US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


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. ...
what is this here, the Pentagon PR Department visiting? LOL
 
Semper Fi!
<iframe src="
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0" allowtransparency allowfullscreen></iframe>
A Nation's Call 30 Second

02.02.2018
Video by
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"A Nation's Call" is the latest advertisement released under the “Battles Won” strategy. “A Nation’s Call” unfolds by showcasing the full power of the United States Marine Corps engaged in an assault mission. Depicting a 5th Generation Marine Corps operation (naval integration, ship-to-objective, technology-fueled). As the Marines move toward the objective, each layer of ships, tanks, armored vehicles, planes and helicopters is removed. This visual story, in combination with the voiceover, will communicate and emphasize to the audience that, when the Nation faces any battle, the Marines themselves—with their fighting spirit—are the greatest weapon in the United States Marine Corps’ arsenal.
 
Yesterday at 9:25 AM
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
related:
The US could be getting 2 new nuclear capabilities. Here are the details.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"The
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, formally unveiled Friday, recommends adding a low-yield warhead for submarine-launched ballistic missiles, as well as the addition of a nuclear-capable submarine-launched cruise missile to America’s arsenal.

The question now becomes when these capabilities will come online ― and how much they will cost at a time when the Pentagon is restrained by congressionally mandated budget caps.

Before the addition of these new capabilities, the U.S. was preparing to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
over the next 30 years to modernize the nuclear arsenal, including the delivery systems, warhead, and command and control network. And the now-retired head of the National Nuclear Security Administration told
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that his agency is “at capacity” with the work it has already been assigned to do.

Robert Soofer, deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear and missile defense policy, said the question of logistics and funding was “squarely in our thinking” when looking at the new capabilities. But Greg Weaver, deputy director for strategic stability on the Joint Staff J5, said the reality is that details for acquiring the new systems still need to be worked out.

“The NPR doesn’t get into system engineering, so the department has a very well-laid out process for identifying the specific operational military requirements for additional capabilities,” Weaver said. “We don’t know what that would cost because we don’t know how we’re going to do it yet. Specifically you can’t cost it out until you know the approach you’re taking technically and the cost of operations, etc. And that’s all going to go through our normal process. “

Here’s what we know about the two new systems:

..."

... and if you want to know what they are, read the source
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

as I don't know if there's any interest in
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
recently, so I prefer to go check now if the water for pasta is boiling already
 

timepass

Brigadier
Army turns to BAE Systems for vehicle production...

Army-turns-to-BAE-Systems-for-vehicle-production.jpg


Feb. 1 (UPI) -- BAE Systems has been awarded a contract in support of the latest Self-Propelled Howitzer and the latest version of the Field Artillery Ammunition Supply Vehicle.

The deal, announced Wednesday by the Department of Defense, is valued at more than $148.8 million and enables the defense contractor to acquire early procurement material to support production of the M109A7 and M992A3 vehicles.

The M109A7 is the latest howitzer manufactured by BAE and is part of its M109 family of vehicles.

The self-propelled Howitzer is primarily used for indirect fire support operations in support of the U.S. Army Armored Brigade Combat Team, according to BAE.

The M992A3 is the latest version of BAE Systems' Field Artillery Ammunition Supply Vehicle, or what the Army calls CAT, for Carrier, Ammunition, Tracked. The M992A3 is a heavily armored munitions carrier that specifically assists the M109A7's ammunition.

Work on the contract will occur in York, Pa., and is expected to be completed by November 2022.

The full amount of the contract has been obligated to BAE Systems at the time of award from Army Fiscal 2018 other procurement funds.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Dec 10, 2017
some time ago Sep 20, 2016
now Congress Eager for Results of Air Force's Light Attack Aircraft Demo
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and US Air Force kills combat demo for light attack aircraft
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The U.S. Air Force will not be proceeding with a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
for its light attack aircraft, but an eventual program of record has become the assumed outcome of further experimentation planned for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

The new experiments, planned for May to July 2018 at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona, narrow the field to Textron Aviation’s AT-6 Wolverine and the A-29 Super Tucano made by
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
— cutting the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
from further competition.

“Rather than do a combat demonstration, we have decided to work closely with industry to experiment with maintenance, data networking and sensors with the two most promising light attack aircraft — the AT-6 Wolverine and the A-29 Super Tucano,” Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said. “This will let us gather the data needed for a rapid procurement.”

The Air Force announced in 2016 that it was
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
with light attack planes the following year. The hope, Air Combat Command head Gen. Mike Holmes told Defense News then, was to better understand whether inexpensive, off-the-shelf aircraft could fill some of the service’s close-air support requirements in the Middle East at a cheaper operating cost than combat aircraft like the A-10 or F-16.

Buying several hundred light attack aircraft would also bring with it several other advantages, proponents of the strategy argued. For one, having more aircraft in its inventory would increase its capacity, allowing it to train more pilots per year.

In addition, buying a low-cost, easy-to-use plane would also “bolster our interoperability,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein said in a statement. This in turn would give the service an opportunity to partner with international countries who might not be able to afford a more pricey jet like the F-35 or F-15.

After flying in to see the first set of light attack experiments at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico, Air Force leaders said they believed a combat demonstration would be the next step. However, the service now expects to be able to get the information for a future rapid acquisition of light attack aircraft without having to bring the two remaining competitors to the Middle East.

“The Air Force is gathering enough decision-quality data through experimentation to support rigorous light attack aircraft assessments along with rapid procurement/fielding program feasibility reviews,” said Air Force spokeswoman Capt. Emily Grabowski. “We’re finalizing requirements documentation and developing an acquisition strategy.”

Networking and future interoperability with partner forces will be a key part of the demos at Davis-Monthan. “The Air Force will also experiment with rapidly building and operating an exportable, affordable network to enable aircraft to communicate with joint and multi-national forces, as well as command-and-control nodes,” the service noted in a statement.

It also plans on inviting international partners to observe the light attack experiment’s next phase, it said. Five countries, including Canada, Australia, the United Arab Emirates and Paraguay, watched the last round.

Other focuses of the future experiments will include logistics and maintenance requirements, weapons and sensor issues, and training syllabus validity, it said.

However, the service has not finalized how it will pay for the new round of experiments or set a timeline for a future program of record.

“We are working a cost estimate for the next phase of experimentation, but we need to work with our industry partners to finalize the cost estimate. At this time, we expect to use current experimentation funding for the stateside experiment,” Grabowski said.
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Dec 10, 2017
and US Air Force kills combat demo for light attack aircraft
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and here we are, back to "Popular Mechanics Play Fighter!",,, in general, we DON'T need or want it, but lots of people love the idea!

Thank God that the Scorpion will be laid to rest! somebody's "wet dream toy", and now we are back to two very handy and sweet little turbo-props that we can "play with" and buy some "stick time" for our jet jockeys that are currently unable to rack enough time to stay current. ..

and hopefully we can sell some of the "damn things" to help offset our actual very expensive development,,, since we don't have ANY MONEY! for such nonsense...

the ONLY players who really threaten us today are Red China and Russia, and in that grand free for all, this aircraft would be completely worthless on the field of combat!

sadly this absolutely ignorant conflict will be brought on by the damnably ignorant, if left to his own devices, (sans the absolutely INSANE Russia Collusion! that the absolutely ignorant Sanders, Pelosi, and Schumer and their minions), the Trumpster would meet with Putin and the Xi and work out all of our real differences.

Trump has NO desire to go to war, all we really want or need is for people to respect others territory and freedom, President Trump is perfectly willing to fight and defend freedom..

so "knock yourselves out", everybody deserves a "wet dream" after all, it is America, build a couple of nice little sweet turbo props, hey, build on for ME, I want one of the damn things
 
after Today at 11:03 AM
this thread:
Nuclear Posture Review puts Russia firmly in crosshairs
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I now read
Trump taking tougher stance on Russia nuclear threat
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

so I post:
The Trump administration on Friday announced it will continue much of the Obama administration’s nuclear weapons policy, but take a more aggressive stance toward Russia. It said Russia must be convinced it would face “unacceptably dire costs” if it were to threaten even a limited nuclear attack in Europe.

The sweeping review of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
does not call for any net increase in strategic nuclear weapons — a position that stands in contrast to President Donald Trump’s statement, in a tweet shortly before he took office, that the U.S. “must greatly strengthen and expand its
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.” In his State of the Union address Tuesday, he made no mention of expansion, though he said the arsenal must deter acts of aggression.

A 74-page report summarizing the review’s findings calls North Korea a “clear and grave threat” to the U.S. and its allies. It asserts that any
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
against the U.S. or its allies will result in “the end of that regime.”

It also cast China as a potential nuclear adversary, saying the U.S. arsenal is tailored to “prevent Beijing from mistakenly concluding” that it could gain advantage by using its nuclear weapons in Asia, or that “any use of nuclear weapons, however limited, is acceptable.”

The Pentagon-led review of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and the policies that govern it was ordered by Trump a year ago. In a written statement, Trump said U.S. strategy is designed to make use of nuclear weapons less likely. In an apparent reference to the threat of catastrophic cyberattack, he said the U.S. aims to strengthen deterrence of major attacks against the U.S. and its allies, including those that “may not come in the form of nuclear weapons.”

Known officially as a nuclear posture review, and customarily done at the outset of a new administration, the report drew blistering criticism from arms control groups.

“President Trump is embarking on a reckless path — one that will reduce U.S. security both now and in the longer term,” said Lisbeth Gronlund, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. She said the administration is blurring the line between nuclear and conventional war-fighting.

The Trump administration concluded that the U.S. should largely follow its predecessor’s blueprint for modernizing the nuclear arsenal, including new bomber aircraft, submarines and land-based missiles. It also endorsed adhering to existing arms control agreements, including the New START treaty that limits the United States and Russia each to 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads on a maximum of 700 deployed launchers.

The treaty, negotiated under President Barack Obama, entered into force on Feb. 5, 2011, and its weapons limits must be met by Monday. The U.S. says it has been in compliance with the limits since August and it expects the Russians to comply by Monday’s deadline. As of Sept. 1, the last date for which official figures are available, Russia was below the launcher limit but slightly above the warhead limit, at 1,561.

“Moscow has repeatedly stated its intention to meet those limits on time, and we have no reason to believe that that won’t be the case,” State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said Thursday.

The Pentagon’s nuclear review concluded that while arms control can advance American interests, “further progress is difficult to envision,” in light of what the U.S. considers Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and violations of existing arms deals. Administration officials briefed Russian and Chinese officials Friday prior to the review’s public release.

The Trump nuclear doctrine breaks with Obama’s in ending his push to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. defense policy. Like Obama, Trump would consider using nuclear weapons only in “extreme circumstances,” while maintaining a degree of ambiguity about what that means. But Trump sees a fuller deterrent role for these weapons, as reflected in the plan to develop new capabilities to counter Russia in Europe.

The administration’s view is that Russian policies and actions are fraught with potential for miscalculation leading to an uncontrolled escalation of conflict in Europe. It specifically points to a Russian doctrine known as “escalate to de-escalate,” in which Moscow would use or threaten to use smaller-yield nuclear weapons in a limited, conventional conflict in Europe in the belief that doing so would compel the U.S. and NATO to back down.

“Recent Russian statements on this evolving nuclear weapons doctrine appear to lower the threshold for Moscow’s first-use of nuclear weapons,” the review said.

The administration proposes a two-step solution.

First, it would modify “a small number” of existing long-range ballistic missiles carried by Trident strategic submarines to fit them with smaller-yield nuclear warheads. John Rood, the undersecretary of defense for policy, declined to provide an estimate of the cost, saying it would be partially included in the 2019 budget that will be submitted to Congress later this month. He said the missile would be fielded “in the near term,” but he refused to be more specific.

Second, “in the longer term,” the administration would develop a nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile — re-establishing a weapon that existed during the Cold War but was retired in 2011 by the Obama administration.

Robert Soofer, a senior nuclear policy official at the Pentagon who helped direct the policy review, said Moscow is likely to push back on the U.S. plan for fielding those two additional weapons.

“I’m sure they won’t respond well,” Soofer said Thursday.

The press secretary at the Russian Embassy in Washington, Nikolay Lakhonin, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
 
...

the ONLY players who really threaten us today are Red China and Russia, ...
Brother check the post right above, out of which I quote:

It also cast China as a potential nuclear adversary, saying the U.S. arsenal is tailored to “prevent Beijing from mistakenly concluding” that it could gain advantage by using its nuclear weapons in Asia, or that “any use of nuclear weapons, however limited, is acceptable.”
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Sad to say, but both Iran and N. Korea are also a nuclear threat...or will be.

And through them, the very real potential of terrorists getting them.

Not in terms of abject and complete defetat of America, but in terms of a threat to hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of Americans.

We dare not lower our guard.

I believe the US should continue its ABM defense capability to the point or realistically being able to defend against an attack of nuclear missiles from either N. Korea or Iran.
 

Top