US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

pretty critical, but interesting
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Lost in much of the initial coverage of the $80 billion Long Range Strike Bomber about specs and jobs is that the contract award is the latest step forward in an unnecessary and unsustainable projected spending binge to rebuild the U.S. nuclear arsenal in its current image.

According to a January 2015 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, the direct costs of the administration’s plans for nuclear forces will total about $350 billion between fiscal 2015 and fiscal 2024. This is just the tip of the spending iceberg, as most of these modernization programs are still in the research and development phase. Over the next 30 years, the bill could add up to $1 trillion, according to three separate independent estimates.

In addition to the Long Range Strike Bomber, the Pentagon’s plans to rebuild the “triad” of nuclear delivery systems over the next 20 years include nearly $140 billion to design and build a new fleet of ballistic missile submarines (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
), at least $62 billion on a replacement for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
ICBM system, $20 billion to $30 billion on a new fleet of nuclear-capable
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, and additional tens of billions on improved nuclear command and control systems and refurbished nuclear warheads and their infrastructure.

Cost overruns, a far from uncommon occurrence in Pentagon and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) budgeting, could well drive these projections even higher.

What is most puzzling about this all-of-the-above approach it that it would leave the United States with a larger arsenal than President Obama says is needed for U.S. security.

Though the president and his military advisers have determined that the deployed strategic nuclear arsenal can be reduced by up to one-third below the 2010 U.S.-Russia New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) levels of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads and 700 deployed strategic delivery systems, the proposed spending is based on maintaining the New START levels in perpetuity.

Some observers argue that
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and actions means the United States shouldn’t consider altering its current nuclear force posture and planning. However, both the United States and Russia maintain more nuclear weapons than they need for their security. Small numerical advantages by either side would not change the fundamental deterrence equation.

Moreover, every dollar Washington spends to maintain a bloated nuclear arsenal is a dollar that can’t be spent on military capabilities more relevant to countering Russia and assuring U.S. allies. It is not in the U.S. interest to engage in a tit for tat race with the Russians to rebuild an excessively large nuclear force.

Meanwhile, military leaders continue to warn that the United States faces an cash crunch in the near future when it comes to sustaining and modernizing nuclear forces. “[W]e do have a huge affordability problem with that basket of [nuclear weapons] systems,” said Frank Kendall, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics, in April 2015. “It is starting to poke itself into the [future years defense plan] — the five-year plan now. And we’re trying to address it.”

What makes the growing cost to sustain the nuclear mission so worrisome for military planners is that costs are scheduled to peak during the 2020s and overlap with a large bow wave in projected spending on conventional weapon system modernization programs.

Though no one knows for sure what the military budget will look like after the expiration of the Budget Control Act, it seems unlikely that there will be enough money to fund all of the military’s nuclear and conventional modernization plans, especially during the decade of the 2020s when costs are expected to peaksubm.

Prioritizing the nuclear mission could thus do serious damage to conventional capabilities and other national security programs. For example, the Navy is fretting that without supplemental funding from outside its budget, the cost to develop and build the next generation ballistic missile submarine (ORP) fleet will crater the rest of its shipbuilding budget. Advocates of the new bomber are also worried about funding the program, and have begun to echo the Navy in calling for a special funding stream separate from the Air Force budget.

Now is the time for the White House and Congress to chart a more realistic path for our nuclear arsenal. New START is scheduled to expire in 2021. It’s likely that Washington and Moscow will seek an arrangement to replace it. Given the need for a follow-on pact will coincide with the projected emergence of the nuclear budget bow wave, it would be unwise to proceed full steam ahead with the current plans, which would constrain the force sizing options available to the next president.

As the Arms Control Association highlighted in our October 2014 report, “
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,” there are numerous options to responsibly reshape current plans.

For example, the White House could announce it has determined that U.S. deterrence requirements do not require current plans to spend at least $62 billion to buy a new fleet of some 642 land-based ICBMs to support a deployed force of 400, and will instead base a follow-on program to support the deployment of a smaller fleet of 300 ICBMs.

In addition, as former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry has proposed, the President could halt plans for 1,000 to 1,100 new nuclear-capable Air Launched Cruise Missiles, which would cost some $20 billion to $30 billion.

The Pentagon has failed to provide compelling reasons why it needs a new penetrating bomber armed with both a nuclear gravity bomb and standoff missile in order to meet the nuclear deterrence requirements of the United States and its allies. This requirement is redundant and unnecessary.

Despite warnings from senior officials that the current modernization plans are unsustainable, the Obama administration and Congress have for the most part failed to make common-sense adjustments. They can and should trim back, and in some cases, forgo redundant and costly systems.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Janiz

Senior Member
From what I understand this is a conservative estimation of the boats submerged speed.
Well, when it comes to naval vessels it's all estimation when it comes to top speed. Even more when we come to submarines. An eye of a naval engineer could see more or less from the hull but can't calculate it without a big +/- error bar. Not mention that it even varies from ship to ship in the same class sometimes to some meaningful results (getting this from the data of older warships that has been already revealed). It's all secret.
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Army have ordered 12 UH-72A for a total of 412, 338 delivered.

The US Army has ordered another dozen Airbus Helicopters UH-72As as it stands up initial-entry rotary wing training at Fort Rucker, Alabama.
Valued at $66 million, the contract options will be delivered from the final assembly plant in Columbus, Mississippi, starting in August 2017.

The additional orders are welcome news to Airbus Helicopters’ US-registered business unit, which has been trying with some success expand its Lakota customer base and shore up production in Columbus beyond 2017.

According to a company spokesman, the order brings the army’s total purchase to 412 and secures production through the end of 2017, with a funded backlog of an additional 74 aircraft.

To date, Airbus has delivered 338 Lakotas to the army; five of five orders have been received by the US Navy; and the Royal Thai Army now has its six examples.
Resulting from the Army’s controversial army aviation restructure initiative, the service is outfitting 187 new and existing UH-72A as primary trainers to replace the Bell Helicopter TH-67 Creek.

Airbus says more than 50 Lakotas are already stationed at Fort Rucker, ready to assume the new UH-72A-based training curriculum starting early 2016.

“The army has said it intends to station 187 Lakotas at Fort Rucker for the training program and had indicated that they would procure 100 new aircraft as part of that plan, and would transfer aircraft from other army units,” Airbus Helicopters explains in an email.

The army’s initial requirement in 2006 was for 322 of the light, twin-engine general-purpose helicopters, and the US Navy joined the Lakota programme in 2012 with five orders to support test pilot training at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland.

“Time and again the UH-72A has proven to be the most cost-effective solution to meet a wide variety of needs for the US military and our allies,” says Airbus Group Inc. chairman and chief executive Allan McArtor. “The army’s flawless execution of the Lakota program has proven that even in today’s challenging defence acquisition environment, there are success stories for the taxpayer and warfighter alike.”

Based on the Turbomeca Arriel 1E2-powered commercial Airbus H145, UH-72A is designed to carry two pilots and six passengers 370nm and has a hover ceiling of 11,300ft.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Carrier USS Harry S. Truman to Deploy to Middle East on Monday

The Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group (CSG) — centered on nuclear aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-71) — is slated to depart Naval Station Norfolk on Monday to join the U.S. led coalition against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS or ISIL).

The Truman CSG deployment will include guided missile cruiser USS Anzio (CG-68) and guided-missile destroyers USS Bulkeley (DDG-84), USS Gravely (DDG-107) and USS Gonzalez (DDG-66) as well as Carrier Air Wing 7.

“While deployed, the strike group will serve in the U.S. 5th and 6th Fleet areas of responsibility conducting maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts,” read a Friday statement from U.S. Fleet Forces.

The news of the Monday deployment comes a month after the Theodore Roosevelt CSG left U.S. 5th Fleet and U.S. Central Command leaving the region without a U.S. carrier in the area for the first time in years.

When air strikes began against ISIS in 2014, U.S. carriers were the centerpiece of Operation Inherent Resolve while the U.S. secured allies and airfields for land-based airstrikes against ISIS.

The gap between Roosevelt and Truman — which will probably be about two months — will likely be a more common occurrence as the Navy catches up with more than decade of differed maintenance on its carrier forces.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
for Truman prompted the Truman CSG and the Eisenhower CSG to swapped places in their planned deployments.

On Friday, the Navy announced the Roosevelt CSG had chopped into U.S. 3rd Fleet in route bound for its new homeport at Naval Station San Diego, Calif.

The move is part of a three carrier swap that deployed USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) to Japan and sent USS George Washington (CVN-73) to begin its midlife refueling in Newport News, Va.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

strehl

Junior Member
Registered Member
An anti-cruise missile defense test using a Patriot PAC 3 missile with control from an integrated air and missile defense computer using radar inputs from both the Patriot ground station and a Sentinel radar (a mobile ground based air defense radar). The description of the video indicates the IAMDS computer directed and guided the PAC 3 to the intercept. I would have thought a PAC 2 missile (proximity fused warhead) might have been used for a low/slow target but I guess they wanted to see how well a direct impact could be executed.

 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
P-8i get a MAD and not USN P-8A curious why ? some disadvantages ?
MAD systems are well proven sub hunters, even non magnetic hulled submarines can be spotted by them. The down side is that they have a shallow range, the Aircraft has to be low over the water to detect a fairy shallow target. The USN decided that based upon threats' and past issues related to flying low altitude P8 should operate at a higher altitude and use more advanced sensors including its powerful radar which can also pierce the waves and spot subs. Farther more the Usn is said to be developing a number of Drones with MAD sensors that can network with P8
 
Top