US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


,,,, just bring some of those "pinwheels",,, please???

as I said, it's not exactly "pinwheels", just stuffed turkey baked rolled up in bacon

as for the rest, the Chinese put up a railgun on a ship (I don't know if to test or to tease):
Photos suggest China is prepping to test a electromagnetic railgun at sea
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



it's happened up the river
Yesterday at 4:35 PM
LOL until now I wrongly assumed (I don't know why) that gadget was in Shanghai, but it'd be take two days (?) to sail down there from Wuhan

the whole cruise is of about the length of the Danube!

7 Days & 6 Nights Chongqing Shanghai Cruise Itinerary
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator

as I said, it's not exactly "pinwheels", just stuffed turkey baked rolled up in bacon

as for the rest, the Chinese put up a railgun on a ship (I don't know if to test or to tease):
Photos suggest China is prepping to test a electromagnetic railgun at sea
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



it's happened up the river
Yesterday at 4:35 PM

That would make a "Super Bowl Hall of Fame" right thar! I bet even BDPopeye would second me on that! who is gonna win the Super Bowl Jura, BD?? anybody, oh, and the "Troops" will get to watch the Super Bowl, in spite of the CR! Trump said so!
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
That would make a "Super Bowl Hall of Fame" right thar! I bet even BDPopeye would second me on that! who is gonna win the Super Bowl Jura, BD?? anybody, oh, and the "Troops" will get to watch the Super Bowl, in spite of the CR! Trump said so!

Ok.. the Patriots will win going away. I'm not rooting for them but they are a great team..

Of course the troops will see the SB. This has been going on a long time. I remember watching the SB when I was stationed in the Republic of the Philippines at oh-dark-thirty...in '76 & '77.
 
inside
New Russia-Focused Nuclear Review Calls for More Sub, Ship-Launched Missiles
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:

"Officials said the new submarine-launched ballistic missiles could be procured relatively quickly by using existing warheads and turning them into low-yield weapons, which would also help keep costs down. For the Navy, this would mean they could “just take that warhead and make sure they can qualify” on a submarine Robert Soofer, deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear and missile defense policy, told reporters."

wow
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
on Friday, doubling down on Obama-era efforts to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal while launching initiatives officials say are designed to deter Russia, China, North Korea and Iran from going nuclear.“We must look reality in the eye and see the world as it is, not as we wish it to be,” Defense Secretary James Mattis said in an introduction to the document. The plan, which places Russia at the top of the country’s potential adversaries — mentioning the country 127 times in the 74-page paper, while North Korea received 49 mentions — also calls for new nuclear cruise missiles.

In the short term, the strategy unveiled plans for a new nuclear sea-launched cruise missile, and a lower-yield nuclear warhead for submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

Officials said the new submarine-launched ballistic missiles could be procured relatively quickly by using existing warheads and turning them into low-yield weapons, which would also help keep costs down. For the Navy, this would mean they could “just take that warhead and make sure they can qualify” on a submarine Robert Soofer, deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear and missile defense policy, told reporters.

The document also confirms that initial research has begun on a ground-launched intermediate missile system that if fielded, would violate the 30-year-old Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty with Russia. The research remains within the bounds of the treaty, Pentagon officials said, and is meant to counter years of Russian violations of the pact which prohibits missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 km.

“We need to demonstrate to the Russians that we’re serious about them coming back into compliance with INF and that perhaps they need to be reminded why they signed the INF treaty in the first place,” Greg Weaver, the Joint Staff’s deputy director of strategic capabilities told reporters.

One staffer on Capitol Hill who is familiar with the administration’s thinking added to USNI News that “the ultimate goal is to bring Russia back into compliance with the INF treaty. Right now they think it’s in their national interests and they can get away with it. And they’re right. So they’re going to need some incentives.”

A draft of the new Pentagon strategy was leaked to the Huffington Post earlier this month, causing an outcry from critics who said the new cruise and ballistic missiles lower the threshold for how and when the United States might use nuclear weapons in the future.

Speaking with reporters at the Pentagon on Friday, John Rood, the Pentagon’s new policy chief, pushed back, insisting that policymakers would consider using nuclear weapons “only in extreme circumstances to defend vital American interests,” which he said is exactly the sentiments expressed in the 2010 Obama nuclear strategy.

“There is no lowering of the nuclear threshold…there is nothing in this approach that would lower the nuclear threshold,” Rood said.

The plan also calls for conventional U.S. forces to begin training with nuclear forces in a series of exercises in order to better coordinate efforts. “U.S. forces will strengthen their ability to integrate nuclear and non-nuclear military operations to deter limited nuclear escalation and non nuclear strategic attacks,” it says. “Combatant Commands will plan, organize, train, and exercise for this mission.”

In a statement Friday, the Union of Concerned Scientists were highly critical of the increased integration of conventional and non-conventional forces, saying the new policy “deliberately blurs the line between nuclear and conventional forces and eliminates a clear nuclear fire break.”

On North Korea, the paper builds on the months of warnings issued by president Trump and his deputies to the country’s leader, Kim Jong Un. The paper cautions that “there is no scenario in which the Kim regime could employ nuclear weapons and survive.”

The plan received a mixed reception on Capitol Hill, where House Armed Services Committee member Adam Smith (D-Wash.) criticized the document, saying it “will undermine our defense posture, and further aggravate our national security budgeting difficulties.” The Trump administration has fully embraced an Obama-era plan to modernize the country’s nuclear triad — land, air and sea-launched nuclear missiles — which is expected to cost at least $1.2 trillion over the next three decades, before the Trump add-ons.

Smith was also critical of the price tag, saying Congress “is currently unable to fund the existing, unrealistic $1.2 trillion plan” and the Trump administration is adding to the budget pressures by adding new capabilities.

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), chairman of the committee, countered that the costs are sustainable, and “are already broadly supported in Congress and by the American people. Like other national security programs, they depend on adequate and reliable funding from Congress. The NPR is a sober reminder of how important delivering that funding is to America’s security.”
 
now noticed
"Nevertheless, it retains the technological capability and much of the capacity necessary to develop a nuclear weapon within one year of a decision to do so."
(not mentioned in the article I posted right above)
in the USNI News Pentagon 2018 Nuclear Posture Review
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

From the Report:
On January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump directed Secretary of Defense James Mattis to initiate a new Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). The President made clear that his first priority is to protect the United States, allies, and partners. He also emphasized both the long-term goal of eliminating nuclear weapons and the requirement that the United States have modern, flexible, and resilient nuclear capabilities that are safe and secure until such a time as nuclear weapons can prudently be eliminated from the world.

The United States remains committed to its efforts in support of the ultimate global elimination of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. It has reduced the nuclear stockpile by over 85 percent since the height of the Cold War and deployed no new nuclear capabilities for over two decades. Nevertheless, global threat conditions have worsened markedly since the most recent 2010 NPR, including increasingly explicit nuclear threats from potential adversaries. The United States now faces a more diverse and advanced nuclear-threat environment than ever before, with considerable dynamism in potential adversaries’ development and deployment programs for nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

An Evolving and Uncertain International Security Environment

While the United States has continued to reduce the number and salience of nuclear weapons, others, including Russia and China, have moved in the opposite direction. They have added new types of nuclear capabilities to their arsenals, increased the salience of nuclear forces in their strategies and plans, and engaged in increasingly aggressive behavior, including in outer space and cyber space. North Korea continues its illicit pursuit of nuclear weapons and missile capabilities in direct violation of United Nations (U.N.) Security Council resolutions. Iran has agreed to constraints on its nuclear program in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Nevertheless, it retains the technological capability and much of the capacity necessary to develop a nuclear weapon within one year of a decision to do so.

There now exists an unprecedented range and mix of threats, including major conventional, chemical, biological, nuclear, space, and cyber threats, and violent non-state actors. These developments have produced increased uncertainty and risk.This rapid deterioration of the threat environment since the 2010 NPR must now shape our thinking as we formulate policy and strategy, and initiate the sustainment and replacement of U.S. nuclear forces. This 2018 NPR assesses previous nuclear policies and requirements that were established amid a more benign nuclear environment and more amicable Great Power relations. It focuses on identifying the nuclear policies, strategy, and corresponding capabilities needed to protect America in the deteriorating threat environment that confronts the United States, allies, and partners. It is strategy driven and provides guidance for the nuclear force posture and policy requirements needed now and in the future.

The United States does not wish to regard either Russia or China as an adversary and seeks stable relations with both. We have long sought a dialogue with China to enhance our understanding of our respective nuclear policies, doctrine, and capabilities; to improve transparency; and to help manage the risks of miscalculation and misperception. We hope that China will share this interest and that meaningful dialogue can commence. The United States and Russia have in the past maintained strategic dialogues to manage nuclear competition and nuclear risks. Given Russian actions, including its occupation of Crimea, this constructive engagement has declined substantially. We look forward to conditions that would once again allow for transparent and constructive engagement with Russia.

Nevertheless, this review candidly addresses the challenges posed by Russian, Chinese, and other states’ strategic policies, programs, and capabilities, particularly nuclear. It presents the flexible, adaptable, and resilient U.S. nuclear capabilities now required to protect the United States, allies, and partners, and promote strategic stability.
 
tough question Should the US enforce a naval blockade against North Korea?
The U.S. needs to mount a naval blockade to interdict sanction-evading North Korean ships and put greater pressure on the rogue regime to back off
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, military and foreign policy experts told the Senate Armed Services Committee this week.

The idea isn’t a new one. In September, the U.S. sought support from the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to use “all necessary measures” to go after North Korean ships, to include boarding North Korean ships for inspections or even forming a naval blockade of the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

In January, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson urged U.S. allies to help pressure North Korea and emphasized the United States’ right to “interdict maritime traffic.”

At issue are allegations that Russian officials are helping the North Korean regime undercut sanctions on imports and exports by performing refueling and loading operations at sea, rather than tracking those activities at port, which is the standard method for maritime trade.

During the recent Senate hearing, both retired Navy Adm. Dennis Blair, who now serves as Chairman of the Board for the Sasakawa Peace Foundation and Michael J. Green, senior vice president for Asia and Japan Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, advocated for retaliatory strikes against North Korean missile test sites and, more specifically, Green said, for maritime interdiction and a potential naval blockade.

“We need to engage in maritime interdiction operations against ships we are already tracking to stop inward and outward proliferation,” said Green, who also formerly served on the National Security Council and participated in talks with North Koreans.

What was not discussed in detail at the hearing was the multiple fatal ship collisions the Navy experienced over the past year and long-running concerns about Navy readiness.

Those issues coupled with the resource-intense nature of a blockade, leave some question to the viability of a blockade.

But some such as Tillerson and Green, see interdictions as perhaps the only way to truly enforce the sanctions.

“We know, for example, that the North Koreans are trying to get around sanctions by transferring oil from ship to ship, and we generally know where they are,” Green said.

In recent weeks news reports have focused on a potential “bloody nose” strike that would involve the U.S. military hitting targets in North Korea to push the regime to back off its provocations with nuclear weapons testing and saber-rattling.

When asked by Sen. Rounds Mike Rounds, R-South Dakota, about retaliatory strikes, Blair was blunt.

“Senator, absolutely, we should not only consider retaliatory strikes for lower-level provocations by North Korea, we should carry them out,” Blair said.

Both Blair and Green cautioned that any strike should be in response and not preemptive, which could have much different outcomes.

He said that limited retaliatory strikes in the past have been interpreted by the regime that the U.S. is serious and subsequently the regime backed down.

But, former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel told Defense News recently that would be a dangerous bet.
it's NavyTimes
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Klon

Junior Member
Registered Member
Given the cadence of China’s military development, the failure to successfully onramp to the next generation of weapons technology, despite the massive lead time the US started with, is not an encouraging sign. In a lot of fields China is already reaching parity or preparing to leapfrog. I wouldn’t interpret stillborn programs as taking the time and money to look outside established concepts. Anyways. We should move this discussion elsewhere if we want to continue.
Just this one reply from me. I'll do it with points as it's simpler.

1. I don't claim that all American weapon development and procurement programs have been a success or the best possible, but I also don't agree with claims that their general state is significantly worse than in comparable countries. Of the four programs you listed, I'd say the fighters don't need defending as they've mostly succeeded, while the ships have been a mixed bag. Even there, they could afford the relative failure of the Zumwalt class because their existing fleet remains contemporary.

2. A country's ability to develop and field weapons systems can be judged on either absolute or relative terms. For example, most of China's weapons, particularly before 2010, would by an absolute standard be lagging significantly behind the cutting edge. Judging by a relative standard, however, they could be said to be good compared to those of countries at a similar stage of development or military spending and progressing quickly. The USA has been defining the cutting edge for decades, so on an absolute scale they can only be described as successful, and on a relative scale the story is similar, with no one on a close level to compare directly.

3. You seem to say that American inability to mantain a sizable technological edge over China is a failure. However, if two countries are comparable in basic determinants of weapon development (which, for me, are money, the technological standard of the general economy and quality and quantity of talent), there is no obvious way for one to retain a large advantage over the other in the long term. In other words, as China's economy and military spending grow to American levels along with its number and quality of researchers, the gap was bound to close.

4. As for China "preparing to leapfrog", their ability to do so remains to be seen. This brings us back to my original point, which is that it's harder to make progress once you're at the cutting edge and totally self dependent for ideas. I think it's just as likely that next decades will see something closer to parity between the two countries rather than significant leapfrogging.
 

Top