the F-15 fleet comes down to the need for more fighters in service, regardless of generation.

“They complement each other,” he said. “They each make each other better.”

When asked if that meant compromising for quantity over quality, he said that would not be the case.

“We’ve got to refresh the F-15C fleet because I can’t afford to not have that capacity to do the job and the missions.” Goldfein explained. “That’s what this is all about. If we’re refreshing the F-15C fleet, as we’re building up the F-35 fleet, this is not about any kind of a trade.”

He added that Air Force needs to buy 72 fighters a year to get to the amount they need in the future — and to drive average aircraft age down from 28 years to 15 years. And while Goldfein might want all 72 to be fifth generation F-35s, budgetary concerns likely won’t let that happen.

“If we had the money, those would be 72 F-35s. But we’ve gotta look at this from a cost/business case.” he explained. “An F-15 will never be an F-35. Never. But I need capacity.”
 
about two years ago, Feb 21, 2017
now I read
Wargames This Year To Inform Future Surface Combatant Requirements
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I would've thought the USN had outfoxed itself enough with the LCS Project, but it seems the USN is going to outfox itself some more: by going unmanned!!
, and
Navy Pursuing ‘Surface Development Squadron’ to Experiment with Zumwalt DDGs, Unmanned Ships
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
What the Heck?! Thread (Closed)
so here:

"The cold spray process works by blasting a combination of metal powder and inert gas – usually hydrogen or nitrogen – at a ship’s component at supersonic velocity."

inside
25 January 2019
News
US NAVSEA develops cold spray technique for ship maintenance
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"blasting ... inert gas ... hydrogen ... at supersonic velocity"

tell me they didn't confuse hydrogen with argon or something
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
A video of all three F-35s that I have in 1/72 scale, including a good write up about the progress of the prgram and the numbers and disposition of the aircraft that have been built and spread out to our partner countries.

Foreign nations now have 140 F-35s and the US has about 325 of all three types, including 102 USMC and 52 fr the US Navy to date, the rest being for the SUSAF.

@TerraN_EmpirE @bd popeye @Obi Wan Russell @Deino @asif iqbal @Equation


Take a look and please spread the video around if you are so inclined.
 

Top