US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
This was released April 1st So I sat on it waiting to see what fell from the tree the the monkey or me.
Heckler & Koch to Produce New Army Sniper Rifle
April 6, 2016




Ashburn, Virginia —Heckler & Koch Defense Inc. was awarded a contract worth up to $44.5 million from the U.S. Army for a new compact sniper rifle. The Compact Semi-Automatic Sniper System (CSASS) will provide the service with a small, lightweight, highly accurate weapon, addressing a critical need to replace older and heavier rifles currently in use.

Under terms of the award, HK Defense will produce up to 3,643 rifles. The new HK rifle is a lightweight variant of the 7.62 mm G28 in use by the German Army. The HK CSASS capitalizes on the proven G28 design, meeting the Army’s requirements for accuracy, reliability, and size. Heckler & Koch will also provide spare parts, support, and training to the Army.

“This award represents another significant achievement for Heckler & Koch,”said Wayne Weber, President of Heckler & Koch USA. “The HK CSASS rifle is a substantial upgrade over the Army’s current sniper rifles, enhancing accuracy and reliability while providing for a handier, more compact arm. It also confirms Heckler & Koch as a leader in providing small arms to the U.S. military.”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The CSASS or Compact Semiautomatic Sniper system is a replacement for the M110 Semiautomatic sniper system. No word on configuration, I would almost Guarantee based on the HK 762 A2 which Germany adopted as the G28 rather then the pure Hk417 as the 417 is selective fire well the 762 is semiauto. Barrel length is likey 16 inches with a telescoping stock. OSS makes the Suppressor and Shmidt and Bender are close partners with HK likely tagging them for the Scope. The CSASS is targeted for a overall length of no more then 39 inches and with semiauto means that it would be a perfect package for US Army and USMC infantry as a replacement for the Mk14 and M39 designated marksmen rifles. that said the Marines have been said to be flirting with using the M27 (HK416) as a DMR and IAR Which I find sort of worrying.
West Coast Marines complete first M27 Designated Marksman Course
By Matthew L. Schehl, Marine Corps Times11:56 a.m. EST February 19, 2016

The Marksmanship Training Unit aboard Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms, California, has completed the inaugural Designated Marksman Course for the M27 Infantry Assault Rifle, the first of its kind for West Coast Marine infantrymen.

Over the three-week course that ended Jan. 28, about a dozen Marines in two-man shooter-spotter teams from 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, and 3rd Battalion, 4th Marines, honed their abilities to use the IAR to identify and engage targets up to 600 yards.

As an organic asset supporting tactical movement, riflemen acting as marksmen for a squad need the ability reach out and touch a target, said 1st Lt. Lauren Luther, officer in charge of the marksmanship unit and chief instructor for the course.

“It’s about finding what the Marines ‘doing the do’ — the maneuver units, the rifle companies and rifle platoons — need to be more deadly,” she said. “Marines at the squad level aren’t leaving the wire with match-grade ammunition, good optics or a sniper rifle, they’re leaving the wire with an IAR, green-tip ammunition and a [standard day optic]; [we wanted] to cover down on what they actually need.”

The IAR was initially fielded in December 2010 to replace the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon as the standard automatic weapon within all Marine rifle squads.

635914060183391178-MAR-marksmanship-course-3.JPG

Cpl. Robert Ellis, a rifleman with 3rd Battalion, 4th Marines, spots targets for his shooter. (Photo: Cpl. Julio McGraw/Marine Corps)


At half the weight of the SAW, with a lighter ammunition load and greater accuracy over similar ranges, the IAR gives Marine infantry better mobility and lethality.

There are 4,153 IARs fielded across the force, said Maj. Anton Semelroth, a spokesman for Marine Corps Combat Development Command.

Marine infantry riflemen are formally taught the basics of the IAR when they attend one of the Corps’ two infantry schools, either at Camp Geiger, North Carolina, or Camp Pendleton, California. Any advanced training, however, is left to operational units.

Basic IAR training "culminates in an evaluated course of fire, using both semi-auto and full auto engagements at various ranges, from both supported and unsupported positions,” said 1st Lt. Matt Rojo, public affairs officer for Marine Corps Training Command. “It does not result in a ‘designated marksman’ skill set or certification.”

MTU’s Designated Marksman Course set out to provide this at Twentynine Palms, offering in-depth instruction in accurately estimating ranges with the naked eye, optics, ballistics and battlefield observation, as well as firing on known- and unknown-distance targets.

Range estimation by eye in particular is a lost art form, Luther said, and with not a lot of resources available, he ended up turning to a British Royal Marines publication from the 1920s to prepare the course.

635914060329876117-MAR-marksmanship-course-1.JPG

Cpl. Jared Ingerson, a rifleman with 3rd Battalion, 4th Marines, fires his M27 IAR during the culminating event of the Designated Marksman Course on Jan. 28. (Photo: Lance Cpl. Levi Schultz/Marine Corps)


“You’d be shocked at how bad Marines are at guessing, like 700 meters for a target that was at 275 meters,” she said. “Range estimation comes into everything we do, whether it’s call for fire, small-arms marksmanship or setting a cordon for an [improvised explosive device]; it can be taught, but it’s a very perishable skill.”

The course culminated in a real-world scenario in which each shooter-spotter team went out to the field at Range 113 at Twentynine Palms.

They were allowed 40 minutes to positively identify 10 targets at ranges between 275 and 600 yards, taking conditions such as terrain, sunlight and wind speed into consideration.

When the 40 minutes were up, the shooter engaged each target; if he missed any, he was given three seconds to adjust and re-engage.

“It was a great experience,” said Cpl. Robert Ellis, a rifleman with Weapons Company, 3rd Battalion, 4th Marines. “The instructors were definitely very knowledgeable; they gave us ample time to learn the material and a lot of hands-on time with the weapon system and engaging targets.”

Lance Cpl. Colton Rine, Ellis’ shooter-spotter partner and fellow rifleman with 3/4 Marines, agreed and said the instruction gave him a step up as a rifleman for his squad when he returned to his home unit.

635914060179803155-MAR-marksmanship-course-4.JPG

Cpl. Robert Ellis loads an M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle magazine with 5.56 mm rounds during the Designated Marksman Course’s culminating event. (Photo: Cpl. Julio McGraw/Marine Corps)


“I had a lot of fun with it,” he said. “It helped a lot getting those skills up and preparing you for the future; it’s training you can bring back and teach your team.”

The idea of Marines being able to share the knowledge and skills gained — "training the trainer" — was intentionally built into the course’s design, Luther said.

“We invested a lot of time in making them confident in communicating what they learned so they can go back to their squad and be that subject matter expert and be a force multiplier at the small-unit level,” she said.

Luther said the goal is to offer the course once every two months.

MTU intends to make the training available to Marines rotating through Twentynine Palms for training, such as units going through Integrated Training Exercises at the Combat Center.

“If they want to send selected Marines from squads to participate in the designated marksmanship training, we’d be more than happy to accommodate that,” she said.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Of course the Marines are not the only one looking to go back to a universal rifle just
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

navyreco

Senior Member
Q&A with NAVAIR on the Gulfstream G-550 AEW Aircraft Procurement by the U.S. Navy
TMuRSgd.jpg

It was announced last month that Gulfstream Aerospace had won a $91million U.S. Navy contract to supply one Gulfstream G-550 Green aircraft with Airborne Early Warning air vehicle modifications. Navy Recognition contacted the U.S. Navy Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) to learn more about this procurement and the platform.
Q&a at
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Brumby

Major
Next Generation Jammer Inc 1 approved to enter the Engineering & Manufacturing Development phase
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Next Generation Jammer

NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. – The Navy’s Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) Increment 1 (Inc 1) received the official go-ahead to enter the next phase of development April 5 when the Milestone Decision Authority signed the Acquisition Decision Memorandum.

Mr. Frank Kendall, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, determined that the system’s proposed cost, schedule and performance objectives adhered to the proposed acquisition strategy and were in line with meeting warfighter requirements.

He thoroughly reviewed NGJ Inc 1’s Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction phase, and upcoming Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) plans at Raytheon, El Segundo, California, March 10.

“I am extremely proud of our team and our product,” said Capt. John Bailey, Airborne Electronic Attack Systems and EA-6B Program Office (PMA-234) program manager. “The grassroots dedication, commitment of our personnel and the groundbreaking technology will result in a potent fleet capability.”

“The grassroots dedication, commitment of our personnel and the groundbreaking technology will result in a potent fleet capability.”

During the EMD phase the system will be further developed before being produced. The capability is expected to reach its system-level critical design review in early- to mid-2017. This will finalize the design and allow for the fabrication and assembly of test articles.

NGJ Inc 1, an external jamming pod, will replace the AN/ALQ-99 tactical jamming system currently integrated on the EA-18G GROWLER® aircraft. It will address advanced and emerging threats alike, as well as the growing numbers of threats.

NGJ Inc 1 uses the latest digital, software-based and Active Electronically Scanned Array technologies and will provide enhanced airborne electronic attack capabilities to disrupt and degrade enemy air defense and ground communication systems.
 
is it that bad, or just an attempt to get more money?
Budget cuts are forcing the Army to lose its competitive edge

source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
related:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster issued a warning April 5 to the Senate Armed Services Airland subcommittee saying that the service will be “…
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in the future….” This statement garnered much attention in the media, but it artificially assesses Army capabilities in a stovepipe and fails to account for the realities of joint power projection. Bottom line: the individual services don’t fight wars, the Combatant Commanders do by assembling an optimized mix of forces from each of the services to execute a given strategy to attain a desired set of conditions against a specific threat.

Focusing too much on individual service capabilities without recognizing
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
reflects classic Washington D.C. parochial budget posturing. While it is important that each service is adequately equipped, it is crucial to ensure that such priorities are defined within a broader strategic context.

No war has been won through the mere presence of personnel or material—whether they are infantry, tanks, ships, or airplanes. If that were the case, the United States would have prevailed in Vietnam with the presence of half a million US boots on the ground in 1968, or through the expenditure of over one trillion dollars on personnel and resources over the past 14 years in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bottom line—it takes an insightful, flexible, and prudent strategy to deliver victory in any military operation.

History stands in testament to this reality. No amount of bravery at a personal level can overcome the lack of a robust plan. Whether discussing the strategically bankrupt Rolling Thunder bombing campaign from 1965 through 1968, the failed 1980 Operation Desert One rescue mission In Iran, or the poorly planned and botched execution of Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan in 2002—the raw projection of personnel and equipment into harm’s way without a viable course of action leads to disaster. It is fundamentally immoral to ask America’s sons and daughters to exercise bravery and sacrifice to fill the void of inadequate strategy.

National security challenges must be actualized in terms of ends, ways and means. This is a process best executed in a truly joint fashion—using the right force in the right place at the right time—considering the capabilities from each of the services. What was troubling about General McMaster’s testimony is that he advocated a single service approach. Contrary to his testimony, it is exceedingly unlikely the US Army will ever be “outranged and outgunned” because when the U.S. goes to war it does so with components from all the services—not just the US Army.

To put it simply, a soldier on the ground working in coordination with a B-1, B-52, the assets of a carrier air wing, or standoff munitions from a ship is afforded immense range and overwhelming firepower. Those capabilities assembled as a joint task force create a synergy greater than any single service component alone. In short, the combatant commands will never allow the US Army to be “outranged and outgunned.”

Shortchanging modernization in all the armed forces over the last several years has handicapped key power projection capabilities, but it is hard to imagine a scenario in which US leaders would put land forces in harm’s way without the capability for air strikes, aerial resupply, aero-medical evacuation, precision navigation and timing, command and control functions via aircraft, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) from air and space-based assets, standoff fires from ships, sea-based logistics, the ability to communicate through the electro-magnetic spectrum, etc.

Assuming every conflict solution involves occupying land is an unfounded and risky assumption. Instead of pushing individual service solutions to gain budget support, military leaders need to focus on creative, insightful ways to secure desired objectives without projecting undue vulnerability. As Army Gen. George Patton said: “The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other dumb bastard die for his.”

The United States requires the best Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force in the world to present leaders with the widest variety of options to meet our security interests around that world. Rarely do we get a choice regarding when and where we will send forces into harm’s way. Those realities demand a balanced, ready set of forces able to dominate in air, space, cyberspace, on the ground, and at sea to meet our national security strategy. Wise national security leaders will shape Army interests, Navy interests, Marine Corps interests, and Air Force interests into American interests. It is critical that policy and budget decisions, along with their associated talking points, reflect this objective.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
what a conversation :)
USNI News: Can you clarify where Flight III fits into your plan with a potential third destroyer to be bought with FY 2016 money?

Stackley: The plan has always been two destroyers a year, we introduce Flight III in the last ship of 2016 as an ECP – an engineering change proposal.

The multi-year is all Flight IIAs. And so in 2016 we’re going to award it two Flight IIAs – which we did. The pricing expiration date was 31 March and we exercised on 30 March. We are working the Flight III ECP and that will be the last ship in 2016.

USNI News: So that will be the third ship?

Stackley: So let’s talk about the last ship in 2016. A year ago the last ship was going to be one of the two ships that we just awarded. Congress added a billion dollars in incremental funding [for a third ship]. We included – as you described – the $433 million of the balance of money required to fully fund that ship in the [unfunded priorities list.

Our 2017 budget was built about the same time Congress was passing the 2016 budget – so there’s no mention of an additional ship in our 2017 budget and we’re only now building the 2018 budget. So today, we’re basically describing to Congress – we need another $433 million to finish the ship, there’s risk associated with the [FY 2018 budget plan] – with all of the reasons that we described for all of the competing pressures in the budget and so we’re identifying the shortfall to fully fund the ship in the UPL.

That said, it’s our intent to get that ship – it’s absolutely our intent to get that ship — in which case that would be the third ship in ’16, we would make that [third ship] the Flight III ship.

If for whatever reason we don’t get that get that ship in ’16 – we’re going to take that Flight III ECP and modify one of the two ships we just awarded.

USNI News: To clarify one point, $1.433 billion is Flight IIA money; it’s not Flight III money.

Stackley: [Yes], that’s Flight IIA [money] but we have the balance of funding already in our hands.

So we’re budgeted for two Flight IIAs plus one Flight III mod. We awarded two Flight IIAs and we still have the balance of funding for the Flight III mod. And now we’re waiting to get this additional FY 16 ship in hand in a timely manner to award the ECP for this [third] ship. Fi we can’t get this ship in a timely manner then we’ll have to modify one the two that are already under contract.

USNI News: So there won’t be any delays to AMDR deployment or testing?

Stackley: AMDR is marching forward just like I described in the hearing. We are still pressing forward the ship design and the integration associated with the introduction of the AMDR radar so that all remains on track.
it's partly explained in
Stackley: Arleigh Burke Flight III Destroyer, Air Missile Defense Radar Development On Track
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
GREAT 1st internal pictures aboard the USS Zumwalt, DDG-1000. Please see my
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

Zumwalt-00-DDG.jpg

Here, over the next two posts are those pictures:


Zumwalt-01-MainCorridor.jpg
One of the large access corridors for large equipment and even ordinance in emergencies

Zumwalt-02-AnchorOperation.jpg
Anchor operations compartment aboard the Zumwalt.

Zumwalt-03-Hangerdoor.jpg
Door (from the inside) to the ship's hanger

Zumwalt-04-HAngerInterior.jpg
Interior of the volumous hanger, big enough for large helos and Ospreys.​
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
...more internal pictures from the Zumwalt:

Zumwalt-05-BoatRamp.jpg
Internal boat ramp for up to two 11m RHIBs looking aft

Zumwalt-06-BoatRamp.jpg
Internal boat ramp for up to two 11m RHIBs looking forward. Accommodation's and planning for upo to 14 US Navy SEALS located forward of this ramp.

Zumwalt-07-INductionMotor.jpg
Advanced Induction Motor on the USS Zumwalt.

Zumwalt-08-AuxillaryOPening.jpg
One of the internal docking/mooring compartment on the USS Zumwalt.

Zumwalt-09-LifeBouy.jpg
An internal life bouy aboard the USS Zumwalt.​
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
More stupidity! No USAF six Gen! None, Nada, Zilch! Gen Mike Holmes? 20-30 years out? Just Stupid! Stupid?
Brat Chill. first this was about the navy not the Air force. second the USN has kept a jammer force the latest being the E-A 18 well the USAF has more or less forgotten about it Jamming and electronic warfare.. Third any sixth gen fighter was already a mid to late 2020s deal, fourth seriously Fighter Mafia much? Jammers protect less stealthy less maneuverable platforms like the transports who drop the grunts who actually take and hold enemy territory. Jammers would also be essential in blinding the anti stealth systems that the Russians and PRC are working on.
Oh and fifth did you read the US Army's comments on the State of Ground based electronic warfare. as well as Artillery? or see the Marines projected date for the ACV or upgrades to the AAV? right now Brat a lot of programs are in hold or slow work many of them are systems upgrades of existing capabilities. so complaining about a undefined mission capability being to slow for you is First world problems.
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Brat Chill. first this was about the navy not the Air force. second the USN has kept a jammer force the latest being the E-A 18 well the USAF has more or less forgotten about it Jamming and electronic warfare.. Third any sixth gen fighter was already a mid to late 2020s deal, fourth seriously Fighter Mafia much? Jammers protect less stealthy less maneuverable platforms like the transports who drop the grunts who actually take and hold enemy territory. Jammers would also be essential in blinding the anti stealth systems that the Russians and PRC are working on.
Oh and fifth did you read the US Army's comments on the State of Ground based electronic warfare. as well as Artillery? or see the Marines projected date for the ACV or upgrades to the AAV? right now Brat a lot of programs are in hold or slow work many of them are systems upgrades of existing capabilities. so complaining about a undefined mission capability being to slow for you is First world problems.

Terran, I had NO internet all day, I just tagged your post cause I was mobile dude with NO battery, I am talking about that goof ball Mike Holmes nixing the the sixth gen fighter period? Read Brumby's post on the sixth gen thread. The USAF is almost as brainless as the BHO team at present, poor leadership, poor direction. I gave up on the Army and Navy a long time ago, jamming my """"", well you get my point, and yes I am POed big time??

Aircraft like the B-3/B-21 went out of phase during Vietnam, how else did we survive the last 60 years with the B-52, 100-B-1s, and 21 B-2s, but we would NOT have survived with-out a strong and vibrant fighter force, and we won't survive the future with-out a strong and vibrant fighter force.

We can't let the OP-Fors temporary inability in Fifth Gen lull us into complacency! STOOPIDITY!
 
Top