US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


Equation

Lieutenant General
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Too little....too late....

Pakistan wont bother with this, as effectively Pakistan is already out of that scenario that these actions will bother. In fact US cant afford to lose Pakistan support in particular the supply line.

I believe majority of this forum members are well versed & aware about the reality, hence just ignore these news as this is nothing but dirty politics.
Perhaps because the US & Pakistan alliance had already subdued many of the dangerous Taliban terrorists groups. Therefore maybe the US doesn't see the need to continue pouring money into fighting the Taliban or other terrorist groups in Pakistan anymore?
 

asif iqbal

Brigadier
US has failed (again) in Afghanistan so are looking for escape goat

But this time it’s not 1980s Pakistan has strong friends in Beijing and Moscow
 
in another thread Nov 14, 2017
Oct 9, 2017
not sure what to say
The U.S. Navy will start losing its largest surface combatants in 2020
13 hours ago
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
now wondering what the replacement is going to be, some even more crowded Burkes?
and now noticed, at the end of
Here are the top issues facing the US surface fleet in 2018
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:


For Callender, the service also needs to move out on a replacement for the Burkes.

“They are way behind the eight ball on this one,” he said. “We’ve done some great things in the Flight III Arleigh Burke [about to enter production], but we’ve kind of reached the technical limits of that design. We can’t continue to pack more power and capability into that design, so we definitely need to move forward with the future surface combatant.”
 
Dec 14, 2017
Today at 8:31 AM
now USNI News:
Pentagon Tests Next-Gen Anti-Ship Missile From Air Force B-1B Bomber
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and B-1 Crews Prep for Anti-Surface Warfare in Latest LRASM Tests
3 Jan 2018
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
's
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
-- in a move that will make it even more lethal -- will be the first aircraft to employ the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM), despite the fact that it's a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
missile.

Why not augment another bomber or fighter to carry it? Because the long-range B-1 already has the capacity, according to Lt. Col. Erick Lord, 9th Bomb Squadron commander.

"We can carry 24 of them," Lord said during a roundtable interview at the base on Dec. 18.

"There's not another jet in the inventory" that can do that, he said.

Military.com sat down with Global Strike Command officials during a trip to the base, and took a ride in the B-1B over training ranges in New Mexico last month.

"It goes back to payload and range," said Col. Brandon Parker, 7th Bomb Wing commander. Parker also cited its versatility. "You can put it on there, you can talk to it; it's feasible that this would be a platform in theater [that] you would call on to use it."

"Now you're just continuing the evolution" of the bomber, Parker said. "You're seeing this because the platforms have been here a while -- but they're going to continue to be here a while," he said, referring to the total bomber fleet, which also includes the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

Once launched from the aircraft, the LRASM -- which is based on the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM-ER) -- will be able to autonomously sensor-locate and track targets while avoiding friendly forces.

Lt. Col. Dominic "Beaver" Ross, director of operations for the 337th Test and Evaluations Squadron here, said it's taken priority for his office.

"We were the first ones to launch LRASM, and we are hot and heavy into testing," said Ross, who's been in the B-1 community since 2003 and seen four tours to the Middle East.

Ross said there is an entire LRASM office dedicated to solely integrating, learning and testing the LRASM, scheduled to enter service sometime in 2018.

Last month,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
the Lockheed Martin Corp-made AGM-158C LRASM at Point Mugu Sea Range, California. The precision-guided, anti-ship standoff missile was
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in August..

Three more tests are scheduled before the end of 2018, Ross said.

"The other ones were successful and they were able to capture the data" of basic testing, Ross said. The new tests will track not only basic targeting, but how the missile releases -- and hits.

"The developers are gathering more on how the weapon releases, how it interacts with the aircraft, and once it's released, how it gets to the target it's supposed to get to," Ross said.

That's also made possible through the B-1B's latest
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
-- the latest iteration that enables weapons integration and data sharing -- which is also being continuously tested alongside LRASM.

"The reason that is such a big priority is how closely that block of software is tied to LRASM," Ross said.

"The B-1's old, generally," Lord said of the 1980s-era warplane. "With [new] equipment, comes a new set of capabilities. In terms of weaponry, it's one of the things that makes me proudest of being part of the bomber community -- there's a need, there's a threat. With LRASM, it's just one of those cases as a combatant commander need and it just continues to make the B-1 viable," he said.
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
in another thread Nov 14, 2017


and now noticed, at the end of
Here are the top issues facing the US surface fleet in 2018
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:


For Callender, the service also needs to move out on a replacement for the Burkes.

“They are way behind the eight ball on this one,” he said. “We’ve done some great things in the Flight III Arleigh Burke [about to enter production], but we’ve kind of reached the technical limits of that design. We can’t continue to pack more power and capability into that design, so we definitely need to move forward with the future surface combatant.”
When I read articles like these it makes me upset but more disappointed in both the military and civilian leadership of the US. The AB hull is old and it is true that the flt III ships are about as good as you can pack into that hull.you can't stretch it anymore.
The FCS study was already done! It was a very good design. As a matter a fact the Zumwalt class owes much of its DNA and heritage to the FCS study done couple decades ago.
Problem was they made the Zumwalt overbloated, tried to do away too much. As such and also because corporate greed, mismanagement and the usual politics her cost escalated into such an exorbitant amount people got scared.. and rightly so.
The USN needs good capable ships but also need them in numbers! When a warship cost 3,4,5 billion there are only so many you can produce!
We need new, modern and reasonably cost 21st century frigates and destroyers... in numbers. We can't keep building ABs forever.
The original FCS study was done in the hopes of replacing the Perrys, Ticos and even ABs!! Now we have 2 Zumwalts and a bunch of destroyers with design dating back to the early 80s.
 
...
The FCS study was already done!
... the FCS study done couple decades ago. ...
The original FCS study ...
did you perhaps mean FSC (not FCS)?
Future Surface Combatant (FSC) - until late 2004
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

?
please provide link(s) anyway

***
as far as I noticed, the position of USN lighter combatants is even worse, actually much worse:
Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) Yesterday at 9:43 AM
OK Jeff over the years I've made it clear I'm the enemy of the LCS Project, for the reasons I've been posting about for years, and after those years in fact my heart starts pounding when I realize how the USN treated the lighter surface forces like hastily retiring the OHPs instead of for example adding an VLS Nov 14, 2017
and replacing them with LCSs whose combat value is ... questionable (though around ten of them were already COMMISSIONED to the USN, with about two dozen more coming)

some time ago I was thinking maybe I was just too conservative, and LCSs might work in the way I don't know, but considering their current status plus what other Navies are fielding in similar displacement category, I can't help to say it's a botched project

but based on your post I realized since it's just me posting in this thread lately, my remarks here are superfluous now, I'll cut them
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Grim Reapers’ reveal Baltic intercepts
The video below depicts footage from a training event in 2014, coupled with (from 01:39) footage from the latest deployment of a pair of Eagles intercepting two Russian Navy Su-30SM ‘Flankers’ in international airspace on November 23, 2017. A news release states: ‘The intercept was initiated because the Russian aircraft did not broadcast the appropriate codes required by air traffic control and had no flight plan on file.’
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
All udapted i détails new for this year never since about 20 years such number also 2 initialy planned for 2017 one Virginia and one Burke but first year with 2 Virgunia and new Burke so a little late

4 DDGs 1 Zumwalt + 3 Burke Flight IIa
Moonsoor 1001
Johnson 114
Hudner 116
Ignatius 117

4 LCS/ FFs : 2 Freedom + 2 Independence
Sioux City
Wichita
Omaha
Manchester

3 SSNs Virginia
Colorado 788
Indiana 789
South Dakota 790 a little more silencious first with a permanent magnet motor

1 LPD San Antonio
Portland 27

1 Spearhead Class/ EPF
Burlington

1 Puller Class /ESB Expeditionary Mobile Base
Hershel "Woody" Williams

A nice batch !

USN 2017.jpg
 
I generally don't follow auxiliary vessels, but now I took a look at (dated August 2017)
Actions Needed to
Maintain Viable Surge
Sealift and Combat
Logistics Fleets
Report to Congressional Committees
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



 
noticed US lawmakers call for funding support for additional Virginia-class submarines
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Members of the US House of Representatives have urged defense appropriators not to cut a proposed increase in funding for additional Virginia-class submarines.

A letter, signed by 36 members of the House of Representatives and sent to the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations, was released by co-chairs of the Congressional Submarine Caucus, Rep. Rob Wittman (VA-01), Rep. Joe Courtney (CT-02, and Rep. Jim Langevin (RI-02).

The letter asks for increased construction funding to match the funding levels in the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that passed with bipartisan support.

The FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act, which is now law, authorized $5.9 billion for Virginia class submarine construction – $698 million more than the president’s budget request. Additionally, the NDAA provided authorization for the Navy to procure up to 13 submarines in the next “block” contract, three more than currently planned.

“Fast-attack submarines remain one of the most effective and sought after tools in our nation’s arsenal,” wrote the members. “The Navy’s December 2016 Force Structure Assessment (FSA) supported the testimony of our military commanders in stating that the United States should maintain a force of at least 66 fast attack submarines. This represents an increase from the previous requirement of 48 submarines, and is the largest increase in ship requirements in the new FSA.

“However, with the retirement of Los Angeles-class submarines at a faster rate than Virginia-class construction, the SSN force will drop to a low of just 41 submarines, more than one-third below the requirement to defend America’s national security interests around the globe. Under plans reflected in the 2018 budget request to continue the two-per-year build rate, the attack submarine force will not meet minimum requirements until 2048.

“As you complete the final appropriations bill, we strongly encourage you to fund the Virginia-class program in line with NDAA authorized-levels to the maximum extent possible,” the members wrote.
 

Top