US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


Yesterday at 8:01 AM
Feb 28, 2018while With Speech at Miramar, Trump Lands in Center of 'Space Force' Debate
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and inside
Trump touting ‘space force’ puts Air Force in awkward spot
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:

Asked on Wednesday outside a House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee hearing whether there is a disconnect within the administration and whether the Air Force is taking Trump’s remarks seriously, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein said: “We’re taking it very seriously, and I’m looking forward to this conversation.

“I think the president stating openly that space is a war-fighting domain is exactly in line with what we’ve been thinking about, so this is really helpful to have a president and vice president really focused on space, like we are.”
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
now noticed two of them had been up there:
Submarines USS Hartford, USS Connecticut surface together in the Arctic Circle
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



Yep, you have to find thin ice in order to surface, operating under the ice remains very dangerous, depending on the amount of "navigable" water under the keel,,, there are places that a boat simply can't operate, and many more place where the boat is operating at very low speeds...as you can imagine some of these issues are better or worse seasonally .

It gives evidence of how precisely these boats are able to position themselves relative to one another, or the OPFOR,,, submarines are always assigned to "tail" new boats of the opposing team in order to record sound, they can and do identify individual boats by sonar soundings.
 

timepass

Brigadier
Two dead in U.S. Navy F/A-18 fighter jet crash off coast of Key West, Florida....

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


A U.S. Navy F/A-18 fighter jet has crashed off the coast of Key West in Florida during training, officials told Fox News. BREAKING: Navy F/A-18 jet crashes off Key…
AMERICANMILITARYNEWS.COM


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Two dead in U.S. Navy F/A-18 fighter jet crash off coast of Key West, Florida....

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


A U.S. Navy F/A-18 fighter jet has crashed off the coast of Key West in Florida during training, officials told Fox News. BREAKING: Navy F/A-18 jet crashes off Key…
AMERICANMILITARYNEWS.COM


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

one bystander observed the aircraft on fire on final,, does remind all the flying any day and everyday is a very dangerous business,,, very sad, they supposedly both punched out??

getting close to the runway and being on the ground is a dangerous psychological trap, you want to save the airplane and avoid a "bail-out" which is extremely hazardous in the main.

I'm looking forward to the initial reports,, I've always tried to follow accident reporting as a fellow pilot, it does give you the creeps to see how each small failure and distraction can lead to a fatal conclusion to a flight.. One of my "best friends" was killed one very dark windy night at Chicago Midway, in an airplane that we had flown two longer trips in together..

look up the NTSBs accident report from Nov of 1988, tail number N271MA, two seven one Mike Alpha....
 
I don't like the viewer used by USNI News so just

From the Report:
In December 2016, the Navy released a new force structure assessment (FSA) that called for a fleet of 355 ships—substantially larger than the current
force of 280 ships. In response to a request from the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces of the House Committee on Armed Services, the Congressional Budget Office explored the costs of achieving that goal in a previous report. To expand on that analysis, CBO has estimated the costs of achieving a 355-ship fleet under two alternatives. e agency then compared those scenarios with two other alternatives involving smaller fleets. For all four alternatives, CBO explored shipbuilding and operating costs, the composition and capabilities of the fleet, and effects on the shipbuilding industry.

The four alternatives would affect the size and composition of the Navy in the following ways, CBO estimates:

  • Under the first alternative, the Navy would create a 355-ship fleet by building more ships over the next 20 years, achieving the force goal by 2037. The cost to build, crew, and operate a 355-ship fleet achieved by new construction would average $103 billion (in 2017 dollars) per year through 2047.
  • Under the second alternative, the Navy would attain
a 355-ship fleet sooner, in about 2028, but would not achieve the composition that the service wants until 2037—by using a new-ship construction schedule similar to the schedule under the first alternative, and also by extending the service life of some large surface combatants, amphibious ships, attack submarines, and logistics ships. Its costs would average $104 billion annually through 2047.
  • Under the third alternative, the Navy would maintain a fleet comparable in size and composition to today’s fleet of 280 ships. It would cost an average of $91 billion annually through 2047.
  • The fourth alternative would cost the least and illustrates the long-term implications of funding the Navy at roughly the level it has received historically for ship procurement. By 2047, the fleet would fall to 230 ships. In total, that alternative would cost an average of $82 billion per year over the next 30 years.

Congressional Budget Office Report on 355-Ship Navy Costs
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Marine Corps Is Finished With Its Long-Troubled Lightweight 120mm Mortar Systems.

efssosprey.jpg
The EFSS is a 120mm towed Mortar system using a American Growler ITV that was to be able to fit in a V22. It did by the way fit with some modifications.
The Mortar though is a mess as it's not comparable with M121 120mm rounds. Dragon fire was based on a French mortar MO-120 RT-61 where most of the Mortars in the Army are based on the Soltam and Cardom systems out of Israel.
Next the Growler was supposed to be based off the old M151 a Jeep with a long service life in the USMC but updated. in practice though it ended up being a totally new design. Issues though continued as Roadside bombs and IED's rendered the M1163, M1162 and M1161 useless as they offered no protection. well the Marines moved to M-ATV and other MRAPS.

Of course the usefulness of the 120mm Mortar system dropped as both the Army and Marines ended up favoring M777 and MLRS systems.
 

Klon

Junior Member
Registered Member
Latenlazy said "keep pace" with PLA procurement, not grab an inventory total of both old and new and comparing numbers.
Many things (that are now impossible to quote) were said. In any case, the US has been able to buy these things and can still afford to operate them, so they're relevant.

If you prefer to only look at recent acquisitions, 34 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers were commissioned between 2000 and 2012, 2 more in 2017 and Wikipedia predicts four will be commissioned this year. 14 Virginia-class submarines have been commissioned since 2004 and the rate will apparently increase to two per year with the next block. 66 F-35 were made in 2017 (some for export), with the number set to increase significantly over the coming years.


Quite simply put, the PLA can afford to match the US in procurement numbers per year from here on out, and stress inflicted by the PLA's budget on the Chinese economy (1.3%) isn't even as high as that inflicted by the US military on the US economy (3%) meaning China has a larger margin to increase spending before it becomes unsustainable.
Right now (or from here on out), this (in italics) may be true for some ship classes, but it's not been shown to be true in general, both in achieved production rates and in affordability. I provided the example of the J-20 (supposedly) costing a third more than the F-35, along with the contrast in the number built per year.


In twenty to thirty years, when the Cold War and Gulf War-era equipment have been retired, the inventory totals of China and the US will be decided by how much they've respectively produced since the 2010s, and in that comparison, the PLA would not be lacking.
To clarify one thing: I never said it's impossible for China to match or surpass American military acquisitions (over a reasonable time frame). In fact, in this post I suggested large increases in military spending to get there sooner. What I objected to were specifically these two posts:
The US is going to spend itself into the abyss, dancing merrily the whole way.
As I sometimes say, until the Pentagon fixes its broken procurement process the US will not be able to keep pace with China militarily.
Regarding the first one, the US military spending has been very high for decades and will likely continue to be. As a percentage of GDP it's also very close to the lowest it's been since before the Second World War.
Regarding the second one, I objected to the "broken" characterization, plus the "until" part seems to says that the US can't keep up with China right now, which is also false (even if only speaking of acquisitions).


All the Anglo ones are hopelessly broken. The only time the RAN made a rational decision in recent memory was when they purchased the Tide-class from East Asia instead of ham-fisting it themselves. The Aussies are the dumbest of the lot, managing to get themselves utterly ripped off in every category; naval, aerial, and ground. It's mostly their fault for insisting on building it themselves when they have no idea what they're doing but even when they do agree to buy complete systems, they still get themselves
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. The Russians would be functional if they could produce everything they need, which they can't (Mistral, gas turbines), so owing to industrial limitations, theirs is somewhat broken. The Germans don't even treat their military as a military anymore, more of a political liability. The East Asians are great on the naval front, e.g. ROK got the Sejong for <$1 billion, but they get ripped off by Western aircraft manufacturers because that's just how FMS works. France is a more expensive version of the US because, like the US, they are mostly self-sufficient but unlike the US, they don't have the economy of scale to allow them to procure everything at reasonable cost. Literally everything the US buys will be bought en masse, lowering costs. The same cannot be said of France. I don't know enough about Italy to say anything with confidence. Saudi Arabia isn't even a real country, it's a temporary alliance between people who owe each other no allegiance but happen to live in close proximity to extract the black gold underneath their feet. When that runs out, the alliance ends and the so called 'country' ends with it. Everything is broken with SA, not just military procurement.

The only country practising cost-effective procurement is China. They are the only ones besides the US to have the self-sufficiency and economy of scale to do it. The US could do it because they also have the self-sufficiency and economy of scale, and it's mind-boggling that they don't. I don't understand how rational homo-sapiens with a functional brain can tolerate their shipyards demanding $1.6 billion to build an LPD when their adversaries can build one for $200 million. Like, hellooooo??? When you're that bad at cost-effective shipbuilding, it's time for reforms, don't you think?! Also, WTF is with the LCS? Twice as expensive as a Type 054A but worse in every category except flammability and going really fast. Were they using their brains when they decided to proceed with the project??
Thanks for answering. I think this basically makes my point. Literally every country except China is described as having broken procurement, getting ripped off, or worse. If only China has non-broken procurement, maybe the standard is just off. Assuming the same relative classification, maybe "broken" should be replaced with "normal" or "standard" and China can qualify for "good" or "great". This may seem like splitting hairs, but I'm sure that people here wouldn't accept derogatory descriptions of China for things that are actually normal or average. Additionally, it's just misleading to use inaccurate descriptions.

Put another way, I'm skeptical of the idea that these countries, which include many of the world most technologically advanced nations with the largest economies and most powerful militaries, have a "broken procurement process", which means they're either incompetent or corrupt. I think it's much more likely that they're actually very good at what they do and have good reasons for most decisions that look baffling from the outside. Of course, this doesn't mean that mistakes can't happen, from incompetence, corruption or otherwise.


No you can't. The last time a Chinese company tried ripping the PLA off (J-16 radar), disciplinary measures followed and they were forced to redo the project at their own cost. Find me an example of the US military growing some backbone and enforcing some disciplinary measures on their MIC.
If you insist. One obvious example would be the first domestic aircraft carrier, which wasn't wanted by the Navy but ordered by the political leadership (where did I read that?). Politicians overruling the military professionals to procure an expensive, outdated carrier when a much more capable version would be available only four years later sounds suspiciously like a broken procurement process. Or to use a standard you provided, the [Chinese] would be functional if they could produce everything they need, which they can't ([nuclear reactors for carriers, modern turbofans]), so owing to industrial limitations, theirs is somewhat broken. More examples are available.

So maybe the price of ships isn't the defining feature of a country's military procurement.


@latenlazy for the previous discussion
 
Many things (that are now impossible to quote) were said. In any case, the US has been able to buy these things and can still afford to operate them, so they're relevant.

If you prefer to only look at recent acquisitions, 34 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers were commissioned between 2000 and 2012, 2 more in 2017 and Wikipedia predicts four will be commissioned this year. 14 Virginia-class submarines have been commissioned since 2004 and the rate will apparently increase to two per year with the next block. 66 F-35 were made in 2017 (some for export), with the number set to increase significantly over the coming years.



Right now (or from here on out), this (in italics) may be true for some ship classes, but it's not been shown to be true in general, both in achieved production rates and in affordability. I provided the example of the J-20 (supposedly) costing a third more than the F-35, along with the contrast in the number built per year.



To clarify one thing: I never said it's impossible for China to match or surpass American military acquisitions (over a reasonable time frame). In fact, in this post I suggested large increases in military spending to get there sooner. What I objected to were specifically these two posts:


Regarding the first one, the US military spending has been very high for decades and will likely continue to be. As a percentage of GDP it's also very close to the lowest it's been since before the Second World War.
Regarding the second one, I objected to the "broken" characterization, plus the "until" part seems to says that the US can't keep up with China right now, which is also false (even if only speaking of acquisitions).



Thanks for answering. I think this basically makes my point. Literally every country except China is described as having broken procurement, getting ripped off, or worse. If only China has non-broken procurement, maybe the standard is just off. Assuming the same relative classification, maybe "broken" should be replaced with "normal" or "standard" and China can qualify for "good" or "great". This may seem like splitting hairs, but I'm sure that people here wouldn't accept derogatory descriptions of China for things that are actually normal or average. Additionally, it's just misleading to use inaccurate descriptions.

Put another way, I'm skeptical of the idea that these countries, which include many of the world most technologically advanced nations with the largest economies and most powerful militaries, have a "broken procurement process", which means they're either incompetent or corrupt. I think it's much more likely that they're actually very good at what they do and have good reasons for most decisions that look baffling from the outside. Of course, this doesn't mean that mistakes can't happen, from incompetence, corruption or otherwise.



If you insist. One obvious example would be the first domestic aircraft carrier, which wasn't wanted by the Navy but ordered by the political leadership (where did I read that?). Politicians overruling the military professionals to procure an expensive, outdated carrier when a much more capable version would be available only four years later sounds suspiciously like a broken procurement process. Or to use a standard you provided, the [Chinese] would be functional if they could produce everything they need, which they can't ([nuclear reactors for carriers, modern turbofans]), so owing to industrial limitations, theirs is somewhat broken. More examples are available.

So maybe the price of ships isn't the defining feature of a country's military procurement.


@latenlazy for the previous discussion
what is this, your hideout for posting bunk after

#77 Klon, Yesterday at 2:47 PM

As my last post was deleted, I guess I shouldn't reply here anymore.
?!
 

jobjed

Captain
Many things (that are now impossible to quote) were said. In any case, the US has been able to buy these things and can still afford to operate them, so they're relevant.

If you prefer to only look at recent acquisitions, 34 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers were commissioned between 2000 and 2012, 2 more in 2017 and Wikipedia predicts four will be commissioned this year. 14 Virginia-class submarines have been commissioned since 2004 and the rate will apparently increase to two per year with the next block. 66 F-35 were made in 2017 (some for export), with the number set to increase significantly over the coming years.

Right now (or from here on out), this (in italics) may be true for some ship classes, but it's not been shown to be true in general, both in achieved production rates and in affordability. I provided the example of the J-20 (supposedly) costing a third more than the F-35, along with the contrast in the number built per year.

I said "can afford to", not actively matching US hardware one for one. Right now, the Chinese military expenditure is 1.3% of GDP while the US' is 3%. China can double her spending and still stress her economy less than the US does currently. If China doubles her military spending, the PLA can buy more than double the amount of equipment as marginal cost of production tends downwards.

Additionally, to outmatch the US, the PLA doesn't need to concern themselves with the US' total production, only what they are spending on the Asia-Pacific region. Even then the PLA wouldn't need to match US procurement symmetrically. If the US wants to base a dozen nuclear attack subs in WestPac AO, the PLA can procure a dozen more 056As and Type 927s at a lower cost in response. If the USN can afford to spam Virginias like the PLA spams 056As, then 'grats to them, it's the PLA that has a problem keeping up. But the USN can't, can they?

To clarify one thing: I never said it's impossible for China to match or surpass American military acquisitions (over a reasonable time frame). In fact, in this post I suggested large increases in military spending to get there sooner. What I objected to were specifically these two posts:


Regarding the first one, the US military spending has been very high for decades and will likely continue to be. As a percentage of GDP it's also very close to the lowest it's been since before the Second World War.
Regarding the second one, I objected to the "broken" characterization, plus the "until" part seems to says that the US can't keep up with China right now, which is also false (even if only speaking of acquisitions).

Think of latenlazy’s comment as “until the US eliminates the significant cost advantages of Chinese military procurement relative to themselves, it becomes a foregone conclusion that the US military’s future arsenal will be eclipsed by the PLA’s.”

I think his sentiments are redundant because the US’ getting eclipsed by China in every field including the military IS a foregone conclusion anyway, we’ll probably see it happen within this century. Eliminating the US’ inefficiencies in procurement simply delays the inevitable.

Put another way, I'm skeptical of the idea that these countries, which include many of the world most technologically advanced nations with the largest economies and most powerful militaries, have a "broken procurement process", which means they're either incompetent or corrupt. I think it's much more likely that they're actually very good at what they do and have good reasons for most decisions that look baffling from the outside. Of course, this doesn't mean that mistakes can't happen, from incompetence, corruption or otherwise.

They might just be small and not incompetent, like the French. As a small country, economy of scale doesn't work in their favour. It's not a matter of competency to be subject to the laws of economics.

But some countries actually are just systemically incompetent like Australia with production of everything they’ve ever tried to produce and Germany with their boneheaded management of everything to do with the Bundeswehr, or proud to a fault and refuse the best option unless that's the only one remaining. E.g. the UK with the Tide-class; only when no domestic shipyards bid for the contract did the UK government agree to buy from the second-largest shipbuilding country in the world. And some were and are still whining about buying foreign.

If you insist. One obvious example would be the first domestic aircraft carrier, which wasn't wanted by the Navy but ordered by the political leadership (where did I read that?). Politicians overruling the military professionals to procure an expensive, outdated carrier when a much more capable version would be available only four years later sounds suspiciously like a broken procurement process. Or to use a standard you provided, the [Chinese] would be functional if they could produce everything they need, which they can't ([nuclear reactors for carriers, modern turbofans]), so owing to industrial limitations, theirs is somewhat broken. More examples are available.

So maybe the price of ships isn't the defining feature of a country's military procurement.

You read it from pop3, who contributes to practically half of what we know about the PLAN.

The PLAN has limited funding and didn’t see the need for a STOBAR. The Politburo, being the strategic visionaries of the country, decided firstly the ROC cannot get the ex-Varyag, secondly to refurbish the hull since they got it to Dalian anyway and it was in remarkably good condition, and thirdly to commission another STOBAR because of strategic considerations. I don’t know what strategic considerations those are but pop3 mentions the Politburo’s order to the Navy was to get two combat-capable CSGs quickly. Xi probably foresees an imminent contingency where two carrier groups will prove crucial because otherwise why the rush? This is not an example of broken procurement and more a reflection of the fact the military’s considerations are narrower in scope and they need to defer to people with a more comprehensive view of the situation.

The Chinese can produce everything they need unlike the Russians because the J-20 isn’t stuck in limbo waiting for power plants like the Russian Gorshkovs and LHDs. Of course, China wants even better engines but to call China self-deficient in turbofans because their best isn’t the world’s best is delusional. Also, calling China self-deficient because of a lack of carrier nuclear reactors is like calling the US self-deficient because they don’t have ASBMs. Quite simply, neither party has a current need for the system that they do not yet possess.
 

Top