US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
... this explains... so much. lolz
Problem is with the tone / general standpoint of the report.
The military doesn't issue a critical analysis / comparison, rather they try to sell the plane like they own child.

Russian MOD suing the suppliers, there is not so much involvement of the jurisdiction in the country of million lawyers.

Indeed.

Supersonic antiship missiles work like a bazooka. The whole thing is intended to defeat spaced armor, e.g. bulkheads.

The fuse is that the bottom of the penetrator, which is a sharp armored shell. On impact, the fuse ignites from the bottom which will force the penetrator forward. The plume is shaped to concentrate the energy forward in a narrow cone. The short phrase for it is a shaped charge. The antiship missile is essentially a giant antitank missile.

So, there is same confusion here.

1. an MBT has a meter equivalent of rolled steel of frontal protection. If you divide the mass with length * height of a ship then the value will be in the range of a meter iron, means to punch a hole across example a Nimitz class require less energy than to penetrate the frontal armour of an MBT. Considering that the best part of it is structural iron, machinery, fuel, water, humans supply and so on the actual rolled steel equivalence will be maybe half compared to the MBT.
2. Due to the first the supersonic warhead can penetrate the ship 50-100 meter deep

The bazooka and the supersonic missile works with different principle.

The supersonic missile works like a good, old fashioned battleship main gun shell, only difference is the jacket to explosive ratio is lower , due to the non-existing armour.

For the bazooka the penetration deep defined by the DIAMETER of the shaped charge, for the penetration rod by the length and square of density difference, and due to the point 1 the penetration deep can be extreme without any heavy metal.

But up to 1km/sec the energy of impact is way lower than the force of explosion.


Your point was to indicate your typical bias. I am well aware of.
I mean how many accidents has the Kuz had now? I mean there was the fire what covered 600 meters on her to.
Before that the Dry dock and the other fire from 2009 pardon me if I got confused on the individual incidents.
Or the Kilo submarine fires in Vladivostok... The Lohshairk Fire.
But safety culture... like the times a Soyuz was discovered to have a hole drilled in it? That safety culture? The Kursk? Chernobyl?

As a baseline to compare the general safety culture of a US company to a Russian one can lead to a laughable outcome ,considering the litigation opportunities in the two country in the case of a workplace accident.


But in this case the different outcomes of the two accident could be attributed to the next possible root causes:
1. sheer luck.
2. Different ship design . The russians always preferred the more robust design capable to withstand more battle damage
3. Due to the fast operation tempo the USA allowed more compressed schedule, it lead to the cramped workplace shared by many contractors, blocked doors and so on. It increased the risk for the USA NAVY, other side the Russians gave more time for the suppliers to finish the ship, so there was less worker, blockage and combustible material on the ship.

Now, by the reports the ship was full with oil, cardboard, equipment of marines and so on , so the no 3 is the most probable reason, followed by the no2 .
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
First why is this here? Oh wait LoLz. Trolling. Look at the dates it’s over 3 years out of date. Hardly news.
yes it out lines problems but again 3 years out of date. And every program has problems just remember the first SU57 unit that crashed.
So, there is same confusion here.

1. an MBT has a meter equivalent of rolled steel of frontal protection. If you divide the mass with length * height of a ship then the value will be in the range of a meter iron, means to punch a hole across example a Nimitz class require less energy than to penetrate the frontal armour of an MBT. Considering that the best part of it is structural iron, machinery, fuel, water, humans supply and so on the actual rolled steel equivalence will be maybe half compared to the MBT.
which doesn’t mean dick as 1) No one has built a Carrier like a battle ship and 2) the missile isn’t a solid penetrator.
2. Due to the first the supersonic warhead can penetrate the ship 50-100 meter deep
what where are you getting that? If you mean vs a bunker that’s one thing but that would be a top down approach.
The bazooka and the supersonic missile works with different principle.
yet here you are trying to make a ATGM a scaled down ASM
The supersonic missile works like a good, old fashioned battleship main gun shell, only difference is the jacket to explosive ratio is lower , due to the non-existing armour.
no and yes and absolutely not. No as the trajectory is wrong. Yes as no one builds like battle ships but still no as the principal is still wrong. Battle ships shells had heavier warheads.
For the bazooka the penetration deep defined by the DIAMETER of the shaped charge, for the penetration rod by the length and square of density difference, and due to the point 1 the penetration deep can be extreme without any heavy metal.
except the penetration rod isn’t the mass of the missile and warhead are smaller. The effect may penetrate but saying it would have the same energy across the whole of the ship is ludicrous.
But up to 1km/sec the energy of impact is way lower than the force of explosion.
true

As a baseline to compare the general safety culture of a US company to a Russian one can lead to a laughable outcome ,considering the litigation opportunities in the two country in the case of a workplace accident.
Of course not factoring corruption or cover ups common in the Russian system.
But in this case the different outcomes of the two accident could be attributed to the next possible root causes:
1. sheer luck.
2. Different ship design . The russians always preferred the more robust design capable to withstand more battle damage
3. Due to the fast operation tempo the USA allowed more compressed schedule, it lead to the cramped workplace shared by many contractors, blocked doors and so on. It increased the risk for the USA NAVY, other side the Russians gave more time for the suppliers to finish the ship, so there was less worker, blockage and combustible material on the ship.

Now, by the reports the ship was full with oil, cardboard, equipment of marines and so on , so the no 3 is the most probable reason, followed by the no2 .
Factor 1 is correct factor 2 is a laughable how many carriers or LHA do the Russians have again? Oh 1 that has had two severe fires. Has languished as a dock queen for years now and has as spotty a record as one can think of. Factor 3 The key system needed to control that fire was the fire suppression system which at the time was under repair. This falls into the category of dumb luck.

Incidentally USS Kearsarge (LHD-3) an other Wasp class also suffered a fire last week caused. It was cases during welding and put out rapidly with minimal damage as it was put out quickly. A stop work order was issued by the Navy and Lockheed Martin is doing a safety review. Litigation IE Law Suits is only a solution to problems if the parties want to try and prevent future problems but often only ends in pay offs and happy lawyers. The problem is often the problems that be are not the contractor but the program managers. If the problem is with the service and not the service provider than the safety problems persist and all the law suits do is serve to cover up the problems well money is shuffled back and forth. The old Russian Adage is the Fish rots from the head first.
 

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member


Ok, so try to summarise : the length of the Nimitz is 300 m , the full height is around 40 m
300*40=12000 square meter.

IF you divide 100 000 ton mass of ship with 12 000 then the result will be 8. something .

This is aprox one meter of iron.

So, simplifying, if the whole ship compressed into a silhouette then it will be a meter thick metal plate.

A half steel density , two meter long supersonic penetrator can go 50 meter deep, if the density increase or the length increase it can go further proportionality.

A three meter long, tungsten encapsulated explosive can go halfway in the length of the ship.



And generally, about the USA NAVY, in the past three years they had two big accident involving loss of life and heavy damage to the ship, both of them contributed to the overstretched operation tempo and lack of funding .

Now here is the next ,when the navy badly wanted to get back as fast as possible a ship.

This is the same patter.

Lack of money , too many deployment of the ships , not enough time for training, maintenance, too much risk taken in every area.

After the mishaps of McCain/Fitzgerald I presume they increased the training time, maybe with designating bit more personel, but the maintenance issues doesn't fixed.
Check this :
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Seeking to ease the burden on public shipyards, the Navy turned to HII’s Newport News yard for the maintenance, but those jobs also fell behind. Overhauls for the Los Angeles-class attack submarines Helena and Columbus are behind by 12-18 months, as Newport News balances work on the Virginia class with preparations for the Columbia class and a new maintenance requirement.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[/quote]
WASHINGTON — In four years, one ship maintenance center was only able to complete three out of 24 ship repairs on time, despite a new contracting strategy aimed at improving delays, according to a new report. [/quote]
REMARK : of course, you feel deeply down that the USA navy is superior, noble and perfect, not comparable to anything on earth. So, if something showing different picture your gut telling to you the picture is wrong, and you goes into defensive mode try to drop anything to defend your faith : ) no prob, mate, lot of people behave like this : )
Your answer doesn't carry any information/data/logic, just simple quick gut reactions : )
 

Khalij e Fars

Junior Member
Registered Member
7 Marines, [1] sailor presumed dead

The eight U.S. service members who went missing after their landing craft went down in hundreds of feet of water off the Southern California coast following an accident are presumed dead, officials said early Sunday.

The rescue operation for the seven Marines and one sailor has been called off and now is a recovery mission, officials said.

Helicopters and boats ranging from inflatables to a Navy destroyer searched a roughly 200-square-mile area for the Marines and Navy corpsman.

Sixteen U.S. service members were aboard the amphibious assault vehicle that had just completed a training exercise when it began taking on water about a half-mile from Navy-owned San Clemente Island, off San Diego.

The 26-ton, tank-like craft quickly sank in hundreds of feet of water — too deep for divers — making it difficult to reach.

One of eight Marines rescued from the water later died.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Total deaths from this incident are 9 deaths (8 US Marines + 1 US Sailor), with 7 survivors (2 of which are in critical condition).
 

10thman

New Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
On August 7, when the next stage of the competition starts, they’ll work problems on a tabletop satellite called a FlatSat, which is basically a terrestrial replica of the hardware and software you’d find on a real orbiter. Then, if they succeed, they’ll get to try to type their way into an actual space satellite.

As cyber-conflict scholar Will Akoto of the University of Denver pointed out in a February op-ed for Undark, “there are currently no cybersecurity standards for satellites and no governing body to regulate and ensure their cybersecurity,” and no organization to enforce standards anyway. (Two of the more egregious instances he points out: In 1998, hackers got to an astronomical satellite called ROSAT and pointed its solar panels directly at the sun, ruining it. And in 2007 and 2008, hackers gained access to NASA and US Geological Survey sats.)

The US military and intelligence communities are also increasingly worried about conflict in space, often citing—as this Defense Intelligence Agency document does—China’s and Russia’s alleged development of directed-energy weapons, signal jammers, anti-satellite missiles, satellites that can scoot up close to other satellites and robotically mess with them, and, yes, cyber skills.

That vulnerability, plus a fear of impending attack, explain why the Air Force and the Defense Digital Service dreamed up Hack-a-Sat: so they can learn about holes and bugs before someone exploits them, and so they can foster the talent that could patch things up if someone does maliciously access a satellite. “That’s where we started,” says Clair Koroma of the Defense Digital Service, who helped organize Hack-a-Sat. “We give this community access to a satellite in a way that they never would have had before, and we get to learn all of the nuances, and all of the vulnerabilities, that we weren’t anticipating. And we get to mitigate those.”

After testing and perfecting that code on their FlatSat, the team with the most accurate, efficient, and timely solution will get to issue commands to the real satellite, sometime in a 24-hour window, and take a lunar portrait. “A literal moon shot,” says Roper (a former string theorist who’s now assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology, and logistics, and who helped organize both last year’s and this year’s military-hosted challenges). A shot that, Roper believes, the organizers would tweet out that day.
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
Looks as if AI is making advancements in the aerial combat sector;
Artificial Intelligence Defeats Human Lockheed F-16 Pilot In Virtual Dogfight
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

An artificial intelligence algorithm defeated a human F-16 fighter pilot in a virtual dogfight sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Thursday.

After two days of competition, the winning algorithm of Darpa's Air Combat Evolution program took on a human pilot in a Lockheed Martin (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
) F-16 simulator Thursday.

Artificial intelligence teams from Boeing (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
) subsidiary Aurora Flight Sciences, EpiSys Science, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Heron Systems, Lockheed Martin, Perspecta Labs, PhysicsAI, and SoarTech entered the competition.

In a semifinal Thursday, Lockheed beat Physics AI. Heron defeated Aurora in the other semifinal and then took down Lockheed in the final. Heron scored five kills vs. zero for the human pilot.


The first round on Tuesday featured each team flying their algorithms vs. adversary AI algorithms. The teams then competed against each other in a round-robin style competition Wednesday.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"Regardless of whether the human or machine wins the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the AlphaDogfight Trials is all about increasing trust in AI," Col. Dan "Animal" Javorsek, the program manager, said in a release earlier this month. "If the champion AI earns the respect of an F-16 pilot, we'll have come one step closer to achieving effective human-machine teaming in air combat, which is the goal of the ACE program."...... to read further, click on the link above.

Basically, US has achieved a step further in developing swarm engagement/6th generation fighter on the battle field.
 

ougoah

Major
Registered Member
Looks as if AI is making advancements in the aerial combat sector;


Basically, US has achieved a step further in developing swarm engagement/6th generation fighter on the battle field.

This is definitely the direction air combat is developing towards. I don't think countries like China and Russia are behind in software at all. Of course there is much less transparency but westerners will of course interpret any Chinese drone swarm tech or AI piloted UCAV as directly stolen from the US since the US reports on it so much while the Chinese do not at all. UAV drone swarm tech has come a long way in China as well with years old videos showing AI controlled drone swarm movements for light shows. It's just a hint this isn't anything that novel or remarkable anymore. Getting a AI to pilot a dog fight is another challenge but the only barrier is intelligence here. I think it's easier than self driving cars. There are fewer factors but higher grade sensors involved. Wouldn't even be surprising if US and China have done very advanced trials in this field.
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
New FFG(X), the new. powerful frigate to be built for the US Navy by Fincantieri Marinette Marine.

I got probably the first 1/350 scale model of the ship from Dutch Miniatures on Shapeways, a 3D ptining out let. The felow who owns Dutch Miniatures did a 3D model for me with the full hull and I bouth 2.

You will see how it came to me and what I did to detail and build her out. Here' the video from my youtube channel:


These large and powerful frigates are being built as a follow-ons for the the two LCS (Littoral Combat Ships), the Freedom and Independence classes, which are much smaller and were plagued by plans to swap out mission modules in a 24-48 time span at local, in theater, or in area of operation shipyards to turn them into Anti-surface, anti-submarine, or anti mine (either laying or detecting mines). As it turned out, the change out was taking one to two weeks, and when the vessels were set for one operation, they were very weak in the others. Particularly in the anti-shipping and anti-aircraft areas. This made them weak companions for aircraft carrier or Amphibious strike groups. In addition, the vessles had a small crew in number.

There was much automation in the ships, but not enough crew, if was felt by naval officers and enlisted men who had been on damaged vessels, to effectively do repair work necessary to keep a stricken vessel afloat and then make her operational, or at least capable of leaving the area of operation to get her repairs. They had envisioned a one to two day turn around the change out mission modules so the vessels could be anti=surface, anti-submarine, or ant-mine vessels within the time frame was, as it turned out, the change was taking one to two weeks which was not acceptable, and the size of the crew, being able to be made small because of all of the automation that allowed fewer crew members, but which was viewed as insufficient to allow necessary repair work at sea so the ship could either get back to a friendly port, or keep fighting if it could. So, instead of the originally planned 55 ships of the two classes together, it has now been decided to built about 35 or 36 of the ships, and now build twenty of these larger frigates which will have a smaller AEGIS and AEGIS sensors to allow tem to perform, or have Cooperative Engagement (CE) performed on them.

This means that the vessels can take advantage of the much more powerful AEGIS systeme on the larger Burke class AEGIS destroyers, orr even larger and more powerful Ticonderoga class AEGIS cruisers. The first ship will be laid down in 2021 and expected to be launched later in 2022, and then become initially operational in 2023, by which time the second ship, will be launching. The pennant numbers are expected to start with FFG-80, and originally it was leaked that they could be the Brooke class, after first true guided missile frigates (FFG) class, the Brooke class, built in the 1960s. The Navy has since announced that the Brooke name would NOT be the name for the frigates, but did not indicate that the pennant numbers were wrong.

Here are some more pics:

FFGX USS Brooke FFG-80-001.JPGFFGX USS Brooke FFG-80-002.JPGIMG_8759.JPGIMG_8764.JPGIMG_8766.JPG

When the second one is finished I will create a vidoe of them together with two Burkes, one Tico CN, and one or two SSNs...of course along with the USS ROnald Reagan all in 1/350th scale.

Also, I expect to get a model of the JMSDF Kaga, DDH-184 with the ski-jump attached and carrying 24 F-35Bs. It will also be a full hull model with all of the build out details, and in 1/450 scale. I will create a JMSDF carrier Strike Group with that one with two AEGIS DDGs, two of the newer Akizuki and its follow-on, one Hyuga, to go with it..

Can't wait to get that model.

I do not know how many more I will be able to build. My condition is deteriorating rather quickly now..but I will try and hold on to get that second Izumo completed in 1/350 scale. I think what the US is doing with its LHD/LHSs, what Japan is doing with the two Izumo's, what Korea is doing with its DOkdo carrier, with both of those countries adding two or three more AEGIS destroyers, is an excellent answer to China's buildup of carrier groups. The US will add four new carriers, and Japan and Korea will add four more, all carying a 5th generation stealth fighter.
 
Last edited:

Top