US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Jura said:

... related:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

EDIT
according to the article Brumby posted (the link above), the SECNAV said about LCSs:
“They are longer, faster, heavier, more maneuverable than many destroyers in the world today.”

"longer" ... did he refer to "length" (around 400 ft for LCS)??
"heavier" ... did he refer to "displacement" (around 3500 t, full for LCS)??

Click to expand...

I agree with that assessment. More ships will actually mitigate the chances of a global conflict and this is bad because ships are getting to be fewer and fewer these days. This is primarily driven by cost. When ea unit cost upwards of $1 billion there are only so many you can build.

USAF had the 9th C-5M Super Galaxy delivered in 2015

It was the last unit which covered 32 x C-5M units now upgraded

Brumby said:

The recent US/Iran boat incident is also a reminder that presence is insufficient when your adversary knows that you are unwilling to exercise power when it is needed. That action wasn't simply about commandeering two tiny boats. It was challenging the might of the US and the administration spin it as a good outcome. The problem always reside at the top and so is the solution. It is not posture nor presence but resolve.

Click to expand...

When Reagan was challenged, he used the US Navy to ravage the Iranians in Operation Preying Mantis...and they did not bother him again...or any US vessels for a long time.

Now, when it is clear Obama will not exercise power, they not only get away with it...the people in the U.S. State Department thank them for it.

If you have the ships, adversaries have to know that you by God will use them if you want their presence to help detract from war.

Otherwise...they are a paper tiger.

asif iqbal said:

USAF had the 9th C-5M Super Galaxy delivered in 2015

It was the last unit which covered 32 x C-5M units now upgraded

Click to expand...

I saw one flying over my home above Sagamihara, Japan.
That is one hell of a transport.

asif iqbal said:

USAF had the 9th C-5M Super Galaxy delivered in 2015

It was the last unit which covered 32 x C-5M units now upgraded

Click to expand...

Let's not pass without showing one of those big boys!



The C-5M upgrade included:

- New General Electric F138-GE-100 (CF6-80C2) engines (22% more thrust per engine)
- New Pylons
- New auxiliary power units
- Upgrades to aircraft skin and frame
- Upgrades to aircraft landing gear
- New Cockpit
- New Pressurization system

Along with the newer equipment and service life extension, these changes result in a 30% shorter takeoff, a 38% higher climb rate, increased cargo load and longer range.

This was after all 71 remaining aircraft went through the Avionics Modernization Program (AMP)upgrade starting in 1998That upgrade took upgraded the avionic to be Global Air Traffic Management compliant, improved communications, gave the aircraft all new flat panel displays, improved the navigation and safety equipment, and installed a new autopilot system.

Now the upgrade shown above will be for 32 aircraft. The force is intended to be reduced to 52 aircraft overall by 2017 and at that point I would nt be surprised to see the other 20 aircraft go to the Super Galaxy mode. But we will have to wait and see.

I have a close friend who was a USAF Master Chief in maintenance who worked on the C-5s.

GREAT aircraft!

Jeff Head said:

When Reagan was challenged, he used the US Navy to ravage the Iranians in Operation Preying Mantis...and they did not bother him again...or any US vessels for a long time.

Now, when it is clear Obama will not exercise power, they not only get away with it...the people in the U.S. State Department thank them for it.

If you have the ships, adversaries have to know that you by God will use them if you want their presence to help detract from war.

Otherwise...they are a paper tiger.

Click to expand...

On the other hand, Reagan, in his second term, also engaged with Gorbachev to address Soviet Union's important security concerns. The move was anathema with Neocons who accused him of appeasement, but history proved Reagan right.

The moral of the stroy is Reagan was absolutely correct on "peace through strength," and US having a military second to none. He was also wise enough to understand other great powers also have important national interests, and even the strongest superpower ignores them at its own peril.

Blackstone said:

On the other hand, Reagan, in his second term, also engaged with Gorbachev to address Soviet Union's important security concerns. The move was anathema with Neocons who accused him of appeasement, but history proved Reagan right.

The moral of the stroy is Reagan was absolutely correct on "peace through strength," and US having a military second to none. He was also wise enough to understand other great powers also have important national interests, and even the strongest superpower ignores them at its own peril.

Click to expand...

Well, IMHO, in coming to those agreements with Gorbachev, Regan had demonstrated his ability and willingness to use the power he had to protect US national interests...it is one of the reasons hew was able to effectively negotiate with Gorbachev and achieve what he did.

Ultimately, with himself and Thatcher exercising their strength, and also Reagan having taking the measures he did which strengthened the U.S. economy while the USSR's economy was failing, he was thus in a very strong negotiating positon and yet willing to sit down and talk o that he could use that position...IMHO, this was one of the principle set of circumstances that led to and precipitated the fall of the USSR.

Jeff Head said:

Well, IMHO, in coming to those agreements with Gorbachev, Regan had demonstrated his ability and willingness to use the power he had to protect US national interests...it is one of the reasons hew was able to effectively negotiate with Gorbachev and achieve what he did.

Ultimately, with himself and Thatcher exercising their strength, and also Reagan having taking the measures he did which strengthened the U.S. economy while the USSR's economy was failing, he was thus in a very strong negotiating positon and yet willing to sit down and talk o that he could use that position...IMHO, this was one of the principle set of circumstances that led to and precipitated the fall of the USSR.

Click to expand...

Correct and we agree. But, something is missing.

Reagan realized for a plethora of social, geopolitical, economic, and military reasons, the Soviet Union was unstable and unsustainable. And in his second term, he realized NATO, US, and other Western nations were in such advantageous positions, they had the strength to reach out to the Soviets and address their concerns without risking core Western interests and security. That's the genius of Reagan we don't see in US leaders today.

How did Reagan reach his eventual position to address the Soviets' security interests? The great man gave us the answer in his autobiography, An American Life, where he wrote:

"The Pentagon said at least 150 million American lives would be lost in a nuclear war with the Soviet Union — even if we 'won.' For Americans who survived such a war, I couldn't imagine what life would be like..."

He said the West could be safer by addressing reasonable Soviet core interests, but hawks in Congress, Pentagon, and policy making circles saw that as "appeasement" and were against it. Reagan overruled them and went ahead anyway. The rest is history.

Blackstone said:

Correct and we agree. But, something is missing.

Reagan realized for a plethora of social, geopolitical, economic, and military reasons, the Soviet Union was unstable and unsustainable. And in his second term, he realized NATO, US, and other Western nations were in such advantageous positions, they had the strength to reach out to the Soviets and address their concerns without risking core Western interests and security. That's the genius of Reagan we don't see in US leaders today.

How did Reagan reach his eventual position to address the Soviets' security interests? The great man gave us the answer in his autobiography, An American Life, where he wrote:

"The Pentagon said at least 150 million American lives would be lost in a nuclear war with the Soviet Union — even if we 'won.' For Americans who survived such a war, I couldn't imagine what life would be like..."

He said the West could be safer by addressing reasonable Soviet core interests, but hawks in Congress, Pentagon, and policy making circles saw that as "appeasement" and were against it. Reagan overruled them and went ahead anyway. The rest is history.

Click to expand...

Quite true... Contrary to popular beliefs these days Reagan was not a warhawk. He was assertive and used force whe needed however he was not one to go in guns blazing when other means were available even if those were far and few between. He knew the soviet economy was not sustainable at that time and used it to strengthen our own military's might and to pressure the soviet's to 'open' up. He also made a friend in Gorbachev and that necessitated the things which forge the path to the eventual breakup and the fall.

He was smart to realized Gorbachev was someone he could work with instead of working against and he was succesful in forging a good political partnership with him over the years. None of that would've happened if Reagan was a warmonger and threaten to push the perverbial red button at every chance he got which many at that time were only too eager to do on both sides of the pond.

On CVN 76 there is a plaque which bears his name and his motto which states Peace through strength. He kept the military strong because he wanted peace more than anything and knew it must only be used as a last resort.