US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Pointblank

Senior Member
A little story on improving combat rations:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Christian Science Monitor
June 30, 2008 Finding a way to a soldier's heart through chipotle chicken. Next challenge: eggs.
By Tom A. Peter, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Natick, Mass. - Like any chef, Jeanette Kennedy's pallet has become so refined over the years that, given any dish, she can single out virtually every ingredient – the pinch of black pepper, the hint of oregano, or the vegetable oil subbing for olive oil.
On a recent morning she was testing a slab of pound cake, her face blank as she silenced her other senses and focused on taste and texture.
After a good long chew, Ms. Kennedy spit the cake into a paper cup – an indelicacy that was not a comment on the cake (which she deemed pretty good), but the result of a high calorie occupational hazard. This pound cake is no tea party trifle; it's combat cuisine – part of an MRE, Meal Ready to Eat – designed to fuel soldiers lugging 100-pound packs all day.
A food technologist at the US Army Natick Soldier Systems Center (NSSC) west of Boston, Kennedy faces creative challenges unlike those before any other chef. Meals can't just taste good; they've got to last ... for three years stored at 80 degrees F., be capable of withstanding chemical or biological attacks, and survive a 10-story free fall (when packed in a crate of 12).
In this world, making something as seemingly simple as a sandwich earns a food technologist rock star status, even if only within the confines of the lab.
• • •
Ask anyone who has worn a US military uniform and they'll have an opinion about rations. MREs – the name given to the rations first served in the 1980s when canned fare gave way to meals packed in sturdy beige pouches – have nicknames that pretty much sum up what many troops think: Meals Rejected by the Enemy, Meals Rarely Edible, and Meals Refusing to Exit (a name that continues to stick despite the addition of more fiber).
"You go into [your first MRE] with a preconceived notion, just from what you've heard from either your instructors or other people that you're in training with, that they're not good," says Jeremy Whitsitt, a former Army soldier and now program outreach coordinator at NSSC. "But I think a lot of that has to do with the early days of the MRE, and just with military rations in general. Over time they've kind of developed a bad reputation, because for a long period of time we weren't customer focused."
Considering the difficulties of the durability requirements, it's easy to see how taste and customer satisfaction were low priorities. The only reason MREs aren't supposed to be consumed after three years is because science hasn't found a way to stop the deterioration of taste. But technically – if not gustatorially – they're still edible long after the expiration date.
But, Jill St. Jean, who ate a 6- or 7-year-old MRE beef patty during her training to become a certified MRE taste test evaluator at NSSC, admits, "That one pretty much tasted like dog food smells."
In years past, the canned C-rations that served the military from World War II through Vietnam actually looked a lot like wet dog food, which is also how many soldiers remember the taste. But these rations came from a very different time, an era when cigarettes were still standard issue.
Today, troop acceptance of the meals, which cost the military $7.13 each, has taken center stage. Back in 1982 when MREs debuted, designers assumed they could hang up their aprons. But when the first Gulf War broke out, the new ration moved from limited training use to the only food soldiers ate for months on end. Angry letters flooded in from the trenches, and the military realized that rations had to be a work in progress.
Now food technologists conduct focus groups with troops across the country, follow restaurant fads, and even attend culinary school to make sure their approach isn't entirely scientific.
"[MREs] really go along with the trends," says Kennedy. "As new things come out at restaurants, new flavors like chipotle or buffalo [get popular], they get incorporated into the MRE.... The trend [now is] going to more comfort foods like Salisbury steak, beef briquette, but it's not just macaroni and cheese, it's Mexican macaroni and cheese."
Just as in the first Gulf War, when NSSC misses the mark today, soldiers in the field let them know. After living off nothing but MREs for 45 days in Afghanistan, Spc. Colin Hankinson wrote a letter that included samples of packaging from Canadian rations that offered troops customer feedback cards with every meal
He also suggested that MRE designers "expunge" Cinnamon Imperial candies from the ration. "They are not satisfying to eat or useful to trade," explains Specialist Hankinson. "During the past 45-day mission, the primary consumers of Cinnamon Imperials were Afghan children and the burn pit."
Since 1993, NSSC has tried to avoid letters like Hankinson's by creating more than 189 new MRE menu items, almost 12 per year.
• • •
The kitchen lab where Kennedy and a number of other food technologists whip up the latest MRE dishes resembles a cross between a school cafeteria kitchen and a third world operating room. There are walk-in freezers, multiple meat slicers, a retorting machine bigger than a mid-size car, and lab coats and hair nets (for both head and facial hair) are required.
It was in this kitchen that Kennedy dreamed up what she considers her tastiest creation: a spicy vegetarian penne pasta. Mixed with a soy-based, non-meat sausage crumble, the pasta is covered with a zesty sauce that Kennedy says has "kick."
Asked to describe the inspiration for the penne platoon-pleaser, she ponders a moment before responding, "Well, I can't really say there was an inspiration."
Quite simply, she was under military orders to create a new vegetarian dinner with a protein source. Beyond that, she was like Michelangelo with a chisel and a slab of marble, limited only by her imagination.
The new emphasis on customer satisfaction has made it an exciting time to be a food technologist. In many ways, it's even led to rethinking the MRE.
Take the new First Strike Ration (FSR) for example. It's meant to provide service men and women with snacks throughout the day that add up to the equivalent of three square MREs. Since the FSR is intended for soldiers on the march, and not in a position to easily prepare food, it was what ultimately inspired the creation of the three-year sandwich – currently barbecue beef or chicken and Italian sausage, among others.
Though it might seem a minor innovation, for food technologists it was a breakthrough. Previously, finding a way to stop wet ingredients like BBQ sauce smothered chicken from seeping into the bread was impossible. But through tinkering with chemicals in the wet center. they managed a a long-life rendition of a sandwich resembling a Pop-Tart).
After clearing the sandwich hurdle, Michelle Richardson, a food technologist for 19 years, looks forward to overcoming the next MRE conquest: eggs.
"Now I'm trying to give [troops] a breakfast burrito, the same thing you can get at McDonald's but doesn't require any refrigeration and is shelf stable for two years," she says. "Egg is really kind of difficult [to preserve], but that's OK. I like a challenge and I don't get bored."
 

kliu0

Junior Member
LOL!!!....I thought they got this over and done with ages ago.....

Pentagon To Re-Bid Air Force Tanker Contract
By william h. mcmichael

The Pentagon has spiked a controversial $35 billion contract for a new Air Force refueling tanker and will reopen the competition, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said July 9.
The Boeing KC-767, top, and the Northrop Grumman KC-45 will be contenders to be the next U.S. Air Force tanker. (Boeing and Northrop Grumman photos)

In addition, Gates has taken the source selection process for the KC-X tanker out of the Air Force's hands and directed John Young, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, to serve as the new source selection authority and to appoint a new source selection committee.
Related Topics

* Americas
* Air Warfare

Gates said that was done "with the full support of the Air Force."

Young said the cancellation was in the form of a stop-work order on the contract the Pentagon had signed with Northrop Grumman and EADS. The cancellation opens the door for rival Boeing to get its losing bid reevaluated.

The Pentagon acted after the Government Accountability Office last month upheld Boeing's protest of the award to build 179 tanker aircraft, sustaining what Gates said were eight of more than 100 issues raised by Boeing.

The issues included the Air Force's failure to acknowledge that Boeing's proposal provided more optional systems than Northrop's; "misleading and unequal discussions" with Boeing; and the service's inaccurate estimate of both tankers' life-cycle costs.

All of the GAO findings will be addressed, Gates said.

At a Pentagon news conference, Gates said that while the KC-X process has gone on "far too long," he believes the new competition can be completed, and a contract awarded, by December.

That can be accomplished, he said, "by running a process that is transparent to the competing companies, by complete communication with those companies so that there are no surprises, no considerations that have not been discussed, no criteria that have not been discussed, nothing done that is unfair."

But Young later said that December is "a goal" and that the Pentagon has called for "modified proposals," meaning that Boeing, for instance, could submit a completely different airframe for consideration. Young said the Pentagon would be following a "normal acquisition process," including a draft for proposals amended by the GAO's findings.

But he and Gates both said they do not anticipate issuing new evaluation criteria. Young said the Pentagon believes it has a valid requirements document.

"We believe that we can ask both bidders to modify their proposals to address those concerns based on how we will implement those findings in that amended request for proposals and move forward," he said.

Acting Air Force Secretary Michael Donley, in office just 2 1/2 weeks, acknowledged that GAO's decision on the KC-X award "has been sufficient to cast doubt on the Air Force's management of the overall process."

But Gates and Young denied that GAO's conclusions - coming 1 1/2 years after it canceled the Air Force's November 2006 contract award to Boeing for a combat search-and-rescue helicopter - mean that the Air Force's acquisition process is broken.

"I have confidence in the acquisitions team," Gates said. "I think that Secretary Donley has indicated that there are some areas where there needs to be improvement, but I think we will go forward with that."

That confidence extends to Sue Payton, the Air Force assistant secretary in charge of acquisition, Gates said.

But he added that placing his top acquisitions chief in charge of the selection process "is an appropriate and necessary step to ensure congressional and public confidence that DoD can and will successfully manage to completion a large, complex procurement such as the KC-X. It is essential for the department, working with Congress, to maintain both internal and public confidence in our acquisition process.

"This is the third time we've gone at this," Gates said. "And under those circumstances, it seemed to me that we were most likely most quickly to gain the confidence of Congress in the way forward by having the undersecretary oversee this particular contract."

Once the contract is awarded, the Air Force will manage it and execute the program, Young said.

Young said officials decided not to do a competitive "fly-off" because both aircraft are essentially commercial models being modified with booms and probes, and there's "not as much technical risk" as with a program being built from scratch, such as the Joint Lightweight Tactical Vehicle.

"We're already getting the benefit in this program of a commercial marketplace that delivered something like 400 aircraft in each company last year," Young said. "We're going to buy 12 to 15 aircraft per year. We're getting huge benefit from getting commercial market pricing and riding on that commercial industrial base.

"So it's not clear to me that competition at the prototyping or production level will pay us great dividends," Young said. "It will add significant costs for us in terms of training, that development money, the testing money, the training money, the additional spares, and a long-term lifecycle of two aircraft."

Splitting the buy between the two groups also was ruled out because of the potential costs.

"We would have to spend the development money and the testing money to develop and test two tankers," Young said.

Subsequently, he said, "We would probably have to cut the buy to six, seven, eight aircraft a year between two companies. That would drive the price up further even yet. Then I would have to train people in two different aircraft.

"And, frankly, if I spent the money to develop both tankers, you'd have to ask yourself, well, would you really have another competition at KC-Y?" he said, referring to this first phase of a three-phase acquisition process for the tanker.

Congressional leaders were briefed earlier July 9, Gates said. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said Gates' decision "is a win for America's workers and taxpayers, as well as our war fighters deployed around the world."

Northrop partner EADS - the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company - is the parent company of Boeing rival Airbus.

The House Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing on the tanker debacle Thursday at 2 p.m. Young will testify, along with two GAO investigators.
 

Skywatcher

Captain
This contract will probably still be up for grabs as long as either Northrop Grummann and its Euro friends or Boeing have enough push with Congress to have someone open up a new investigation into the bidding process. I'm beginning to think that McNamara's spirit is possessing the bodies of various procurement officers.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
New Marine /Navy Rifles to bare Wild Cat logo.

Saber Defence Industries press release: said:
Sabre Defence Industries Awarded M16 Contract To Support The Troops

NASHVILLE, TN (July 15, 2008)- Sabre Defence Industries, LLC, a government contractor for the manufacture of machine gun parts and accessories and commercial XR15 rifles, is proud to announce that Sabre Defence has been awarded an IDIQ contract for a minimum of 4,952 M16A3 and 702 M16A4 rifles to support the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, and foreign military customers. Nine bids were received with Sabre being only the third company in the 45-year M16 history, besides Colt and FN, to be awarded a contract to supply a Mil-Spec M16 to the U.S. government.

The M16 project will take place at Sabre Defence’s Nashville, Tennessee facility and is expected to be completed by end of December, 2010. Sabre’s growing reputation as a top quality manufacturer of XR model rifles in the commercial market will not be affected by the military contract. Production continues to meet demand of the highly accurate XR15A3 series rifles and new models are scheduled to be released in the coming months.

For more information on any of Sabre Defence’s rifles, handguns, or barrel assemblies, log on to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
or call 615-333-0077.


About Sabre Defence Industries:
Founded in the USA in 2002, Sabre Defence Industries, LLC, manufactures Browning M2 .50-caliber machine guns, barrels, and precision engineered XR15 rifles and assemblies for the commercial, law enforcement and the military markets. Sabre Defence is an ISO 9001-2000 certified company with factories in the United Kingdom and the United States.
This is of interest given the new drive to replace the system A drive that if it goes foreword would probably only see action in 2013
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
A B-52 bomber crashed off yesterday around the waters near Guam. Must be some jinx, this is the third crash to occur this year around the area, the first being an EA-6 Prowler from the Nimitz (crew safely ejected) last February and two weeks later, the much more publicized B-2 Stealth bomber crash, two members injured.

The bomber has a crew of six and so far all six are missing even though AP reported two has been found, but that is not confirmed with other news agencies. There is a massive search and rescue involved and the search radius is being expanded with a JSMDF P3 Orion being called in to assist. Let's all pray and hope all six can be found alive and safely.
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
Bad news. The US Air Force declared that efforts have shifted from "rescue" to just "recovery" for the remaining 4 crew members.
 

druid84

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


Article says the U.S is going to cancel the DDG 1000 program and not order any ships, since they would cost $2billion + to build, instead they will order 9 more DDG 51's (Arleigh Burkes). Anyone know if this is credible?
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
"Houston, we got a problem."

Apparently a valve leak has been discovered in the USS Houston, a nuclear LA class attack submarine stationed in Guam. The leak was discovered when the sub visited Hawaii. Radiation readings in Apra Harbor hasn't shown any rise in radioactivity. A new Navy report now suggests that the leak has been around since 2006.
 

flyzies

Junior Member
It would be interesting to see if all this proves to be true...
From Sept. 10, 2008 issue of Janes Defence Weekly

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"Joint Strike Fighter: The Latest Hotspot in the U.S. Defense Meltdown"

by Pierre M. Sprey and Winslow T. Wheeler

Politicians in the US are papering over serious problems in the country?s armed forces. Equating exposure of flaws with failure to 'support the troops', Congress, the presidential candidates and think-tank pundits repeatedly
dub the US armed forces “the best in the world”. Behind this vapid rhetoric, a meltdown – decades in the making – is occurring.
The collapse is occurring in all the armed forces, but it is most obvious in the US Air Force (USAF). There, despite a much needed change in leadership, nothing is being done to reverse he deplorable situation the air force has put itself into.
The USAF's annual budget is now in excess of USD150 billion: well above what it averaged during the Cold War. Despite the plentiful dollars, the USAF?s inventory of tactical aircraft is smaller today than it has ever been since the end of the Second World War. At the same time, the
shrunken inventory is older, on average, than it has been ever before.
Since George W Bush came to office in 2001, the air force has received a major budget 'plus up', supposedly to address its problems. In January 2001 a projection of its budgets showed USD850 billion for 2001 to 2009. It actually received USD1,059 billion – not counting the additional billions (more than USD80 billion) it also received to fund its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
With the ?plus up? of more than USD200 billion, the air force actually made its inventory troubles worse: from 2001 to today, tactical aircraft numbers shrank by about 100 aircraft and their average age increased from 15 years to 20, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Not to worry, the air force and its politicians assert, the solution is in hand; it is called the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter. It will do all three tactical missions: air-to-ground bombing, air-to-air combat and specialised close air support for ground troops – and there will be tailored
variants for the air force, navy and marines. Most importantly, it will be ?affordable? and, thus, the US can buy it in such large numbers that it will resolve all those shrinking and ageing problems.


Baloney. When the first official cost and quantity estimate for the F-35 showed up on Capitol Hill in 2001, the Department of Defense (DoD) predicted 2,866 units for USD226 billion. That is a not inconsiderable USD79 million for each aircraft. The latest official estimate is for a
smaller number of aircraft (2,456) to cost more (USD299 billion). That represents a 54 per cent increase in the per-unit cost to USD122 million, and the deliveries will be two years late. The Government Accountability Office reported in March that the US can expect the costs to increase some more – perhaps by as much as USD38 billion – with deliveries likely to be delayed again, perhaps by another year. That is just the start of the rest of the bad news. The price increases and schedule delays cited above are for currently known problems. Unfortunately,
the F-35 has barely begun its flight-test programme, which means more problems are likely to be discovered – perhaps even more serious than the serious engine, flight control, electrical and avionics glitches found thus far.
Take the F-22 experience; it was in a similarly early stage of flight testing in 1998. Its programme unit cost was then USD184 million per aircraft but it climbed to a breathtaking USD355 million by 2008. Considering that the F-35 is even more complex (19 million lines of
computer code compared to 4 million, and three separate service versions compared to one), the horrifying prospect of the F-35?s unit cost doubling is not outlandish. The last tri-service, tri-mission ?fighter? the US built, the F-111,
tripled in cost before being cut back to barely half the number originally contemplated. The DoD currently plans to spend more than USD10 billion to produce fewer than 100 F-35s per year at peak production. USAF leaders
would like to increase the production rate and add in a few more F-22s. That plan is irresponsibly unaffordable (which contributed to the recent departure of the Secretary of the Air Force and the Air Force Chief of Staff). The unaffordability will become even more
obvious when the unavoidable F-35 cost increases emerge. The inevitable reaction, just as in past programmes, will be a slashing of annual production, the opposite of the increase the air force needs to address its
inventory problems. The DoD fix is simple: test the F-35 less and buy more copies before the testing is completed. Two test aircraft and hundreds of flight-test hours have been eliminated from the programme, and there is now a plan to produce more than 500 copies before the emasculated testing is finished. This approach will not fix
the programme but it will help paper over the problems and make the F-35 more cancellationproof in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill.

It gets even worse. Even without new problems, the F-35 is a ?dog?. If one accepts every performance promise the DoD currently makes for the aircraft, the F-35 will be:
? Overweight and underpowered: at 49,500 lb
(22,450kg) air-to-air take-off weight with an
engine rated at 42,000 lb of thrust, it will be a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight ratio for a new fighter.
? At that weight and with just 460 sq ft (43 m2) of wing area for the air force and Marine Corps variants, it will have a ?wing-loading? of 108 lb per square foot. Fighters need large wings relative to their weight to enable them to manoeuvre and survive. The F-35 is actually less manoeuvrable than the appallingly vulnerable F-105
?Lead Sled? that got wiped out over North Vietnam in the Indochina War.
? With a payload of only two 2,000 lb bombs in its bomb bay – far less than US Vietnam-era fighters – the F-35 is hardly a first-class bomber either. With more bombs carried under its wings, the F-35 instantly becomes ?non-stealthy? and the DoD does not plan to seriously test it in this configuration for years.
? As a ?close air support? attack aircraft to help US troops engaged in combat, the F-35 is a nonstarter. It is too fast to see the tactical targets it is shooting at; too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire; and it lacks the payload and especially the endurance to loiter usefully over US forces for sustained periods as they manoeuvre on the ground. Specialised for this role, the air force?s existing A-10s are far superior. However, what, the advocates will protest, of the F-35?s two most prized features: its ?stealth? and its advanced avionics? What the USAF will not tell you is that ?stealthy? aircraft are quite detectable by radar; it is simply a question of the type of radar and its angle relative to the aircraft. Ask the pilots of the two ?stealthy? F-117s that the Serbs successfully
attacked with radar missiles in the 1999 Kosovo air war. As for the highly complex electronics to attack targets in the air, the F-35, like the F-22 before it, has mortgaged its success on a hypothetical vision of ultra-long range, radar-based air-to-air combat that has fallen on its face many times in real air war. The F-35?s air-to-ground electronics promise little more than slicker command and control for the use of existing munitions.


The immediate questions for the F-35 are: how much more will it cost and how many additional problems will compromise its already mediocre performance? We will only know when a complete and rigorous test schedule –
not currently planned – is finished. The F-35 is a bad deal that shows every sign of turning into a disaster as big as the F-111 fiasco of the 1960s.

In January the US will inaugurate a new president. If he is serious about US defences – and courageous enough to ignore the corporate lobbies and their minions in Congress and the think-tanks – he will ask some very tough questions. These will start with why an increased budget buys a shrinking, ageing force. After that the new president will have to take steps – unavoidably painful ones – to reverse the course the country is now on.


The man who best deserves to be inaugurated next January will actually start asking those questions now.
 
Top