US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

​

World Maritime News said:

Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Training, Moorestown, N.J., is being awarded a $574,538,664 firm-fixed-price, multi-year procurement contract for the production of the Aegis Weapon System MK 7 equipment sets in support of the DDG 51 Shipbuilding Program.

The company also won an option for Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System, Host Nation Poland, and engineering services.

This procurement includes economic order quantity, advance procurement funding for production related materials for the multi-year procurement ship sets.

Work will be performed in Moorestown, N.J. (85.5 percent); Clearwater, Fla. (13.1 percent); and Akron, Ohio (1.4 percent), and is expected to be completed by September 2021.

Click to expand...

DeptofDefense U.S. Dept of Defense 21h
Refueling Practice: The French Air Force practices aerial refueling from a @usairforce HC-130 over Djibouti. pic.twitter.com/z6d5qqSSsR

Click to expand...

Loadmasters with the 81st Expeditionary Rescue Squadron watch as a French air force Eurocopter EC725 Caracal practices aerial refueling operations with a U.S. Air Force HC-130, part of the Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa, over Djibouti, Dec. 17, 2013. This was the first time in Djibouti that the 81st ERQS and the French air force conducted aerial refueling operations together. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Staci Miller) (This photo was created using Instagram) #AirForce #Airmen

Click to expand...

Jura said:

it's coming

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Government-issued Apple, Android phones and more coming in 2014
Jan. 2, 2014 - 09:43AM
By Joe Gould
Staff writer army times

24 issues that will shape the Army in 2014
For years, Army mobile phones came in one variety — BlackBerry — but the Defense Department in 2014 plans to catch up with the mobile revolution by offering Android, iOS and Windows mobile devices too.

The plan is to add 100,000 devices by October, and as many as 300,000 within three years.

“There’s chocolate, vanilla and strawberry in the ice cream store, pick the flavor you want,” the Army CIO/G-6’s mobility lead, Rick Walsh, told Army Times. “It’s not just vanilla anymore.”

The move, which is part of the Defense Department’s device agnostic mobile strategy, means soldiers with government-issued smartphones will have access to a broader array of apps and capabilities, while competition among the manufacturers of these devices is expected to drive down costs, Walsh said.

DoD next year will deploy a mobile applications store and mobile device management software for Apple, Samsung Galaxy (which run Android) and other devices.

BlackBerry dominated the government market because it conformed to the federal information processing standards. But the government has sought ways to incorporate Apple as its user-friendly products devour the lion’s share of the consumer market.

“We’re not moving away from BlackBerry per se, we’re opening up to additional brands,” Walsh said. “There are still 84,000 BlackBerry devices across the DoD, so BlackBerry is not going away. Having said that, we are in a position today where we want to embrace new technology, new capabilities.”

Army commanders will have the discretion to select and authorize their own devices, but their organizations must also foot the bill for the equipment and cellular services.

“It’s what you would call an appetite suppressant,” Walsh said. “Not ‘everybody gets an iPhone’ because it costs money. Your boss needs to say ‘Rick really needs an iPhone to do his job and I’m willing to pay for it.’”

In July, the Defense Information Systems Agency announced a $16 million contract award to Digital Management Inc. for mobile device management and a mobile application store.

Through DMI, companies Fixmo and MobileIron will provide secure “containers” on mobile devices and mobile device management software that would allow administrators to monitor and control them.

“It’s the same controls as on the BlackBerry but implemented differently,” Walsh said. “A lock, but a different kind of lock, and the same type of controls, but implemented differently.”

Walsh said the monitoring procedures have not been decided but Android and iOS devices will store sensitive information in the secure container, or “crypto-box,” on the device. Ten failed logins will wipe the device or the contents of the container.

As with BlackBerrys, users will need a Common Access Card sled to use the device.

For security reasons, the devices may not be fully enabled with benefits such as GPS or Apple’s digital assistant software Siri, Walsh said. The management software will ensure the device is in compliance with security guidelines.

“If there’s something on the commercial side that introduces a risk on the DoD side we cannot mitigate, we won’t let you use it,” Walsh said. “At the same time, we don’t want to reduce the device so that it just becomes a telephone.”

DISA’s goal is to have 25,000 devices fielded across DoD by March and 100,000 users by the end of this fiscal year with the potential to scale up to 300,000 devices over the three-year contract.

In January, DISA and the Army will reach initial capability, with plans to add new capabilities every month, Walsh said. The two have between 50 to 100 applications in review.

DISA will have a mobile app vetting process to evaluate apps for security, compliance and interoperability, Walsh said. The agency and the Army have a reciprocity agreement, but whether there will be an Army-branded store, and how it will operate is as yet undetermined. Walsh envisions a partition for each of the services, but sharing of apps across DoD.

“Think of DISA as the provider of Fair Oaks Mall; they own the mall but not the stores inside the mall,” Walsh said. “I, as the Army, want one of those stores.”

The app payment model also is unclear as the military and the companies reconcile the commercial user-based model and government’s traditional purchasing model.

Walsh said he predicts for the Army an explosion of choice and capabilities, lower costs and eventually a cloud-based environment in which mobile devices replace desktop computers.

“I would only have an iPhone or Galaxy device that I would put into a docking station to access my work off the server, and when I leave, I go out the door with a laptop with a phone in it,” Walsh said. “Pretty cool, huh?”
Staff writer Nicole Blake-Johnson contributed to this report.

Click to expand...

First KC-46 Airframe Rollout Set For Early In 2014
By Amy Butler [email protected]
Source: AWIN First

December 24, 2013
With the first set of Pratt & Whitney engines delivered for the U.S. Air Force’s KC-46 test aircraft, Boeing is planning to roll out the first green 767-2C next year.

The 767-2C is the customized commercial platform on which the KC-46 is designed. The 2C includes provisions — such as customized plumbing — to support the KC-46’s refueling mission.

Pratt & Whitney delivered the first two PW4062 engines during a ceremony at Boeing’s Everett, Wash., facility. These engines, each providing 62,000 lb. of thrust, will power the first of four test articles paid for by the U.S. Air Force. This engine also is used on commercial 767s, MD-11s and early 747 models.

Boeing won a contract worth $4.9 billion in February 2011; it includes delivery of 18 KC-46s in 2017. These are the first of an anticipated buy of 179 tankers to begin replacing the aging KC-135 fleet.

The KC-46 program is among the Air Force’s top three procurement priorities alongside the single-engine, stealthy F-35 and a new long-range bomber.

The Air Force completed the KC-46 critical design review in August, one month ahead of plan.

The 767-2C is slated to begin flying by June and the KC-46 is slated to start flight testing in January 2015. Boeing has fabricated the first KC-46 refueling boom.

It remains to be seen how much the KC-46 program will cost Boeing. The government estimates the cost at completion is $5.6 billion, $500 million more than Boeing’s estimate and $700 million more than the Air Force’s contract ceiling. Because the contract is fixed price, any overrun must be paid for by Boeing.

Click to expand...

Contractors Dispute F-35 Cost Report
By Bill Sweetman
Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology

December 30, 2013
Credit: Paul Weatherman
A Rand Corp. report produced to guide future U.S. Air Force program plans has concluded that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program will cost more than three single-service programs would have done. That conclusion drew a sharp riposte from Lockheed Martin, which accused the report's authors of using “outdated data” that overstated the F-35's projected operating costs by a factor of two.

Lockheed Martin based its criticism on numbers that cannot be found in the report. The company declined to give a source for those numbers, stating that they were “government data.” The Joint Strike Fighter program office distanced itself from the argument, saying it had “no real issues” with the report, and did not confirm any of the company's figures.

Rand's Project Air Force team produced the report, which was requested in 2012 by then-commander of Air Force Materiel Command Gen. Donald Hoffman, as it became clear the JSF would be running many years behind the schedule that was planned up to 2010.

The study was based on historic data up to November 2011, including the fiscal year 2010 selected acquisition report (SAR). Rand, a think tank founded by the Air Force and still closely associated with the service, did not use the fiscal year 2011 SAR (issued in March 2012) which disclosed a three-year slip in development and actually reported higher cost projections than the 2010 report.

Because the JSF program is incomplete, and because no other joint fighter program has been completed as planned, the researchers used data from a variety of programs—from the F/A-18E/F and F-22 fighters to the T-6A turboprop trainer and E-8C surveillance platform—to gauge the historical cost increases in joint and single-service programs.

They did not focus on absolute costs, but on the percentage growth of estimated costs between the launch of a full-scale development program (Milestone B; MS B) and points five and nine years after MS B, the latter corresponding to the most recent JSF data available in late 2011.

The first conclusion drawn from this data was that the average estimated cost of all joint aircraft programs grew faster than that of single-service programs at both the five- and nine-year points, and that the lowest cost-growth rate of any joint program was higher than the fastest-growing single-service program: Even the T-6 grew faster than the C-17, which came close to being canceled because of its cost growth.

The researchers used historical data to estimate production cost saved as a result of joint programs: that is, the benefit of lower unit costs over a longer production run. They found that the maximum benefit for an ideal two-service program—where two services acquire equal numbers of 100% common aircraft—was a 13% cut in unit production cost and 20% in overall acquisition (assuming that production costs were four times research and development costs).

But these theoretical savings were more than offset by the greater cost increase rates observed in practice, making the joint program more costly for both parties. Also, even this calculation did not take into account the higher production and development costs that would be incurred if the partner services procured different versions.

The second part of the Rand report applied this learning to the F-35 program as compared with three notional single-service programs. The MS B baseline R&D cost of three separate programs was based on the JSF program's projections that its R&D cost would be 60% of three single-service programs.

Rand estimated the baseline procurement cost of the separate programs on assumptions that favored JSF. No credit was taken for commonality between the three separate aircraft. Likewise, the MS B baseline operations and support cost assumed zero commonality between the three aircraft and eliminated all economies of scale.

Researchers compared the actual growth of F-35 estimates at the nine-year mark with growth rates for three separate programs based on historic growth with the F-22, the most comparable single-service fighter program. The same adjustments were applied to O&S costs, although a later and higher estimate of F-22 operational costs (at 14 years after MS B) was also included.

The study's conclusion: The JSF estimated life-cycle cost (LCC) in 2010 was already higher than that of three single-service programs. “Under none of the plausible conditions that we analyzed did JSF have a lower LCC than the notional single-service programs.” The report does not recommend any changes to the JSF program, but advises the Air Force to avoid joint projects in future.

Lockheed Martin claims in response that the Rand numbers are outdated and that “the U.S. government stated the O&S [operations and sustainment]costs for the program are approximately $782 billion for a 55-year-long program—not $1.5 trillion as cited in the Rand report.”

The $1.5 trillion figure occurs nowhere in the report, which cites lifetime F-35 O&S as $487 billion in 2002 dollars. This is based on the number in the fiscal year 2010 SAR, adjusted to compensate for 409 Navy/Marine aircraft eliminated from the program.

Neither is Lockheed Martin able or willing to provide a source for its $782 billion figure. The 2012 SAR estimated those costs at $617 billion in 2012 dollars, or $1,113 billion in then-year dollars for operations beyond 2065. That is the closest to $1.5 trillion of any published figures.

More recently, program office director Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan was quoted as saying the then-year estimate had been revised downward to $857 billion. One industry source says the revision is largely or entirely the result of changed inflationary assumptions, in which case it would have no bearing on the Rand report because it uses base-year dollars. A JSF program office official agrees that “a lot of the change is inflationary” and says the office is still working with industry to reduce O&S costs.

Lockheed Martin's assertion that the Rand data are “outdated”—echoed in a Pratt & Whitney statement—may not be in the contractors' interest. The Rand report uses fiscal year 2010 SAR data that are actually 10% lower than the most recent official numbers.

Click to expand...

​

Wolrd Maritime News said:

Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) and Southwest Regional Maintenance Center (SWRMC) divers recently completed the first full underwater waterjet seal and evaluation on a littoral combat ship (LCS), USS Fort Worth (LCS 3), the Navy announced, Jan. 2.

Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) and Southwest Regional Maintenance Center (SWRMC) divers recently completed the first full underwater waterjet seal and evaluation on a littoral combat ship (LCS), USS Fort Worth (LCS 3), the Navy announced, Jan. 2.

LCS class ships are unique to the U.S. Navy because they use waterjets instead of propellers for propulsion. Each waterjet draws seawater in through a duct, increases the water’s pressure and then ejects it, causing the ship to move.

To protect these waterjets from internal corrosion, the LCS class uses what’s known as a cathodic protection system, a system by which the waterjets are equipped with sacrificial metal structures that are specifically designed to corrode. Because these structures – known as anodes – corrode so easily, it keeps the rest of the waterjet structure safe from rusting or pitting.

On Freedom-variant ships, the anodes installed on the waterjets need to be inspected and replaced every four months. NAVSEA’s Supervisor of Salvage and Diving (SUPSALV) was tasked to develop a procedure to replace these anodes at sea, instead of having to conduct the replacement in a dry dock.

Working with the ship’s operators and the in-service LCS program office, SUPSALV engineers developed a plate to seal the waterjet inlet, as well as external patches to isolate the waterjet, creating a dry environment. This allowed maintenance teams to inspect and replace the zinc anodes while the ship was waterborne.

“It is important to have this underwater process to provide a cost effective, timely, and manageable procedure to the LCS fleet,” said Joe Theodorou, SUPSALV program manager. “Having this capability saves the Navy $100 million in dry dock costs in the San Diego area.”

With the procedure complete for Freedom-variant littoral combat ships, SUPSALV will begin testing a similar process for Independence-variant ships. Though both variants use waterjets for propulsion, there are significant differences in their design. Testing on Independence variant ships is expected to complete by March 2014.

The Office of the Director of Ocean Engineering, Supervisor of Salvage and Diving is part of the Naval Sea Systems Command and is responsible for all aspects of ocean engineering, including salvage, in-water ship repair, contracting, towing, diving safety and equipment maintenance and procurement.

Click to expand...

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

tactical apps both offical military and unofficial are a growing sub industry. functions range form Sniper ballistic tables to secure text messaging to Forum style data interfaces that allow intel gathering.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

The Air Force’s A-10 “Warthog,” which provides close air support for ground troops, has survived enemy anti-aircraft fire for decades but is about to be downed by the budget cutter’s pen.

With combat envisioned in the Asia-Pacific region, there is little room for a “tank killer” like the A-10 Thunderbolt — nicknamed “Warthog” because of its look — and other long-treasured weapons systems in a Pentagon budget facing deep reductions, officials say.

The budget cuts also could reduce production of the KC-10 Extender tanker aircraft, the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle and the Ground Combat Vehicle.

“Do we want a ready force today or a modern force tomorrow? That’s the dilemma. You can’t have both,” Gen. Mark Welsh III, Air Force chief of staff, said last week at the American Enterprise Institute. “If you lose a counterinsurgency action, it’s embarrassing. If you lose a full-spectrum conflict, it will be catastrophic.”

Officials are considering retiring the Air Force fleet of 324 A-10s by 2015, which would save about $3.7 billion a year in operational, maintenance and logistical costs. At least three times as many F-16s would have to be cut to get the same amount of savings, Gen. Welsh said.

The downsizing would affect those who fly and support A-10 units based in Idaho, Arizona, Florida, Arkansas, Indiana, Maryland, Georgia, Nevada, Michigan, Missouri and South Korea.

Introduced in 1977, the A-10 has supplied about 25 percent of close air support to ground troops in battle over the past decades, making it a lifesaver in the 1991 Persian Gulf War as well as the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts.
“Is the A-10 the best at close air support? Absolutely,” Gen. Welsh, a former A-10 pilot, said Friday at a Pentagon news conference. “[But] we can do it with other aircraft. Those other aircraft do other things for us.”

Supporters of the Warthog say other aircraft can perform close air support only in a “second-rate manner” and service members fighting on the ground would end up suffering the most from its elimination.

“The A-10 has proven successful in every single war we’ve fought since Desert Storm in 1991,” said Winslow T. Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Project on Government Oversight.

“In 2000, name one person who said the next war we would fight would be in Afghanistan and would be a ground war,” Mr. Wheeler said. “Anybody who says they know what the next war is going to be like and therefore we need ‘X’ and should discard ‘Y’ is a person with an agenda.”

The Pentagon already had cut its budget by nearly $500 billion over the next decade when automatic spending cuts called sequestration began this year, requiring an additional $500 billion, 10-year reduction in defense spending.
A budget deal proposed last week would put about $32 billion back into defense spending for the next two years but leave in place annual cuts of $50 billion for the next seven years after that.

The 2014 defense authorization bill includes language that aims to protect the A-10 from the chopping block, but the Air Force — facing annual spending cuts of $12 billion — is likely to win the fight to retire the Warthog by 2015 because of lack of support by senior military officials, Mr. Wheeler said.

Air Force officials say they need to focus on aircraft to win future wars, namely the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the KC-46 tanker and the Long Range Strike bomber.

“We have to invest now to have those things by the mid-[2020s],” Gen. Welsh said. “Anything that’s ‘nice to have’ has no chance of making the cut. There’s a lot of things we’d love to do that we’re not going to be able to.”

Military analysts say the Pentagon faces plenty of tough choices with its shrinking budget, including the Air Force’s KC-10 tanker, the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, and Ground Combat Vehicle programs. They note that military pay and benefits also are under the knife in the budget deal, which would include a gradual reduction in annual pay for nondisabled, working-age retirees.

Although congressional lawmakers have been unwilling to alter military compensation, the recent budget deal was “a pivotal moment,” said Todd Harrison, a defense budget analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
“[Lawmakers] have shown that they’re actually willing to go there and touch that third rail, that the budget situation is such that they just can’t continue to ignore the growing compensation cost issue,” Mr. Harrison said.
Although the Pentagon has wanted to close unnecessary bases and facilities, Congress has refused.

The Pentagon could cut from plenty of other areas that would be less painful, but military chiefs have been unwilling to touch them, budget analysts say.

One of those is the radar-evading, supersonic F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet, the costliest program in Defense Department history, at an estimated $400 billion to develop and purchase.

Some analysts say the Pentagon, which plans to buy more than 2,400 F-35s, would reduce retrofitting costs for those already purchased and being produced if it waits several years until the aircraft’s testing is completed before procurement.

“The F-35 is an unaffordable disaster, especially on the close air support mission,” Mr. Wheeler said.
Another program that analysts say could be cut is the Air Force’s Lockheed Martin U-2, a manned surveillance plane that performs the same mission as the Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk, an unmanned surveillance plane.

“The Air Force can’t continue to hold on to both. It would make sense to retire the older U-2s and keep the virtually brand new Global Hawks in the force,” said Mr. Harrison. “But the Air Force doesn’t want to let go of the U-2 because it’s a manned platform, and the Air Force is still run by pilots.”

Meanwhile, the Navy has protected its Littoral Combat Ship program, whose shore-hugging vessels cost about $500 million apiece for a total of more than $30 billion, despite a government study showing that the ship is not survivable if hit by a mine in areas where it most likely would operate.

The Pentagon also has protected cuts to its civilian workforce, which numbers about 800,000 across the country and is at a greater number per uniformed military personnel than at any other point since World War II.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel recently announced a cut of about 200 civilian staffers from his office, but analysts say it’s a “drop in the bucket.”

“The Defense Department is dripping with programs that need to [go], because they are unaffordable and too ineffective,” Mr. Winslow said.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Click to expand...