US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

FORBIN said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The “program plans to buy enough missiles to maintain a 400-missile deployed force through 2075

For the air component of the nuclear triad, Northrop defeated a Lockheed-Boeing team in October for the right to build a new dual-use bomber that can carry both nuclear and conventional weapons, a project valued at as much as $80 billion.

At sea, the Navy is planning to replace its Ohio-class nuclear-armed submarines through a production program now estimated at $122 billion, which doesn’t include development.

Click to expand...

America's New Nuclear-Armed Missile Could Cost $85 Billion

The U.S. Air Force’s program to develop and field a new intercontinental ballistic missile to replace the aging Minuteman III in the nuclear arsenal is now projected to cost at least $85 billion, about 36 percent more than a preliminary estimate by the service.

Even the $85 billion calculated by the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office is a placeholder number that’s at the low end of potential costs, according to an Aug. 23 memo from Pentagon weapons buyer Frank Kendall to Air Force Secretary Deborah James. It includes $22.6 billion for research and development, $61.5 billion for procurement and $718 million for related military construction.

...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Brumby said:

System of systems air warfare

Click to expand...

The US Defense Department’s Strategic Capabilities Office is still weighing platform options for its Arsenal Plane concept, a standoff system with a large weapons carriage that would support forward aircraft.

Last year, the US Air Force revealed an artist’s rendering of the arsenal plane which depicted an aircraft with an eight-engined Boeing B-52 bomber wing and a Lockheed Martin C-130 turboprop fuselage. But during a rare media opportunity this week, SCO director William Roper told reporters the office and the USAF have not announced the type of aircraft for the project.

“It's not until we start doing the engineering of trying to make it an Arsenal Plane that we’ll find out which ones do the best job,” Roper says. “But what we believe is looking across all the assets we have that we’re very likely to have a system that will be able to do the job.”

Once the SCO picks the platform to fulfill the Arsenal Plane’s mission, the office could unveil the system to the public. For now, the defense secretary is holding off, Roper says. He also clarified that the Arsenal Plane project is not linked with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Gremlins concept, which would release swarms of UAVs from an aircraft and retrieve them with a C-130.

“But you could imagine in the future if you had an Arsenal Plane there would be a lot of things in its arsenal that it could be used for,” he says.

While the SCO remained coy about its plans for the Arsenal Plane, the USAF has revealed some of the capabilities and challenges ahead as it evaluates the system. In its 2030 Air Superiority Flight Plan, the USAF’s Enterprise Capability Collaboration Team mentions plans to examine the long-range aircraft.

In a recent interview with FlightGlobal, Brig Gen Alexus Grynkewich, team lead for the 2030 air superiority study, says he sees the Arsenal Plane as a large platform with a heavy payload and varying applications. The aircraft would not need to be manoeuvrable or stealthy because its long-range would ensure its survival, he says. However, he also foresees some technical challenges, such as pulling together the long-range kill chain.

“An Arsenal Plane is something that’s large, long-range, not very manoeuvrable, [with] very long weapons and because it has very long weapons it either needs very exquisite sensors feeding it on that particular platform so that it can cue those weapons to where they need to go,” Grynkewich says. “The arsenal plane itself might not need the sensors, maybe the sensors are on the F-22 or the F-35 or from some other node that feeds back, but somehow it’s got to get a cue of how to shoot that long range weapon is my point.”

Click to expand...

Thousands of sailors will see a change in the time they spend at sea over their career — and the impact, for many, will be felt immediately.

The changes announced in August immediately affect 28 ratings, 13 of which will see a rise in sea time. The sea-shore tour overhaul, the first in four years, tips the enlisted force towards more time at sea over a sailors' career.

Officials are concerned that their move ups the numbers of ratings considered “sea-intensive” from 14 in 2008 to 25 today. Sea-intensive ratings are those where a sailor would spend 18 years or more assigned to sea duty over a 30-year career. In simplest terms, these ratings have many more sea billets than shore spots.

“That’s a little bit of an alarming trend and what that’s saying is that the shore duty billet base for those ratings is insufficient to support the number of sea duty billets,” said Craig Schauppner, who has managed sea/shore flow for the chief of naval personnel since it was created in 2008. “So we know that those ratings are going to have manning challenges so an increase in the number of those ratings is a concern.”

The service is also weighing some larger changes proposed by CNA's Center for Naval Analyses, a research agency that assesses personnel management for the Navy. Among the proposals to fill more billets across the force:

• Allow more voluntary tour extensions, especially at sea.
• Offer back-to-back sea duty tours for volunteers in some ratings.
• Extend sailors involuntarily at sea to fill gaps.

In this revamp, the highest priority is easing the burdens on the sea-intensive ratings.

With this update, 13 ratings will see more sea time and 15 will see a drop. Forty-two ratings will see no change to tour lengths.

If you are in one of the ratings moving up or down in sea or shore duty, there’s a chance your current tour will be impacted — up or down.

“We have a grandfather clause in the message,” Schauppner said. "This means if your rotation date is within 12 months of this NAVADMIN, your tour length will most likely not get adjusted — I say might because the detailers might make some exceptions here and there in special cases."

"If your [rotation date] is outside that 12 months, you will probably be adjusted.”

For many ratings, the changes will boost the time a sailor spends in the fleet over their career. The fleet remains in high demand from ISIS strikes in the Middle East and now Mediterranean to presence patrols in the simmering Asia-Pacific. Fleet bosses are working to limit deployments to seven months after years of crises.

Fifteen ratings are under extreme strain. These sea-intensive specialties, like damage controlman, quartermaster and aviation boatswain’s mate (launch/recovery), are needed in the fleet well beyond the 216-month career cap. Officials are eyeing proposals to boost fleet manning in these fields.

The sea-shore flow system maps out flat-rate tour lengths. In theory this means that every sailor in a given rating will serve the same amount of time at sea over a 30-year career.

News of the changes prompted debate. Some point out that sea duty commands are operational and must be filled before shore commands. But others said that shore commands are important breaks for career sailors and that cuts to shore support will be quickly felt in the fleet.

"The seagoing side of things doesn't work without the shore side backup," commented Carl Ball on Navytimes.com. "Just what do you think FRC/AIMD and Fleet Training Commands like VFA-122 are there for? They feed the supplies, parts, and trained personnel TO the deployed forces for increased readiness."

Drastic proposals

The CNA study published in June recommends the Navy could improve the detailing process by giving the service more flexibility to fill billets and giving sailors more incentive to take tough jobs or go back to sea sooner.

The study, “Evaluation of the Navy’s Sea/Shore Flow Policy,” recommends the Navy factor things like advancement, high-year tenure and more into sea-shore planning. High-year tenure caps, separations and other personnel shifts have operational implications that must be managed short-term by the command.

Another factor is women. As the Navy works to increase the percentage of women in the ranks over the next decade, the study said that getting more of these women to sea can help ease tour lengths overall in many communities.

Some of the recommendations are more drastic. For instance, the report calls for the service to be able to extend sailors involuntarily at sea — even if it’s beyond the five-year maximum currently allowed.

“Navy policy requires sailors to spend no more than five years at sea and no less than two years on shore per tour,” the report said. “These ceilings and floors are implemented regardless of the sea/shore billet ratio for a given community.”

In short, the Navy's limits based on sailor quality of life concerns impinges on their ability to reduce operational time for some sea-intensive ratings.

This can cause further problems in sea-intensive communities. Recent policy changes allow sailors to voluntarily return to sea duty after 24 months of a 36-month shore tour. And officials still have the ability to pull sailors back to sea after the same two-year break on shore. Another option would be to allow sailors to request back-to-back sea tours for those who'd like to stay in the fleet or in some cases, forward-deployed.

But for many sea-intensive ratings with two few in-rate shore duty billets, the Navy assigns a lot of these sailors to generic shore duty such as recruiting and recruit division commander. Sailors taking these jobs must complete 36-month tours with no flexibility in the rules for either voluntary or involuntary early termination and return to sea.

One solution may be very unpopular: setting tours in some sea-intensive ratings like interior communications technicians or gas turbine systems technicians beyond five years.

IC, for example is one of the most sea-intensive ratings with currently 216 months -- 18 years of sea time -- over a 30-year career. CNA recommends that increase by nearly three years to meet current fleet manning needs to 250 months. Much of that sea time happens in the first 20 years -- 14 years over three sea tours -- punctuated by two, three-year shore tours.

On the other end of the spectrum. Aerographer's mates are considered shore-centric and spend just 12 years at sea over the same 30-year career. Actually, those 12 years happen over the first 24-years as both their sea tours and shore tours are three years apiece, allowing for an equal split between sea and shore duty.

“For these communities, the [sea/shore flow model] indicates that the [proscribed sea tours] should be greater than the 60-month ceiling set in the Navy’s policy,” the report said. “There is no…exception for sea-intensive communities; they must adhere to the policy ceiling of 60 months. This mismatch results in a sea manning gap for these communities.”

Fourteen ratings, by CNA's calculations could benefit from sea tours that are longer than the Navy's stated maximum time allowed.

The limits prevent personnel officials from getting volunteers from sea-intensive communities to return to sea early or have the ability to voluntarily to fill gaps. The changes recommended by CNA would allow some to serve longer at sea rather than across-the-board increases for everyone in an entire rating.

"The [current sea/shore flow] model does not have the capability of assigning sailors to back-to-back sea or shore tours,” the report concluded. “Adding [this] flexibility in assignment will improve the fidelity [of the sea shore flow system].”

The proposals are likely to be controversial. Sailors seeing their shore duty cut short or their sea duty extended last-minute are certain to harm morale — which could exacerbate gaps by the loss of more senior sailors.

Even if they adopt these changes, the report warns that manpower is always subject to flux.

“As such, manning variation will exist at some level, no matter what policy is implemented or how perfectly it is optimized,” the report said. “Nevertheless, this natural variation can be bounded and controlled through policy improvement in the long term.”

Schauppner at CNP said officials are still reviewing the CNA study and that wasn't able to say whether any specific proposals would be adopted in coming months and years, as the Navy updates its pay and personnel systems as part of the Sailor 2025 initiative.

“We are considering numerous pay and policy changes as part of Sailor 2025 and the overarching personnel system transformation underway,” Schauppner said. "I am very familiar with the CNA study and worked with the authors on it.”

...

Click to expand...

Sea incentives

Personnel officials realize they must employ involuntary tours and extensions sparingly and only when necessary. They also realize they need ways to coax sailors back to sea duty, like guaranteed follow-on assignments and extra pays. One offering is Sea Duty Incentive Pay.

“This particular policy might not entirely alleviate the conflict between Navy manning goals and equitable rotation patterns for all communities, the report said. “However, including alternative policies makes [Sea/Shore/Flow] more helpful in improving sea manning. [Sea/Shore Flow] can further include this alternative policy in capturing the impact of those selected through the use of sea duty incentive pay.”

Currently, this pay is still considered a pilot program, but that could change soon. It’s paid under the authority for Assignment Incentive Pay — which has been used for specific hard-to-fill billets ashore and at sea, particularly overseas. It's now a temporary program that must be re-approved annually.

Use of the the program has grown since 2014 when 686 sailors took the pay in exchange for heading back to sea or in some cases extending ashore, for a cost of about $9 million. In fiscal year 2016, there are 763 takers to the tune of roughly $12 million. For fiscal 2017, already $7 million of an initial $10 million budget has been allocated, with nearly 400 sailors already signed up; officials project an increase over the year as more sign up.

Navy officials foresee the future of sea duty enticements as not being limited to money, but extending to coveted schools, assignments and more to tailor incentive packages to individuals.

It appears that SDIP is here to stay.

“Navy believes that SDIP has proven to be useful in improving manning in sea duty billets,” said Lt. Jessica Anderson, spokeswoman for the chief of naval personnel. “When the Navy shifts to the new Assignment Pay authority, Navy will consider seeking a multi-year approval.”

Click to expand...

Lockheed Martin launched the F-16 "Viper" Block80 / 85!

I told you about last July under the title "the F-16 has not said its last word," the US aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Martin has just introduced a new version of its popular F-16. The aim is twofold, a hand modernize the current fleet still in service and other new markets there or the F-35 is too expensive. In some markets, the manufacturer even plans to introduce a dual offers customer choice with the F-35 and the new F-16.

The F-16 "Viper" Block80 / 85

The Lockheed Martin F-16 "Viper" Block80 / 85 is the latest and most advanced family of "Fighting Falcon". The F-16V configuration includes many enhancements designed to keep the F-16 advanced fighter planes. According to Lockheed Martin, this new version will provide advanced combat capabilities while remaining scalable and affordable solution for the customer.

The F-16V features a new electronic radar antenna Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Northrop Grumman APG-83 "Scalable Agile Beam Radar". The APG-83 provides pilots unmatched vision detail in terms of the target area and digital map displays coupled with an IRST system. Avionics is also improved with a central giant screen 6x8 (CPD) at high resolution, a new high-speed data bus. Operational capabilities are improved through a new system of Link-16 datalink "Theater Data Link", the addition of the latest version of the targeting pod "Sniper", a new navigation and precision system GPS. The aircraft is also equipped with the automatic system Ground Collision Avoidance (Auto GCAS). In addition a large number of software are common with F-22 and F-35. This commonality allows systems to make the F-16V-compatible for the exchange of data with the other two devices. On armaments, the F-16V allows you to carry all available and future weapons in the US Air Force.

Developing new markets:

For Boeing, the new F-16 is the opportunity to explore new markets in Asia, Latin America and Europe and to fill gaps price of the F-35. Furthermore, an internal study shows that many potential customers do not have the means to acquire the F-35, but does not have a legitimate interest in acquiring a stealth type aircraft.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

FORBIN said:

New designation for F-16V but curious going from Block 60 to 80/85 ?

Click to expand...

Article said:

The F-16V features a new electronic radar antenna Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Northrop Grumman APG-83 "Scalable Agile Beam Radar". The APG-83 provides pilots unmatched vision detail in terms of the target area and digital map displays coupled with an IRST system. Avionics is also improved with a central giant screen 6x8 (CPD) at high resolution, a new high-speed data bus. Operational capabilities are improved through a new system of Link-16 datalink "Theater Data Link", the addition of the latest version of the targeting pod "Sniper", a new navigation and precision system GPS. The aircraft is also equipped with the automatic system Ground Collision Avoidance (Auto GCAS). In addition a large number of software are common with F-22 and F-35. This commonality allows systems to make the F-16V-compatible for the exchange of data with the other two devices. On armaments, the F-16V allows you to carry all available and future weapons in the US Air Force.

Click to expand...