US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Aug 29, 2018
Jul 12, 2018
and now something even more vague:
Navy’s Next Large Surface Combatant Will Draw From DDG-51, DDG-1000 — But Don’t Call it a Destroyer Yet
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
related:
The US Navy is going to need a bigger boat, and it’s getting ready to buy one
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The U.S. surface Navy is moving rapidly toward buying a new large surface ship that will
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, a ship that Navy leaders and experts say will need to be spacious to accommodate future upgrades and weapon systems.

The office of the Chief of Naval Operations Director of Surface Warfare, or OPNAV N96, has convened a “
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
requirements evaluation team” to figure out what the Navy’s next large ship will look like and what it will need to do. The goal, according to the N96 head
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, will be to buy the first cruiser replacement in 2023 or 2024.

The acquisition process should kick off formally next year once a capabilities development document is completed, but a few main factors are driving the size requirement, Boxall said.

The fleet is pushing towards designs that can easily be upgraded without a major overhaul. To do that, the Navy thinks its going to need a lot of extra power for more energy-intensive weapons in the future, such as electromagnetic rail guns and laser weapons.

“You need something that can host the [size, weight, power and cooling], so it’s probably going to be a little bigger," Boxall said. "Flexibility and adaptability, the ability to upgrade quickly, is going to be a key requirement capability. It’s got to have room to grow.

"Power is going to become more important, not just for the Air and Missile Defense Radar, but to add power for directed energy, for rail guns and things like that. How much? We don't know. But we have to be adaptable."

It also wants to be able to get into areas such as the Combat Information Center (the combat system nerve center of the ship) to swap out large consoles and computers without cutting holes in the hull to do so. That means the ship will have to be designed with some kind of removable panels, as well as incorporating extra space to add new consoles and systems if they are needed in the future.

Future missiles are also driving the need for a larger ship. Missiles fired by surface combatants are going to need to travel further and faster. That means the vertical launch system launchers will need to get bigger to accommodate a larger missile.

“We are going to need, we expect, space for longer range missiles. They are going to be bigger. So the idea that you could make a bigger cell, even if you don’t use it for one big missile, you could use it for multiple missiles — quad-pack, eight-pack, whatever.”

The new ship will incorporate Raytheon’s AN/SPY-6 Air and Missile Defense Radar, the same way the new DDG Flight III has incorporated it. The next large surface combatant will have the Flight III requirements as a baseline with room to grow into later, he said. That approach, using an existing set of requirements and adapting them for use in later hulls, has served the Navy well in the past.

Boxall pointed to altering the Spruance-class destroyers into the Ticonderoga-class cruisers as an example of what the Navy is trying to accomplish, but added that the new ship would likely borrow elements from both the current DDGs and the Zumwalt-class destroyers now entering the fleet.

“We looked at the things we already knew was out there,” he said. "We looked at the DDG-1000 hull – there are things about that we like, there are things we would do differently. There are things about DDG Flight III that we like, and things we don’t like.

“So I think you are going to see a merge of different types of things. [Space, weight, power and cooling], the ability to host a [admiral’s] staff, larger weapons. Bigger than a DDG Flight III.”

Drones

Integral to any future ship will be the ability to host unmanned vehicles, Boxall said.

The Navy is starting down a path of incorporating drones into almost every aspect of their war fighting, from over-the-horizon sensors, to aerial refueling drones such as the MQ-25 awarded to Boeing in late August, to creating datalink networks on the fly if other links are compromised.

Designing a surface combatant with that in mind will be key to its success, said Bryan McGrath, a retired destroyer skipper and head of the defense consultancy The FerryBridge Group.

“What is crucial to me is that, in addition to its size, sensors, and weapons, this ship must be able to one day accommodate several medium altitude long endurance [unmanned aerial vehicles] capable of dramatically extending both the sensor and weapons range of the ship.

"For the fleet concept of Distributed Maritime Operations to succeed, we have to break the reliance of distributed surface forces on external intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance sources. They need robust, organic ISR.”

ISR assets attached to the aircraft carriers can perform those functions for surface ships, but the Surface Navy has argued in recent years that it can be highly effective in anti-access environments such as the South China Sea if they break free of the carrier and spread out, posing threats for multiple angles and stressing China’s targeting and ISR capabilities.

The surface Navy has made progress integrating drones in recent years. The MQ-8 Fire Scout, an unmanned helicopter that can fly off a cruiser, destroyer or littoral combat ship’s flight deck and be used for targeting. In August 2017, the Fire Scout was used to kill a target with a Harpoon launched off the littoral combat ship Coronado.

The ranges at which ships will need to fight in the future, however, might mean longer-range drones will be needed to be effective in that kind of scenario.
 
now this is interesting,

"The Army had requested just $40.44 million in RDT&E funding to improve weapons and munitions, but lawmakers are providing a total $383.44 million."

etc.:
US Army weapons and munitions tech development gets congressional cash injection
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!




Aug 4, 2018
Hypersonic Technology Becomes a Top Pentagon Priority
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

sounded to me like the Pentagon found yet another buzzword, after 'sensor fusion', 'network-centric', 'modularity', 'commonality', 'directed energy', LOL 'game changer' ...

the text anyway:
 
LOL! until now thought the price for US of a new Abrams would something like ten million, but noticed inside
As deadline nears, Senate approves $674 billion defense budget bill
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:

"The appropriations fund ... $1.5 billion for the upgrade of 135 Abrams tanks."


meaning more than 11m per tank upgrade
 
since I've now read it, I post
Why 386 Squadrons? Air Force Says It’ll Have the Data Next Year
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Air Force leaders say they’ll know how many planes they really need — in March.

Why 386?

With great fanfare, U.S. Air Force leaders on Monday announced they need
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
— a 25 percent increase to the fleet — and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to execute President Trump’s new National Defense Strategy which focuses on countering China and Russia. This week’s annual Air Force Association conference even passed out blue coffee mugs embossed with the Air Force seal and the number 386 for all attendees to see.

In appearances this week, Air Force leaders said their service is too small — so small they proposed adding 74 new operational squadrons of fighter jets, bombers, rescue helicopters, tankers and more, by the year 2030. But Air Force officials could not say how many more planes are needed to reach that 386 goal. Instead, they pointed to several ongoing studies that won’t be complete until next year

“We don’t have all of the answers yet,” Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said Tuesday a press conference, one day after announcing the lofty goal. “We haven’t laid out a complete program plan for how we would get to that [386 number] or what these particular airplanes would be.”

So how did they get the idea of 386 to begin with? The number was derived through “modeling and simulation and analysis,” which the service plans to share publicly. “We think that’s a good way to do this rather than waiting and just delivering a report in March,” she said. ”Let’s engage in this conversation.”

Gen. David Goldfein, the Air Force chief of staff, said the number is intended to get people talking. “This is the beginning of a dialog that we now intend to have that’s well ahead of the delivery date of March.”

In other words, it’s an opening bid, it’s a high one, and Air Force expects to spend the next two years discussing it. Since those studies won’t be done until March, no funding for additional squadrons will be part of fiscal 2020 budget request proposal that is supposed to go to Congress in February. That means the first time the Trump administration could request a spending increase for the Air Force’s expansion plans would be in the next budget, to be submitted in February 2020 for the fiscal year starting October 1, 2021.

“We’re not naive about the financial constraints within which you make decisions — we make those all the time,” Wilson said. “But we also should know what is required form the perspective of those who plan and develop military forces to execute that strategy.”

Here are the increases desired to reach 386 operational squadrons:
  • Airlift from 53 to 54 squadrons.
  • Bomber squadrons from nine to 14.
  • Combat search and rescue from 27 to 36.
  • Command & Control, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance from 40 to 62.
  • Fighter from 55 to 62.
  • Drones from 25 to 27.
  • Space from 16 to 23.
  • Special Ops from 20 to 27.
  • Tankers from 40 to 54.
To have more squadrons, the Air Force would need more aircraft, and those won’t come any easier than the potential congressional fight for the money to fund them. Currently the only airlift plane still in production is the C-130, a turboprop transport and cargo plane made by Lockheed Martin. The Air Force has about four dozen retired C-5 Galaxy, giant cargo jets which could presumably be brought out of retirement and upgraded with new engines and avionics.

The only new bomber scheduled for production is the newly-conceived B-21, to be made by Northrop Grumman.

For search and rescue, Lockheed subsidiary Sikorsky is currently building new HH-60 Pave Hawk helicopters. Combat, Search and Rescue, or CSAR, air wings also possess C-130s, which presumably would be included in the plus-ups.

For intelligence missions, the Air Force flies a number of aircraft mostly based off of 1960s-era Boeing 707. It is buying some new Gulfstream aircraft to replace C-130s used for intel missions.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the only stealth fighter in production, but Lockheed still builds F-16 for foreign customers and Boeing builds F-15s for allies.

Drones would likely include General Atomics-made MQ-9 reapers, Insitu-built Scan Eagles or other small unmanned aircraft.

As for special operations, squadrons now fly the CV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft and various versions of the C-130. It also has small squadrons of tiny propeller-driven aircraft.

The only new aerial tanker in production is the Boeing KC-46. But this week Defense News
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
the first of those planes may not arrive by the October target date for first delivery due to problems with the refueling boom that connects it to other aircraft mid-flight.
 
LOL I happen to know LockMart lost the USN Stingray competition Aug 30, 2018
LOL nobody reads this, I'll do it anyway:

guessing
LockMart
landing-002-1522097813.jpg
anyway
Lockheed Martin Is Crafting New Stealth and Drone Tanker Concepts For The USAF

September 20, 2018
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
There is no real news in that one. But it is interesting.
The USAF has different needs vs the USN on tankers, but one thing they have in common is the range of both F35 and having to consider acess denial technology.
As we all know in peer to peer conflict everyone will target Awacs, Jstar and Tanker types followed I would add by transports. Same for neer peer to peer. Just look at what happened in Syria this week where the Syrians when attacked used the Air defense systems given them by the Russians to shoot down a Electronic surveillance aircraft. It turns out that it was Russian but none the less. That could have been a tanker or AEW bird supporting the F16s.
This means sports fans that the Fanboi Y20 AEW might not be a great idea.
The F22 and F35 Radar systems are sometimes said to be mini Awacs and that is part of the response to such a potential. That is to allow the 5th gen fighters to probe deep behind enemy lines withoutneed to risk a highly visible AEW based on a passenger liners.
Long ago the USAF also had the Battlefield Surveillance Aircraft-Experimental (BSAX) program the aim being before the introduction of E8 JSTAR a stealthy platform for the same job. Now we see the USAF potentially giving that a second look though likely unmanned.
And finally KC-Z, the idea being to introduce a tanker with low observable tech to give it a chance to support fighter ops closer to the front.
 
Last edited:

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
There is no real news in that one. But it is interesting. The USAF USA has different needs vs the USN on tankers, but one thing they have in common is the range of both F35 and having to consider across denial technology.
As we all know in peer to peer conflict everyone will target Awacs, Jstar and Tanker types followed I would add by transports. Same for neer peer to peer. Just look at what happened in Syria this week where the Syrians when attacked used the Air defense systems given them by the Russians to shoot down a Electronic surveillance aircraft. It turns out that it was Russian but none the less. That could have been a tanker or AEW bird supporting the F16s.
This means sports fans that the Fanboi Y20 AEW might not be a great idea.
The F22 and F35 Radar systems are sometimes said to be mini Awacs and that is part of the response to such a potential. That is to allow the 5th gen fighters to probe deep behind enemy lines withoutneed to risk a highly visible AEW based on a passenger liners.
Long ago the USAF also had the Battlefield Surveillance Aircraft-Experimental (BSAX) program the aim being before the introduction of E8 JSTAR a stealthy platform for the same job. Now we see the USAF potentially giving that a second look though likely unmanned.
And finally KC-Z, the idea being to introduce a tanker with low observable tech to give it a chance to support fighter ops closer to the front.

Yep, and Jura, we're gonna start deducting about 20% from your take home pay, to pay for these much needed aircraft, and "thanks in advance Buddy!", we couldn't do it without you!

I know you're always worried about how we are gonna pay for it? and thanks for being there for us Dude!
 
Yep, and Jura, we're gonna start deducting about 20% from your take home pay, to pay for these much needed aircraft, and "thanks in advance Buddy!", we couldn't do it without you!

I know you're always worried about how we are gonna pay for it? and thanks for being there for us Dude!
LOL! you're welcome hahaha but this thread needs new posters

for example this month somebody had appeared here who's apparently strong in the Pentagon contracting but by now I don't even recall the screen name
 

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
I think it is mildly pointless for the AEW&C platform to be stealth. Since you are supposed to be emitting radar signals most of the time that negates any stealth you have. Sure you can turn it off and go stealth for bits and pieces but any such aircraft will be highly vulnerable and will need defending. The larger the aircraft you use the more range the radar will have, and the further away from the battlefront you can be. So yes, I think the Y-20 as an AEW&C platform makes sense. The alternative would be to use a civilian aircraft as a base, like the US does, but the Chinese simply don't have civilian aircraft that large.

So if they need a tanker or a large AEW&C platform, the Y-20 is IMHO the obvious choice for the Chinese. I think those will start to show up around the time the WS-20 becomes available.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
I think it is mildly pointless for the AEW&C platform to be stealth. Since you are supposed to be emitting radar signals most of the time that negates any stealth you have. Sure you can turn it off and go stealth for bits and pieces but any such aircraft will be highly vulnerable and will need defending.
It's called Low Probability of Intercept Radar.
Fighters like F22, F35, J20 All rely on radar for targeting and hunting of targets. So there radar need to avoid the potential of being used to home in on them. The way this is done is via frequency hoping. Rapidly changing transmission frequency and using a randomized scan pattern so as to make it difficult for a receiver to lock in.
 
Top