US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


Brumby

Major
AMRAAM size/capability was determined by one single platform, the F-16. Any larger and the plane would struggle to be 100% capable of employing it as its main weapon. On the other hand, this way USAF a2a combat capability managed to get such an incredible boost in the early 1990s, one which, for example, the sparrow-sized missile would struggle to provide.
I would like to see your reference source that posit the view that the AMRAAM choice was a F-16 compatibility restricted determinant. The AMRAAM was a natural development from the deficiencies associated with the Sparrow primarily by the lack of an active terminal homing. While the Phoenix has similar capability, it was not viable as it was six times the cost of the Sparrow. When it came to the development of the AMRAAM, the intend was to ensure a broad application across all the major platforms including with the F-16 unlike that with the Sparrow
 

Jura

General
The public body is just a consumer of information and as such is agnostic on cost. The institution that is constantly shooting itself in the foot is the USN's tendency to low ball on the numbers and consequently breaching budget spending guidelines. I am afraid the same will happen with the FFG (X) program. Given that the specs are now basically defined, I think it is more than likely the FFG (X) will come in at around $1,2 Billion a boat. The threshold of $950 million is not realistic. In comparison, the Type 26 is expected to cost between $1,2 - $1.5 Billion each. Their respective capabilities are very similar. Years ago when the survivability of the LCS was debated, the Navy estimated that it would cost up to $950 million to build the LCS up to the Oliver Perry standard. Currently what is unclear to me is the planned survivability standard of the FFG (X). By compromising on the standard, it might be able to build a cheaper boat but then we are back to a conversion about survivability.

The EASR radar which is basically a nine RMA configuration has been established to be equivalent to the SPY-1 (D) in sensitivity i.e. range. Effectively, the FFG (X) is a mini Burke and will need the power and cooling requirement that comes with such capability. .
in the post you quoted I called out purported future funding of something which hasn't become a program of record yet,

as I suspect that "FFG(X)" could be the way how the USN puts on the brave face on its crippled lighter surface force (crippled by ports full of dysfunctional USN LCSs) now
 

Max Demian

Junior Member
Registered Member
The EASR radar which is basically a nine RMA configuration has been established to be equivalent to the SPY-1 (D) in sensitivity i.e. range. Effectively, the FFG (X) is a mini Burke and will need the power and cooling requirement that comes with such capability.
Actually, the EASR radar will be anywhere near 0.43 SPY-1 sensitivity to 1.4 times the SPY-1 sensitivity. The former assuming the base requirement of SPY-1 +15dB, the latter taking into account the latest statements from Raytheon that SPY-6 exceeds Navy requirements and is 100 times more sensitive than SPY-1. This comes from computing the relative power*gain*aperture product between EASR and SPY-6.
 

Brumby

Major
Actually, the EASR radar will be anywhere near 0.43 SPY-1 sensitivity to 1.4 times the SPY-1 sensitivity. The former assuming the base requirement of SPY-1 +15dB, the latter taking into account the latest statements from Raytheon that SPY-6 exceeds Navy requirements and is 100 times more sensitive than SPY-1. This comes from computing the relative power*gain*aperture product between EASR and SPY-6.
I am quoting Raytheon's official position on this.
upload_2019-6-23_18-4-52.png
 

Brumby

Major
in the post you quoted I called out purported future funding of something which hasn't become a program of record yet,

as I suspect that "FFG(X)" could be the way how the USN puts on the brave face on its crippled lighter surface force (crippled by ports full of dysfunctional USN LCSs) now
A program of record is when contracts are handed out and the spending numbers are locked in. Appropriation starts the process as it naturally precedes the actual program itself. At this stage in the process, the numbers quoted are what the USN is sticking with until they change it.
 

Jura

General
A program of record is when contracts are handed out and the spending numbers are locked in. Appropriation starts the process as it naturally precedes the actual program itself. At this stage in the process, the numbers quoted are what the USN is sticking with until they change it.
you missed (or pretend to have missed) my point which is the Pentagon spin-doctors may be spewing "numbers" to make an impression as if the USN were to get new frigates,

while it's unclear if that FFG(X) will get approved (= FUNDED),

in fact I wouldn't be surprised if the USN ordered more LCSs instead, LOL there's a word I promised Jeff not to use again
 

Brumby

Major
you missed (or pretend to have missed) my point which is the Pentagon spin-doctors may be spewing "numbers" to make an impression as if the USN were to get new frigates,

while it's unclear if that FFG(X) will get approved (= FUNDED),

in fact I wouldn't be surprised if the USN ordered more LCSs instead, LOL there's a word I promised Jeff not to use again
I cannot read minds nor I am in the business of second guessing the USN. I just go with the facts until the facts change. As is, the USN is planning to migrate to a FFG(X) program. The LCS is history.
 

Max Demian

Junior Member
Registered Member
you missed (or pretend to have missed) my point which is the Pentagon spin-doctors may be spewing "numbers" to make an impression as if the USN were to get new frigates,

while it's unclear if that FFG(X) will get approved (= FUNDED),

in fact I wouldn't be surprised if the USN ordered more LCSs instead, LOL there's a word I promised Jeff not to use again
Come on, this cynicism is completely unjustified. There's an overwhelming amount of evidence that the USN is very serious about the FFG(X).
 

Max Demian

Junior Member
Registered Member
I am quoting Raytheon's official position on this.
View attachment 52827
Yes, I know. But the same article where they make that comparison states that SPY-6 has +15dB sensitivity over SPY-1. However, just a month ago the Navy concluded that SPY-6 is in fact 100 times more sensitive than SPY-1:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The scaled down version (24 RMAs) that will be backfitted on the Flight IIA Burke's will be +15dB more sensitive, i.e. equivalent to the original requirement set for SPY-6.
 
Last edited:

Jura

General
Apr 19, 2019
I guess this is related:
The Army has a plan for China, and it’s bad news for JLTV and the Chinook
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
while now
After delay, US Army clears Joint Light Tactical Vehicle for full-rate production
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The U.S. Army has approved the Oshkosh-built
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
after a roughly six-month delay, according to a June 21 announcement.

Full-rate production for the JLTV was pushed from an original schedule of December 2018 out to May this year due to a number of changes to the Humvee replacement.

The Army decided to make a series of alterations as the result of soldier feedback, including a larger back window and the addition of a muffler. The approach was designed to minimize the cost and quantity of the vehicles that would need to be retrofitted, the vehicle’s program office told Defense News at the time.

The decision to delay the full-rate production did not stop the service from beginning to field 300 of the new vehicles to the Army’s 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Georgia, making it the first unit equipped with the vehicle in April 2019.

“We are also grateful for soldier feedback on new features and enhancements,” Jeffrey White, the Army acquisition chief’s principal deputy said in the Army announcement. “The Soldiers of the 1st ABCT, 3rd Infantry Division provided valuable input on enhancements such as increased situational awareness, reduction of system noise, a troop seat kit, and a companion JLTV trailer. Their assessments helped bring us all to a successful Full-Rate Production decision.”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to build the replacement for the Humvee for both the Army and the Marine Corps. The low-rate initial production, or LRIP, contract was worth $6.7 billion, and the entire program is estimated to be worth $30 billion through 2024.

“Important insights from manufacturing and rigorous developmental and operational test during LRIP contributed to shaping the vehicle’s current configuration,” George Mansfield, vice president and general manager of joint programs for Oshkosh Defense, said in a statement sent to Defense News.

“The program remains on schedule and on budget, and ensures our troops have the protection, connection, and extreme off-road mobility they need today for current and future battlefields. The JLTV is the only light tactical vehicle being fielded today that can maneuver within combat formations,” he said.

At the time of the LRIP award, a total of 49,100 JLTVs were planned for the Army, not including what the Marine Corps is planning to buy as well as a small number for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and Navy.

The service cut its
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in its fiscal 2020 budget request by 863 vehicles. The Army procured 3,393 vehicles in FY19 in LRIP but only plans to buy 2,530 vehicles in FY20. The Army originally planned in its FY19 request to buy 3,035 vehicles in FY20.

It is
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Army Secretary Mark Esper said at the time the FY20 budget rolled out that the vehicle was designed and procured in “the context of Afghanistan and Iraq,” and hence was just not as relevant anymore when applied to the fresh National Defense Strategy now guiding Army investment.

“We are certainly cutting the total number” of JLTV procurement, Esper said. “I know that much. But whether it settles out, finals out right here, today, I can’t tell you. In five years, I could maybe have a different number for you.”

While the JLTV was designed for the counterinsurgency fight — a light vehicle with the protection to endure the blast of an improvised explosive device much like mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles — Oshkosh has used the JLTV’s highly configurable design to increase firepower options on board a JLTV and to protect it from missile and rocket attacks.

Over the past three years, it integrated remote weapon systems, a lightweight 30mm cannon paired with a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun, a Javelin integration kit, several .50-caliber machine guns, and a lightweight automatic chain gun, among other weapon systems.

The
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
have both been
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
for evaluation.

And the Boeing Maneuver Short-Range Air Defense launcher, which was not selected by the Army for its interim SHORAD solution, was also integrated onto the JLTV to include an M3P .50-caliber machine gun, M299 launcher with four Longbow Hellfire missiles, a sensor suite, and a communications suite with the Thales VRC-111.

Now that the Army has approved full-rate production for the JLTV, it is anticipated Foreign Military Sales prospects could begin more rapid materialization. Slovenia has already placed an order for a small number of JLTVs, and it’s likely the United Kingdom as well as Lithuania will be future customers.
 

Top