US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Jura

General
12 minutes ago
Aug 24, 2019
now
US Air Force to keep A-10 off the chopping block in next budget request
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
related:
The ultimate A-10 — ‘Warthog’ set to be transformed with a raft of upgrades
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Just five years ago, the US Air Force A-10 fleet looked to be dead and buried as the type was offered up for divestment as a cost cutting measure. Yet lawmakers in Washington blocked the USAF from divesting itself of the A-10 and now the ‘Warthog’ looks safe well into the 2030s.

The A-10 Common Fleet Initiative will keep the aircraft alive and credible into the future. The USAF currently has 281 A-10s, so needs to have these available if the call comes for hig-end conflict. From a survivability perspective, the A-10 can move outside some of the threats if its pilots use standoff weapons from longer ranges. The A-10 can then act as a truck that sends weapons in, softening the target area before swinging into its more traditional mission.

A-10 pilots have recently started wearing an improved helmet mounted sight, known as HObIT (Hybrid Optical-based Inertial Tracker), which more accurately tracks pilot head movements. This is an upgrade for the Thales Visionix Scorpion helmet that A-10 pilots have been wearing for the past five years.

Adding the Boeing GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) started this summer, and this gives the A-10 that new standoff capability. With a new multi-target engagement capability, the ‘Warthog’ will theoretically be able to target 18 weapons individually, making it a unique aircraft that fits well into the fourth/fifth-generation mix. ‘We’ll be able to carry four SDBs on a single hardpoint,’ said a 422nd TES pilot, adding that traditionally the ‘Warthog’ has only been able to carry a single weapon on each station until now.

Another plan is to pull out the central ‘six-pack’ of analogue flight instruments in the cockpit and replace this with a single large electronic primary flight display, which will work in conjunction with the two older multi-function color displays. This will likely be combined with a significant core processor upgrade, which will give the A-10 a huge jump in data speed and storage capacity.

There’s a host of other items on the A-10 shopping list including Link 16 data link connectivity to run alongside the existing but rather basic Situational Awareness Data Link (SADL). The type is also receiving a Synthetic Aperture Radar pod to supplement the existing targeting pod capabilities. Ongoing industry solutions are being presented along with currently fielded air force options, and these are expected to be reviewed this winter with flight-testing in 2020.

The air force says the A-10 is safe in the forthcoming Fiscal Year 2021 defense budget, and that while the overall numbers in service may reduce at some point, the ‘Warthog’ is set to not only remain in the inventory, but it will also be transformed into a potent supporter of the fifth-generation front line.
 

Jura

General
inside
Army Studying Whether M1 Tank Replacement Should Be Driver-Optional
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:

"Will that be a 120mm -- or make it up -- will that be a 175mm?" Coffman said.

LOL you'd need to be real strong to quickly handle 7" shells as they weigh about 200 pounds
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
inside
Army Studying Whether M1 Tank Replacement Should Be Driver-Optional
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:

"Will that be a 120mm -- or make it up -- will that be a 175mm?" Coffman said.

LOL you'd need to be real strong to quickly handle 7" shells as they weigh about 200 pounds
Generally above 120mm you would move to an Automatic loader. Those come in two flavors Carousel like those in Russian, Chinese Tanks or Cassette like those in Japanese, French or South Korean K2 tanks.
There was a system trialed for Abrams. Any Abrams replacement would field such. However I doubt going that big even the T14 has yet to get the long hyped 152mm gun.
 

Jura

General
Monday at 7:43 AM
from real world (quoting
Taliban Attack 2nd Afghan City as US Envoy Says Deal Is Near
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)

:


"... U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad ... appeared determined to move forward on a deal that plans the withdrawal of some 14,000 remaining U.S. troops in exchange for Taliban guarantees that Afghanistan will not be used as a launch pad for global attacks."

Jesus Christ!
now 'stan inside
How Not to Run the World
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:

Once upon a time, the American commitment to regularity in meetings and reasoned decision making allowed the rest of the world to sleep a little easier.

The most significant shock to the international order last week—amid the latest Brexit dustups, a North Korean missile test, protests in Hong Kong, and a hurricane in the Caribbean—might have been news of a meeting that did not happen. President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
a briefing on the negotiations to end the Afghan War, The Washington Post
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. After Trump
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Bolton earlier this summer, the latest indignity was further proof that national security adviser is not the job it used to be.

Yet Bolton’s humiliation also signals something more important: The United States is no longer capable of being the global leader it once claimed to be. The national security adviser, the official charged with organizing and integrating all discussions of U.S. foreign policies, has been an essential piece of how the United States has tried to lead the world for more than 70 years, and why the world was willing to be led at all. As a result, the breakdown in the way that Washington works could prove more destabilizing than any of the crises dominating the headlines today.

The U.S. national-security system was created in the aftermath of World War II. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who called himself a “juggler … perfectly willing to mislead and tell untruths it if helps win the war,” led that massive effort with a handful of aides and by the seat of his pants. But that ad hoc style worried many in Washington—and most of Congress, the military brass, and the rest of government agreed it was no way to govern in a postwar world. So Congress created the National Security Council in 1947, bringing everyone into one room for discussions, and a few years later, the White House established the position of national security adviser to coordinate the conversations.

That system evolved over seven decades, but its overarching aim remained consistent: providing a coherent policy-making process for a nuclear-armed superpower that could replace improvisation. Such policy integration did not ensure perfect order in Washington, much less that the choices it made were always right, as the minutes of National Security Council meetings about Vietnam, Iraq, and other crises make clear. But regular order, a predictable rhythm and rigor to how the government made decisions, brought some sanity to Washington—and stability to the world.

After all, the United States sat at the center of nearly every postwar global institution, including NATO, the Bretton Woods economic order, and the United Nations. Foreign nations may not have been able to pick who sat at the table in the Situation Room, but with such immense responsibility shouldered by one country, the American commitment to regularity in meetings and reasoned decision making allowed the rest of the world to sleep a little easier.

This has been especially true since the end of the Cold War, when few could doubt the United States was the most powerful nation on Earth. As the world looked toward Washington at every moment of terrorism, pandemic, financial crisis, and natural disaster, the national security adviser became a trusted intermediary, traffic cop, and triage responder, who knew whom to call, what to ask, and whether the United States could help. Some nations even emulated the American system: National security advisers now chair sessions in India, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere.

President Trump, who lacks any prior experience with government or national security, struggled from the start to find a workable rhythm in this system. Still, leaders in foreign capitals took heart that—despite his ham-handed tweets and incendiary statements—the president was forced to sit in meetings and deal with the questions from his more experienced appointees and Cabinet secretaries. The departure of Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis and others aides, though, has left Trump less constrained: He has begun relying on a shadow National Security Council that includes
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, and a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, and his public and private suggestions that the national security adviser no longer speaks for the president have undermined any remaining sense of order.

Few should pity Bolton, who keeps showing up for work regardless of the latest indignity, but everyone should worry about what his downfall means. Though national security advisers have fallen out of favor before, no one’s time in the doghouse has been this public, this long, or this unlikely to change. Presidential juggling—of personalities, prerogatives, and policy initiatives—is back, but in hands far less nimble than Roosevelt’s.

That unprecedented situation represents a profound breakdown in how the United States has dealt with the world for 70 years. The costs of such a change are more consequential than any damage to Bolton’s professional reputation. The United States has been a legitimate world leader not just because of its power, but because the country took global leadership seriously enough to govern itself. The world the United States—and the national security adviser—helped lead has become richer, healthier, and more peaceful.

Perhaps even more important, the world feels out of control right now in part because no one is in control in Washington. The stability of American leadership was essential to any perception of global order: The world becomes a more frightening and chaotic place without a regular order in the most powerful nation’s government. Indeed, the breakdown at the heart of the U.S. government is a catastrophe unto itself, and one that risks making all the other unfolding global crises far worse than they otherwise might have been.
 

Jura

General
Jul 29, 2019
Jul 18, 2019
related is
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
also related,

"Broadly speaking, if the intent and guidance is implemented, what will happen is that the Marine Corps will shift from putting a single relatively large organization, like a MEU, on a few big expensive amphibious assault ships, to dispersing a larger number of smaller units on more numerous, less expensive ships, and even
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and logistics vessels. Clearly, the Gator Navy will continue to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
for the foreseeable future, it will just look different, and probably smaller overall."

theory and so on and so forth:
Marine Boss's Audacious Plan To Transform The Corps By Giving Up Big Amphibious Ships
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top