US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

fallout from the recent explosion ...
Navy Restricts Use of ‘A Number’ of SM-2 Missiles Following USS The Sullivans Launch Failure
The Navy has restricted the use of an unspecified number of SM-2 guided missiles following a launch failure on July 18
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, Naval Sea Systems Command officials told USNI News.

The older missiles have been restricted to “Wartime Use Only” status while an ongoing Navy failure review board determines the cause of the failure of the SM-2 Block IIIA that exploded shortly after launching from The Sullivans, NAVSEA officials said in a July 24 statement.

Once the findings are complete, “the Navy will reassess its position regarding these particular missiles,” NAVSEA said.
“The missiles placed on Wartime Use Only status are [on] older missile
primarily used in fleet exercises and testing.”

While neither NAVSEA nor the Navy have not given specifics on what caused the missile to fail, USNI News has learned the service is examining the more than 25-year-old solid rocket motor of the failed SM-2 — one made by a now defunct company that made also the solid rocket booster (SRB) that started a chain reaction that caused the in-flight explosion of Space Shuttle Challenger.

SM-2s with the older Mk 104 Mod 2 Dual Thrust Rocket Motors (DTRM) manufactured by the defunct Thiokol Coporation before 1992 — which also manufactured the shuttle programs SRBs — have been placed on the “Wartime Use Only” list, USNI News has learned.

USNI News understands the Navy’s stock of SM-3 ballistic missile defense (BMD) interceptors and newer SM-6s are unaffected by the restrictions as they field newer MK 104 engines with different design than the older Thiokol engines.

The explosion of the SM-2 IIIA with the Thiokol engine occurred during a missile exercise off the coast of Virginia on July 18 caused no injuries but damaged The Sullivans and sparked a small fire that was extinguished by the ship’s company.

Photos obtained by USNI News showed the older SM-2 missile exploding shortly after launch just above the ship’s mast raining debris on the port side and the surrounding ocean.

As largely a safety measure, the Navy uses less volatile solid rocket propellant in its missiles than more volatile liquid fuel.

Accidents with SM-2s are rare and several experts contacted last week by USNI News failed to recall a similar incident with the missile.

The following is the complete July 24, 2015 statement from Naval Sea Systems Command.

The Navy has restricted a number of SM-2 BLK IIIA’s to Wartime Use Only status until the Failure Review Board has determined the root cause of the 18 July incident, at which time the Navy will reassess its position regarding these particular missiles. The missiles placed on Wartime Use Only status are [on] older missile primarily used in Fleet exercises and testing
,


 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Exercising in live fire exercises is fundamentally a dangerous...but necessary...thing to do.

it's not the 1st time, and will not be the last time that ordinance either malfunctioned or mis-fired.

Thank goodness in this instance, no one was injured and there was only minor damage.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


freedom-lcs23.jpg

Naval Today said:
Secretary of the U.S. Navy Ray Mabus announced Saturday that the next Freedom-variant littoral combat ship will be named USS Cooperstown (LCS 23).

The future Cooperstown will be the first ship to bear the name. It was named to honor the veterans who are members of the National Baseball Hall of Fame located in Cooperstown, New York. These 64 men served in conflicts ranging from the Civil War through the Korean War.

A fast, agile surface combatant, the LCS provides the required war fighting capabilities and operational flexibility to execute a variety of missions in areas such as mine warfare, anti-submarine warfare and surface warfare.

Cooperstown will be built with modular design incorporating mission packages that can be changed out quickly as combat needs change in a region. These mission packages are supported by detachments that deploy both manned and unmanned vehicles, and sensors in support of mine, undersea, and surface warfare missions.

The ship will be 388 feet long and will be capable of traveling at speeds in excess of 40 knots. The construction will be led by a Lockheed Martin industry team in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Keeping pace with the USS independence class names from last week. This will be the twelfth Freedom class vessel. I expect this week we will also here about LCS-21...which is yet to be named yet.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

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


Okay so here is the run down.

1) Tensions between East and West have the US Army moving back into Europe and maybe deeper than the Cold war with heavy armor.

2) The current US Army Heavy Brigades are more or less composed of the same vehicle set as heavy armor divisions were in the early 1990s when the Cold war was supposed to be over. (not mentioned in the article is that this also holds true for the USMC who now plans to continue using AAV7A1 until 2035 if not longer. )

3) that all said the US Army has invested in recapitulation, which has resulted in the following.

* The Bradley Fighting Vehicle is the backbone of the Army's Heavy Brigade Combat teams with movements now underway to establish the Armored Multi Purpose Vehicle family of vehicles to replace the old M113 series. AMPV is more or less a Bradley without a turret.
Bradley automotive parts have been integrated into the M119 A7 Paladin SPH (unmentioned but Bradley chassis and engine parts are also the basis of the MLRS and AAV7A1) this means a 80% parts compatibility across multiple vehicle platforms.

* Abrams and Bradley have and are continuing to receive updates to electrical power systems, communications, Fire control and more. Combat in Iraq has increased the weight of both vehicles by about 14-19 tons but improvements to chassis and automotives are hoped to alleviate issues of performance lost by this.

* this is critical as at this point Armor technology seems to have Plateaued farther attempts have been to light to realistically survive engagement or two heavy for operational logistics (20 ton FCS or 84 ton GCV) the current FFV program is more a technology development research and has no plans to become a actual new vehicle as yet.

* APS systems in the Army's mind are a breakthrough technology but are not yet in there view ready as they have yet to become able to defeat Kinetic energy kill projectiles.

Final note was of course to say that really all is fine as the vehicles and most of the equipment used by the Russian troops and debated proxies is also cold war era with a few updates.

My opinion.
First other then JLTV the only active ground vehicle procurement in action are light internally carried utility /recon trucks for the US Army Airborne troop and the Mobile Protected Firepower. The Marines also have the Amphibious Combat Vehicle which is at best a Amphibious Stryker. A 8x8 wheeled vehicle that will be used to likely replace LAV25 and supplement older AAV7A1 with a3+ 12 men vehicle that is at best capable of swimming like a AAV7A1 but can take a bit more of a beating. Which is really nice but not really a game changer.

AMPV will likely prove the basis of a improved Bradley IFV but even with the improvements its still going to have the same limitations of Infantry carry. At best upgraded IFV Bradley might feature a 30mm chain gun in a unmanned turret and perhaps a upgraded ATGM system. But otherwise still a 3+7 load in optimal conditions.

Also no indication of the US Army moving to or debating anything more then Just AMPV versions of the Bradley mission roles and armaments. I have long hoped the Army would move from a Mortar carrier which is little more then the APC equivalent of a Convertible. A APC with a door on the too that opens and a Mortar is set up inside on a turn table. To a Self Propelled Mortar vehicle which has a Turret mounted 120mm breach loaded Mortar. The change would reduce crew size add protection and allow engagement in all conditions without need of MOPP gear.

I think that APS systems even if they cannot yet stop Sabot rounds are a technology that should already be on US Armored vehicles.[/U]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Brumby

Major
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Okay so here is the run down.

1) Tensions between East and West have the US Army moving back into Europe and maybe deeper than the Cold war with heavy armor.

2) The current US Army Heavy Brigades are more or less composed of the same vehicle set as heavy armor divisions were in the early 1990s when the Cold war was supposed to be over. (not mentioned in the article is that this also holds true for the USMC who now plans to continue using AAV7A1 until 2035 if not longer. )

3) that all said the US Army has invested in recapitulation, which has resulted in the following.

* The Bradley Fighting Vehicle is the backbone of the Army's Heavy Brigade Combat teams with movements now underway to establish the Armored Multi Purpose Vehicle family of vehicles to replace the old M113 series. AMPV is more or less a Bradley without a turret.
Bradley automotive parts have been integrated into the M119 A7 Paladin SPH (unmentioned but Bradley chassis and engine parts are also the basis of the MLRS and AAV7A1) this means a 80% parts compatibility across multiple vehicle platforms.

* Abrams and Bradley have and are continuing to receive updates to electrical power systems, communications, Fire control and more. Combat in Iraq has increased the weight of both vehicles by about 14-19 tons but improvements to chassis and automotives are hoped to alleviate issues of performance lost by this.

* this is critical as at this point Armor technology seems to have Plateaued farther attempts have been to light to realistically survive engagement or two heavy for operational logistics (20 ton FCS or 84 ton GCV) the current FFV program is more a technology development research and has no plans to become a actual new vehicle as yet.

* APS systems in the Army's mind are a breakthrough technology but are not yet in there view ready as they have yet to become able to defeat Kinetic energy kill projectiles.

Final note was of course to say that really all is fine as the vehicles and most of the equipment used by the Russian troops and debated proxies is also cold war era with a few updates.

My opinion.
First other then JLTV the only active ground vehicle procurement in action are light internally carried utility /recon trucks for the US Army Airborne troop and the Mobile Protected Firepower. The Marines also have the Amphibious Combat Vehicle which is at best a Amphibious Stryker. A 8x8 wheeled vehicle that will be used to likely replace LAV25 and supplement older AAV7A1 with a3+ 12 men vehicle that is at best capable of swimming like a AAV7A1 but can take a bit more of a beating. Which is really nice but not really a game changer.

AMPV will likely prove the basis of a improved Bradley IFV but even with the improvements its still going to have the same limitations of Infantry carry. At best upgraded IFV Bradley might feature a 30mm chain gun in a unmanned turret and perhaps a upgraded ATGM system. But otherwise still a 3+7 load in optimal conditions.

Also no indication of the US Army moving to or debating anything more then Just AMPV versions of the Bradley mission roles and armaments. I have long hoped the Army would move from a Mortar carrier which is little more then the APC equivalent of a Convertible. A APC with a door on the too that opens and a Mortar is set up inside on a turn table. To a Self Propelled Mortar vehicle which has a Turret mounted 120mm breach loaded Mortar. The change would reduce crew size add protection and allow engagement in all conditions without need of MOPP gear.

I think that APS systems even if they cannot yet stop Sabot rounds are a technology that should already be on US Armored vehicles.[/U]

This guy is an ex Colonel in the US Army and his writings are focused on armoured warfare. He is upfront in his views and probably the reason why he did not made it to General. He doesn't allow comments but his writings are worth while reading if you are into US Army warfare doctrines.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
Here is an interesting article that suggest why Japan is not participating in development of AMDR.

Making the new silicon: Gallium nitride electronics could drastically cut energy usage
An exotic material called gallium nitride (GaN) is poised to become the next semiconductor for power electronics, enabling much higher efficiency than silicon.
In 2013, the Department of Energy (DOE) dedicated approximately half of a $140 million research institute for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to GaN research, citing its potential to reduce worldwide energy consumption. Now MIT spinout Cambridge Electronics Inc. (CEI) has announced a line of GaN
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and power electronic circuits that promise to cut energy usage in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, electric cars, and consumer devices by 10 to 20 percent worldwide by 2025.... to read more
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I believe Japan consider this is going to be the new staple in IC chips and Japan does not want to share with the US what Japan had already developed.
Remember the Akizuki type DDs equiped with FCS-3A that was commissioned three~four years ago is already utilzing this technology.

 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
okay here, I am a bit slow of late lots of RL popping up.

This is some thing small that has all the Marine Bloggers up in Arms
Marine brass endorses infantry plan to ditch M16 for M4
By James K. Sanborn, Staff writer11:07 a.m. EDT July 27, 2015
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
23COMMENTEMAILMORE
Marine leaders have made the momentous recommendation to ditch the iconic M16 in favor of the M4 carbine as the new universal weapon for infantrymen.

The recommendation to swap the venerated rifle that has served as the grunt's primary implement of war since Vietnam now sits on the commandant's desk, pending his final review and a decision. But, the swap appears imminent and if approved will relegate the M16 to a support role. It follows a similar shift already underway in the Army.

With the endorsement of several major commands already supporting the switch — including Marine Corps Combat Development Command; Combat Development and Integration; Plans, Policies and Operations; Marine Corps Systems Command; and Installations and Logistics — final word is possible in weeks or months.

"The proposal to replace the M16A4 with the M4 within infantry battalions is currently under consideration at Headquarters Marine Corps," according to a jointly written response from the commands provided by Maj. Anton Semelroth, a Marine spokesman in Quantico, Virginia.

The change would be welcomed by infantrymen who say the M16A4 was too long and unwieldy for close-quarters battle in Iraq or vehicle-borne operations in Afghanistan. They tout the M4 for its weight savings, improved mobility and collapsible butt stock, allowing the rifle to be tailored for smaller Marines or those wearing body armor.

"I would have to say my gut reaction is it's the right choice and will do a lot of good for the guys in the infantry," said Sgt. Nathan West, an explosive ordnance technician with 8th Engineer Support Battalion, who carried an M4 on dismounted patrols and vehicle-borne operations during two deployments to Afghanistan as an anti-tank missileman.

"The M4 is a great weapons system that has done everything I have ever asked of it," he added.

The proposed switch also gets the thumbs up from senior marksmen such as the 1st Marine Division gunner, Chief Warrant Officer 5 Vince Kyzer.

"The carbine is a great weapon system for its time," he said. "...It will increase the war fighter's lethality and mobility."

635735898861670288-8678291264-8c3c346bba-o.jpg

Marines with the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit’s maritime raid force fire M4 carbines during marksmanship training in Qatar. All Marine infantrymen could soon be issued the M4 in place of the M16A4 service rifle. (Photo: Cpl. Christopher Q. Stone/Marine Corps)


Ultimately, if the move to the M4 is approved by Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford, the M16 would be used exclusively by support personnel in communities like logistics or admin. Once approved, the swap could happen as fast as unit armories can issue weapons because the 17,000 M4s needed to outfit infantrymen who don't already use one are in the current inventory, said Barb Hamby, a Systems Command spokeswoman. Thus, officials described the move as an "improved capability for the infantry at no additional cost."

Wider adoption of the M4 is part of an overall small-arms modernization strategy that will look at incremental improvements, based on existing technologies as funding becomes available, according to a Marine official who said more details will likely be revealed in the months ahead.

For now, here is what Marines need to know about the infantry's next likely weapon of choice — the M4 carbine.

The call for a compact weapon

The M4 makes maneuvering in tight urban spaces easier with a 14.5-inch barrel and an overall length that is about 10 inches shorter than the M16A4, in a package that is a pound lighter at just over six.

No fight illustrated the need for a smaller primary weapon during ferocious close-quarters combat better than Operation Phantom Fury in November 2004, when Marines fought to wrest control of Fallujah from Iraqi insurgents, sometimes going hand-to-hand.

Rounding corners and getting on target in small rooms was difficult, leading to use of a tactic called "short-stocking," when a Marine places his rifle stock over his shoulder – instead of securely against the chest and cants his weapon45-degrees so he can still use his optics. It helps in maneuvering, but compromises recoil management and follow-up shots.

"We were taught to short stock around tight corners when we got to our platoon for deployment — it was something unofficial," said Ryan Innis, a former scout sniper with 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion, who left the service as a sergeant in 2013 after serving on the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit's anti-piracy raid force near East Africa.

Innis trained for shipboard operations — the closest of close-quarters combat — and said he was fortunate to be issued the M4 because the weapon's shorter length proved better for tight spaces.

635735892056126663-18644877803-62051baf6e-o.jpg

A Marine fires an M4 carbine during a short-range marksmanship qualification course while at sea. Marines say the M4’s shorter barrel is especially conducive to shipboard movements. (Photo: Sgt. Emmanuel Ramos/Marine Corps)


"I would definitely agree the M4 is the way to go," he said.

The longer M16 was also challenging when hopping in and out of vehicles in full battle rattle, said West, who made his second deployment to Afghanistan in 2012 with 3rd Battalion, 9th Marines, as part of a vehicle-borne combined anti-armor team.

"Anytime you operate out of a vehicle, something compact makes life easier, especially when you need to get out quickly and engage [the] enemy," he said.

Even when he conducted dismounted patrols on his first Afghanistan deployment in 2011 with 1st Battalion, 6th Marines, the M4 he was issued helped in clearing compounds, jumping walls and crossing deep ditches, he said.

West never wanted to go back to the M16 because of the weight savings alone.

He said he started his first deployment carrying an M16A4; a Thor radio-controlled bomb jammer, a metal detector, and ammo for an M240 machine gun.

"There was even a time carrying an M32 grenade launcher, so you can see the amount of weight we were carrying at that time," he said. "Anything that takes weight off and keeps guys from getting tired so they are more aware of things around them is good. It is just a little less weight and just as effective of a weapon."

635735900194542832-7971532630-745bda0f9e-o.jpg

Members of Battalion Landing Team, 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marines, provide security after exiting an amphibious assault vehicle during a mock raid at Fort Pickett, Va. Marines say the M4’s compact size makes it easier to fit into vehicles. (Photo: Cpl. Chris Q. Stone/Marine Corps)


That is what the Marine Corps found when it began testing the ballistics of its infantry rifles and carbines using their improved M318 Mod 0 Special Operations Science and Technology round.

"The Marine Corps conducted an evaluation of its individual weapons (M4, M27 and M16A4), with specific focus on comparing accuracy, shift of impact and trajectory with improved ammunition, and determined the M4's overall performance compares favorably with that of the M27 IAR, the most accurate weapon in the squad," according to the written responses provided by Semelroth.
 
Top