US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
I don't understand the technical side of this problem at all, just wonder if instead of so much competing (you don't need to explain to me how competitive the American system is) it wouldn't be more beneficial to choose some "path" yet ... now I read my own post again
Feb 20, 2016


EDIT
now I noticed
Lockheed-Boeing Rocket Venture to Lay Off Hundreds of Workers
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


EDIT AGAIN
DoD Embraces Commercial Space Boom, But Warns of Its Limits
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Well, the problems are rooted in the way the Government has done things from the start.
Traditionally Government space is either in house or sub contracted and then partially done in house.
This is done on both sides of the governmental space program the military/intelligence and the exploratory. the problem is that this is a very slow process and it tends to involve a lot of politics and sweetheart deals and the whole thing can be canceled because a powerful senator or president can come in and say so.
Case in point
President Bush in 2004 Starts the Constellation program, A methodical goal set and program set including rockets, new stations, new capsules, new space suits and goals for landing on the moon and mars... then 2010 President Obama cancels it. 6 years of work is tossed because the new administration steps in.
Of course Congress keeps the most public and geewiz parts on life support but mostly to keep money flowing to their districts. Basically "choose some "path"" is the problem.
The paths they choose tend to get dead ended by a change in admin and the results tend to be large expensive programs that work for a bit then get tossed or just keep working because there has not been a accident and the price has been paid for.
The other problem is that Government launches are set to 4 categories, Military support ( intel, navagation, coms, and testing), R&D for more of the same as well as space warfare concepts and finally exploration and research. the problem here is that the Military doesn't want to be sharing to much of their toys and Modern society runs on Satellites and commercial communications / GPS with it's hyper accurate time keeping.
So the need to Launch Commercial satellites comes up and well should AT&T or UPS be needing to Pay NASA or the USAF for putting a commercial satellite up?

Europe says YES, So Does Russia and NASA tried it but being frank it never actually works. I mean yes they get the satellites up but it's not self sustaining the governments have to supplement the cost of launches and frankly they should have better things to spend their budgets on.
The Cost of a Government launch is expensive because again the way government does things. yet the need for launches for commercial industry is guaranteed to expand.
people want high tech and to get that high tech you need more space assets.
Eventually Commercial Enterprise was going to step in and venture capitalists are not going to pay for a launch like a government will and sure enough A few did. More over not only did they step in and start looking for business, furthermore they started looking at ways to expand beyond just communications and navigation and started looking at mining and colonizing and tourism. Yet all came back to the key problem just getting into space.
So sure enough Actual companies not governments started looking at it and started building rockets. Cheaper less complicated Rockets that could show a profit. And well The DOD suddenly saw this and as the DOD likes to put up satellites and operates on a budget that keeps getting cut. If they could pay less to put the same load on a commercial rocket as they would have put on their own they rationally figured hay why not? They could shave their rocket program to weapons and absolutely mission critical stuff and use more of their budget for the toys they really want. And Now ATK is stepping in and Saying " You know we built those and if you're sitting on them we could actually use them and add to our bottom line."
Of course the problem now is that if they were to just turn them over to ATK then ATK could really under bid and that could nail in the coffin the builders who are needed for the occasionally needed really impressive rockets. Like ULA who right now is under stress because they just delayed a major Atlas launch twice and are facing political lashing over the use of Russian Engines As well as Competing against it's self as Lockheed pushes for missions for Orion well Boeing pushes CTS100 for more missions and Delta IV is competing against it's own Atlas and the rising Falcon heavy and the SLS which keeps getting delayed and saps money.
basically the Government has been breast feeding the Space industry and now is worried that Its time to switch to formula or even send it off to college
 
Last edited:
that's interesting:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

With the House Armed Services Committee marking up its
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
next week, the outspoken
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
told Breaking Defense he wants to undo last year’s budget deal — which he
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and which
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
— to get
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

That’s political heavy lifting, I told Forbes.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
hasn’t been able to get
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to agree on a new budget plan for 2017. The two-year budget deal for 2016 and 2017 was the product of painful brinksmanship and delicate compromise, and few legislators will have the stomach to take it back apart, especially in an election year.

“I have the stomach to look at it,” Forbes said bluntly. “The country needs to have the stomach to look at it, because the threat assessments that we’re getting get worse and worse every single briefing we have, every single hearing we have.”

Just this week, Russian fighters repeatedly buzzed the destroyer USS Cook in the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. They’d done the same thing to the same ship on a previous patrol in the Black Sea in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. (After the 2014 mock attack run, Russian sources claimed they’d shut the ship down with some kind of electronic warfare weapon, which the US Navy denied).

“They did something similar last year and the year before that. We’re beginning to see patterns,” Forbes said. “The thing that frightens me most is those patterns are beginning to escalate and get quicker” — and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in what many observers fear is a build-up to building up an artificial island on the strategic Scarborough Shoal.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
has
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and fired missiles near US ships.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
just conducted another missile test, although this one appears to have misfired.

“The other thing that’s becoming routine is our lack of response to any of this across the globe,” Forbes said. “You’re seeing a response to the vacuum and lack of leadership this administration has had over the last eight years.” (Even more than many other Republicans, Forbes has been
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
).

Yet meanwhile the defense budget keeps getting tighter. For the Navy in particular, that forces painful choices between quantity and quality, capacity and capability. The most notable example with the administration’s cut of 12 relatively small and affordable
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to pay for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
for larger ships such as carriers and destroyers.

That’s “a false choice between our capabilities and our capacities,” Forbes said .”We should do both.” (He declined to comment specifically on LCS, which has both strident critics and committed backers in Congress). Forbes wants to increase both the size of the fleet and the combat power of its ships — which is expensive.

“We have to increase the dollars,” he said. “If we can’t get that number up, we’re then having to [make] false choices.”

One of Forbes’ particular priorities is the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the new nuclear-missile-launching submarine (SSBNs) to replace the aging Ohio class. ORP is also the top priority of the Navy leadership, which warns they can’t build the 12 expensive boats inside their normal budget. So Forbes and other HASC leaders created a special
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(NSBDF) to pay for the subs outside the shipbuilding account. After initial skepticism from
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
alike, Forbes noted with satisfaction, both Congress and the Navy have started putting money in the fund.

Could the fund be expanded or replicated to pay for other programs to modernize the nuclear force, like the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(GBSD) to replace the Minuteman ICBM or even the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRSB), which will carry
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
? The Congressman was noncommittal.

The law setting up the National Sea-Based Deterrent Fund includes reforms — such as authorities to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
— that could and should be applied to other programs, Forbes said. But, he argued, the Ohio Replacement Program is truly unique.

“The only thing these boats will do is nuclear deterrence,” Forbes said, in contrast to the B-21, which also falls under his subcommittee’s jurisdiction. (Its full title is “Seapower and Projection Forces.”) In fact, he noted, “70 percent of the nuclear deterrent of the United States [will be] riding on 12 boats.” Further, the 12 subs is the absolute minimum the military calculates it will require to provide continuous at-sea patrols, which means there’s no doubt about the quantity to be procured, easing economies and efficiencies of scale.

By contrast, the numbers to be bought of other vessels seem to keep shifting. The Navy, with some cheerleading from Congress, wants to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, but the funding remains in doubt. The LCS got cut from 52 to 40 ships.

How about the fleet as a whole?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
say the total fleet will reach 308 ships in 2021, meeting the official requirement for size — but an ongoing reassessment will probably raise that 308 number. Experts like the Congressional Budget Office’s Eric Labs have testified to Forbes’ committee that the Navy, given likely funding levels, will never reach 308 and end up somewhere around 237 instead. Forbes is personally pushing for 346, the fleet size suggested by the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in 2014.

“The first [step] is to have the Armed Services Committee, have Congress, and have the country realize that we simply have to have a bigger navy than we have today,” Forbes said. “We have to put real teeth into
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and the dollars to build those ships.”
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
didn't get what's her problem Feinstein Takes Aim at Nuclear Cruise Missile Funding
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Wednesday she would seek to block funding for the Air Force’s new nuclear-capable cruise missile program.

The ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on energy and water development, which has oversight over Department of Energy nuclear weapons funding, said she believes the long range standoff (LRSO) cruise missile "is unaffordable, and may well be unnecessary."

"Spending on this weapon, and the warhead, would crowd out other funding for higher national security priorities," she added.

If Democrats regain control of the Senate in November, Feinstein could find herself in charge of the subcommittee — where should would be in a strong position to strangle funding for the LRSO. A spokesman for the senator later confirmed that Feinstein will seek to block funding for the weapon, which could cost in the realm of $20-30 billion to develop and produce.

The LRSO program aims to replace the air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) program with 1,000 to 1,100 cruise missiles that represent the Air Force’s standoff nuclear delivery capability. The ALCM is set to expire around 2030.

The Pentagon has defended the need for the weapon as part of its strategic nuclear posture. The Pentagon plans to spend in the realm of $350 billion over the next decade to modernize its nuclear arsenal.

While department officials have stated the LRSO is a vital part of that strategic deterrent, those in the nonproliferation community have taken aim at the LRSO as a potential cut, citing its similarity to the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM-ER) non-nuclear cruise missile.

Feinstein echoed that argument Wednesday, saying: "We have non-nuclear options, which can achieve the same objectives, and that's my deep belief. So we need that discussion in this country, about the role of nuclear weapons in the nation's defense."

She also thanked Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., the chairman of the energy and water development subcommittee, for being open to holding a hearing specifically to debate the merits of the LRSO.

"You have been good enough to say we will have a hearing, we will have a full hearing, where the public can hear the pros and the cons of a nuclear standoff cruise missile," Feinstein told her colleague.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
One active Combat Sqn have 12-24 UAV, 8-12 for ANG which have always less aircrafts in her Sqns as AF Reserve and UAV/aircrafts in reserve are mainly with Active, logic.

130 MQ-1B + 180 MQ-9 + 23 RQ-170 + 35+ RQ-4 after little toys :)
MQ-9 is light attack UAV can be used in permissive environment or possibly in no permissive to distract, to attract do the goat :)


USAF redesignates eight MQ-1 Predator units as attack squadrons

The US Air Force will redesignate eight General Atomics Aeronautical Systems MQ-1 Predator reconnaissance squadrons as "attack" units.

The name chance has been approved by US Air Force leadership in recognition of the ongoing transition to an "all-MQ-9" force.

Even though the Predator has carried weapons since 2002, it's mostly used for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions.

It has two hard points to carry dual Lockheed Martin AGM-114 Hellfire missiles, whereas the huskier MQ-9 has six hardpoints and a payload capacity of 1,360kg (3,000lbs), or four Hellfire missiles and two 227kg (500lbs) laser-guided bombs.

"The redesignation anticipates the air force's ongoing transition to an all MQ-9 fleet and acknowledges the capability of these units to support military operations that can include strikes against targets," the service announced on 11 April.

"The air force has also authorised [remotely piloted aircraft] aircrews to log combat time when flying an aircraft within designated hostile airspace, regardless of the aircrew's physical location."
The changes, approved by USAF chief of staff Gen Mark Welsh, came about as part of US Air Combat Command's culture and process improvement programme, the service notes.

The eight redesignated MQ-1 squadrons reside at Holloman AFB in New Mexico; Whiteman AFB in Missouri; and Creech AFB, Nevada.

The air force has long sought to transition to the MQ-9 and phase out the MQ-1, but war commitments and budget constraints conspired against that original schedule.

The air force revealed last August that it will shift its remaining 130 or so MQ-1s to the boneyard in 2018, except the ground control stations will remain for MQ-9 control.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
The US hypersonic weapons, although not as advanced as the WU-14 or DF-ZF HGV, but at least a viable problem has existed.

333790A000000578-0-image-m-24_1460743770710.jpg


The US has reportedly created a new missile as part of the Pentagon's development of hypersonic technology. But the US military has insisted that the weapons will carry conventional missiles rather than nuclear ones, as the arms race with China and Russia grows more intense.

The new missiles –
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
– will reportedly fly at five times the speed of sound (3,800mph) and make them virtually impossible to detect using radar. Researchers are still working on manoeuvre techniques and developing ways of being able to fully control the weapons.

"At this point, our hypersonics program is really a technology development program, purely focused on 'conventional' payloads, said Stephen Welby, assistant defense secretary for research and engineering at The Pentagon. "There's nothing in the budget related to modelling, researching, or exploring nuclear-armed hypersonics.

"It's 2020 for the missile, 2030…. until you get into something that's refurbishable and probably 2040 until you get into something that's a totally reusable type of capability."

Last year, f
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. During the last test the aircraft flew more than 230 nautical miles at Mach 5. It was launched from under the wing of a B-52 bomber and travelled at a height of 70,000 ft.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Holt_Allen

New Member
Registered Member
Equation said:
The US hypersonic weapons, although not as advanced as the WU-14 or DF-ZF HGV, but at least a viable problem has existed.

How do we know this? According to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
article the Chinese hypersonic glide vehicle may not be as imposing as it is hyped up to be. I am not saying you are wrong, but what makes you think that China has surpassed the United States in hypersonic weapon development?
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
How do we know this? According to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
article the Chinese hypersonic glide vehicle may not be as imposing as it is hyped up to be. I am not saying you are wrong, but what makes you think that China has surpassed the United States in hypersonic weapon development?

Because the one the US has is only at Mach 5 and the Chinese one can travel to Mach 10 speed, plus it made "extensive maneuvers" according to the last Pentagon reports (and that came after the successful 6th launch).

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