US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


siegecrossbow

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I wonder how much longer until directed energy weapons become viable anti-missile platforms on the level of Patriot or Russian/Chinese missile based systems? Seems like the power output and size are getting close. No clue how many shots such a system can make before it has to recharge, but if you get like 20 shots in short order that would be very impressive. I imagine both power and cooling are still difficult.
Laser will remain point defense unless mounted on an aerial platform. Cooling is a much bigger issue than power but may be less so when laser efficiency is increased.
 

Sinnavuuty

Junior Member
Registered Member
Sailors assigned to EUCOM are currently testing modular SM-6 vertical launching systems; which are expected to enter service with the army.
The US appears to be waking up to the use of long-range missiles, targeting developments by Russia, China, Iran and other actors.

As an example, the list of US long-range attack missiles.

At the moment -
Earth:
M30/31 90 km
ATACMS 300 km

Naval:
SM-6 360/470 km
Tomahawk 1800 km
Harpoon 130/280 km
NSM 185 km

Plane:
JASSM 360 km
JASSM-ER 1000 km
SLAM-ER 300 km
Harpoon 280 km
HARM 150 km
AARGM 150 km
LRASM 500/1000 km
JSOW-C1 100 km
Storm Breaker 70km
MALD 1000 km


Near future (up to 3-5 years) -
Earth:
GMLRS-ER 150 km +
PrSM 500/650 km
OpFires 1800 km
Tomahawk V 1800km
SM-6 360 km +
SM-6 Block IB 800/1000 km
NSM 185 km
LRASM 500/1000 km
Dark Eagle 3000 km
PrSM-ER 1300 km

Naval:
SM-6 Block IB 800/1000 km
LRASM 500/1000 km
CPS 3000 km

Plane:
JASSM-ER 1800 km
AGM-183A 2000 km
HACM 1000 km
AARGM-ER 400 km
 

Abominable

Captain
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I wonder how much longer until directed energy weapons become viable anti-missile platforms on the level of Patriot or Russian/Chinese missile based systems? Seems like the power output and size are getting close. No clue how many shots such a system can make before it has to recharge, but if you get like 20 shots in short order that would be very impressive. I imagine both power and cooling are still difficult.
DEA weapons have the same problem as AA guns, the further away the drone is the harder it is to shoot it down.

I think the best solution is to intercept them in the sky. Basically what the RAF did against V1s, except with another drone. You could also fly a drone at a specific altitude and use it in a ECW role.
 

Atomicfrog

Senior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I wonder how much longer until directed energy weapons become viable anti-missile platforms on the level of Patriot or Russian/Chinese missile based systems? Seems like the power output and size are getting close. No clue how many shots such a system can make before it has to recharge, but if you get like 20 shots in short order that would be very impressive. I imagine both power and cooling are still difficult.
Laser have still a lot of problems with cloud, fog, smoke and reflective paints. With bigger and bigger laser you will get through but it will be way more costly energy wise. We are talking about mw just to bore through clouds for high altitude targets.
 

Sinnavuuty

Junior Member
Registered Member
Things not so rosy for USAF? Does not address USN/MC air wings:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
This confirms some claims made earlier. For example, in a GAO report it was estimated that the F-22 and KC-130T fleets had the worst results of the eight fleets assessed by the report. Both the US Navy and USAF have struggled to keep some planes ready to fly in recent years, and it's only getting worse, according to each new audit report.

GAO.jpg

It can be clearly seen that overall, the overall readiness percentage is 50%.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The USAF's problem is also political. Much of the USAF's problems are due to the inertia of US congressmen.

Using as an example would be the retirement of the A-10 that was barred. Closing a squadron is much more cost-effective than simply retiring aircraft gradually which is what is really happening with the A-10 fleet, USAF planners wanted to retire everything but Congressmen barred it.

This would free up huge amounts of money to modernize the fighter fleet. Not only that, the DoD motto of “divest to invest” is for all outdated systems sets for present and future warfare, but as always the politicians make the decisions, the fleet problem sinks in as long as it keeps the outdated systems to please a senator's constituency.

If they bar what the USAF planners recommend, congressmen should free up more money and not get stuck in this impasse, because that would end up harming their own national security, because there's simply nothing the USAF can do if it can't do the things itself. recommends.

Now, that report you attached pointed out something I had never imagined or thought of:
The decline in combat power and morale in the Air Force has been self-evident to those paying attention. Flying hours are one of the key barometers to overall readiness, force mentality and esprit de corps. In 1990, Air Force pilots averaged approximately 29 flight hours per month. In fiscal 2021, flying hours across all types of aircraft in the active-duty force averaged 10.1 hours per month, up from just 6.8 per month in 2019.

In decades past, Air Force pilots cited their experience and training as a competitive advantage over greater numbers of technologically improving aircraft fielded by the U.S. adversaries. By 2013, they could no longer boast.

That year, USAF General Herbert Carlisle, commander of Pacific Air Forces, noted that training hours for U.S. pilots had dropped to the level once occupied by Soviet pilots during the Cold War. American pilots flew fewer training hours than Chinese, Indian, or some European pilots. That trend has largely remained, buffeted by other anxiety producing numbers.
The USAF is becoming an air force in readiness and training of a third world force.
 

siegecrossbow

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
This confirms some claims made earlier. For example, in a GAO report it was estimated that the F-22 and KC-130T fleets had the worst results of the eight fleets assessed by the report. Both the US Navy and USAF have struggled to keep some planes ready to fly in recent years, and it's only getting worse, according to each new audit report.

View attachment 97958

It can be clearly seen that overall, the overall readiness percentage is 50%.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The USAF's problem is also political. Much of the USAF's problems are due to the inertia of US congressmen.

Using as an example would be the retirement of the A-10 that was barred. Closing a squadron is much more cost-effective than simply retiring aircraft gradually which is what is really happening with the A-10 fleet, USAF planners wanted to retire everything but Congressmen barred it.

This would free up huge amounts of money to modernize the fighter fleet. Not only that, the DoD motto of “divest to invest” is for all outdated systems sets for present and future warfare, but as always the politicians make the decisions, the fleet problem sinks in as long as it keeps the outdated systems to please a senator's constituency.

If they bar what the USAF planners recommend, congressmen should free up more money and not get stuck in this impasse, because that would end up harming their own national security, because there's simply nothing the USAF can do if it can't do the things itself. recommends.

Now, that report you attached pointed out something I had never imagined or thought of:

The USAF is becoming an air force in readiness and training of a third world force.

10.1 per month includes bombers and transport? I don’t think this is real.
 

Atomicfrog

Senior Member
Registered Member
10.1 per month includes bombers and transport? I don’t think this is real.
IF all their fleet are manned and only half can fly... it's probably a real juggling to be able to get all your flying hours. The advanced fighter fleet T-38 are trying to cope with age and with bureaucratic procurement conundrum of it's replacement, it's quite hard to find alternative for flying hours. In Canada, we are losing many pilots to airlines because they just want to fly with better salary. It will look more of the same in the US soon with pilots looking at better salary and flying hours with civilian airlines. They even cut-off flying hours requirement for candidates...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

''The Air Force is also trying to expand the pool of pilot candidates by decreasing the amount of flight experience needed, encouraging ROTC cadets and enlisted personnel to become pilots by giving them air and ground experience through flight simulators and aviation courses, and accelerating training for civilians with flight experience through the "Civil Path to Wings" program.''
 
Last edited:

Top