US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

really?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Aviation, always the Army’s largest modernization account, goes into a nosedive in the fiscal 2017 budget, plunging from $5.9 billion to $3.6 billion. The $2.3 billion cut more than makes up for a $1.3 billion cut to total Army spending that helps fund
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. But with aviation accounting for 25 percent of the Army’s procurement pie, it’s no surprise to see the service’s biggest budget cut coming there.

“It’s like, why do you rob banks? Because that’s where the money is,” said one former Army aviation officer. “Why do you cut aviation? Because that’s where the money is.”

Or as the Army’s budget director, Maj. Gen. Thomas Horlander, told a Pentagon briefing: “That’s a big portfolio and we had to make up some ground in terms of total reductions. We tried to strike that balance as best as we could.”

The administration is requesting almost the same budget for the Army overall as Congress approved for fiscal 2016: $148 billion in all, a $1.1 billion increase over fiscal 2016. That’s the net result of a $2 billion increase in war-related Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding, which would rise to $23 billion in fiscal 2017, and a $1.4 billion reduction in the base Army budget.

A reduction in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
orders from 39 to 22 and a cut in Sikorsky UH-60M Black Hawk purchases from 107 in FY 2016 to a requested 36 in FY 2017 were made easier because each program is in the last year of a five-year contract. The reduction in Boeing AH-64D Apache attack helicopters to be remanufactured into
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
from 64 to 52 represents a cut of five from the 57 the Army said last year it would buy in FY 2017.

Despite the cuts, the Army’s budget documents said the 2017 request “prioritizes modernization of Apache, Black Hawk and Chinook helicopter fleets.”.

Mike Hirschberg, executive director of the American Helicopter Society International, denounced the helicopter cuts. “The world is getting more and more dangerous,” Hirschberg said. “If the military is called upon to intervene in one of these hotspots, we know that Army aviation is again going to play a key role. This draconian cut in rotorcraft procurement is a dangerous gamble with our national security.”

While the budget slashes aviation spending by 40 percent, the Army would slightly increase other procurement accounts, spending a few hundred thousand dollars more to modernize its M1 Abrams tanks and Stryker armored vehicles and to buy ammunition. Overall, Army procurement would decline by $1.4 billion, from $16.4 billion in 2016 to $15.1 billion in 2017. The Army’s research and development budget would hold steady, slipping only a bit from $7.6 billion to $7.5 billion, consistent with Office of Secretary of Defense efforts to maintain America’s technological lead over our competitors.

But the Army’s largest single bill is always manpower. The 2017 budget continues to shrink the service’s end strength, reducing the total force from 1,015,000 to 990,000, including a cut of 15,000 regular Army personnel, for a total active duty force of 460,000. That’s in keeping with established plans to go down to 980,000 soldiers, 450,000 of them active duty regulars — though many officers and observers fear the decline will not stop there.

The new budget focuses on readiness and boosts spending on regular Army operations and maintenance, adding $1.2 billion to increase that account to $35.4 billion compared to FY 2016. Those funds and OCO money are needed for missions that include supporting Afghan forces against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, training and assisting Iraqi forces against Daesh (the so-called Islamic State) in Iraq, and reassuring allies by deterring Russian aggression in Europe and North Korean aggression in Asia.

“Readiness is our Number One Priority,” the Army budget request declares. “There is no other Number One.”
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Bernard

Junior Member
what do you guys think?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Why would you not a dedicated bombing/ISR stealthy mini B2 on each Aircraft carrier, you can park anywhere in the world? The time alone, to send a B2 across the world from Missouri is outstanding (if needed)! A dedicated stealth bombing A/C would also make the Aircraft Carrier wayyyy more deadly and free up other aircraft!

* EDIT*
I just read more on it. They want to just mix in regular Unmanned A/C on a carrier to get used to having unmanned and manned carrier operations together. And waiting for Drones and stealth (LRSB) to start being produced and developed more and then think about a UCLASS bomber later on. To cut back on the risks of going straight for a Stealth unmanned carrier bomber right away. What do you all think on it?
 
Last edited:

Brumby

Major
Why would you not a dedicated bombing/ISR stealthy mini B2 on each Aircraft carrier, you can park anywhere in the world? The time alone, to send a B2 across the world from Missouri is outstanding (if needed)! A dedicated stealth bombing A/C would also make the Aircraft Carrier wayyyy more deadly and free up other aircraft!

* EDIT*
I just read more on it. They want to just mix in regular Unmanned A/C on a carrier to get used to having unmanned and manned carrier operations together. And waiting for Drones and stealth (LRSB) to start being produced and developed more and then think about a UCLASS bomber later on. To cut back on the risks of going straight for a Stealth unmanned carrier bomber right away. What do you all think on it?

The Hill's idea of an unmanned stealth bomber is just too ambitious - a bridge too far. The USN clearly needs some tanking capability and the idea of a stealthy tanker with limited ISR and light strike would be more appropriate. This would partially address the view that the F-35C is just too short legged. Having stealthy tanking capability would enable the tankers to operate closer into the threat bubble.
 

Bernard

Junior Member
The Hill's idea of an unmanned stealth bomber is just too ambitious - a bridge too far. The USN clearly needs some tanking capability and the idea of a stealthy tanker with limited ISR and light strike would be more appropriate. This would partially address the view that the F-35C is just too short legged. Having stealthy tanking capability would enable the tankers to operate closer into the threat bubble.

I think they changed it. Now it is not stealth at all and just

CBARS — the Carrier Based Aerial Refueling System — will be lightly armed,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
told reporters this afternoon. But it won’t be capable of long-range strike or reconnaissance into defended airspace, he said. Instead, its key missions will be refueling manned aircraft; conducting intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and targeting in “permissive” airspace; and conducting “limited strike.”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
The Carrier Navy never seems to actually adopt Drones. The regular surface fleet is happy to and does so but, it seems any time a carrier drone shows up its a one hit wonder. It will get so far as trails then stagnant and the navy will offer it to museums.
Its foolish really, a Carrier seems the perfect platform for drone operations, its mobile, has a organic maintence facilities and the CIC would be perfect for controlling ops. But they don't seem interested.
Now then. A tanker drone needs to be fairly large compared to a fighter as it would need to carry more fuel to fly itself and top off other aircraft.
A strike ISR by contrast would probably want to be smaller and stealthier. Personally I really feel that for the tanker role the Navy's best option would be CMV 22 with a roll on kit. As it can be used on both CVN and LHA
 

Brumby

Major
I think they changed it. Now it is not stealth at all and just

The Carrier Navy never seems to actually adopt Drones. The regular surface fleet is happy to and does so but, it seems any time a carrier drone shows up its a one hit wonder. It will get so far as trails then stagnant and the navy will offer it to museums.
Its foolish really, a Carrier seems the perfect platform for drone operations, its mobile, has a organic maintence facilities and the CIC would be perfect for controlling ops. But they don't seem interested.
Now then. A tanker drone needs to be fairly large compared to a fighter as it would need to carry more fuel to fly itself and top off other aircraft.
A strike ISR by contrast would probably want to be smaller and stealthier. Personally I really feel that for the tanker role the Navy's best option would be CMV 22 with a roll on kit. As it can be used on both CVN and LHA

In my view, the USN doesn't have a capability gap problem but rather a strategic gap issue. Congress had been pushing the USN to develop an autonomous strike platform because the present capabilities are too short legged (including the F-35C). What is clearly lacking in the high end war is the USN capability to project power inside an A2AD because its aerial assets are too short legged relative to standoff range threats. The USN need tanking capability that can close that gap but it has to be stealthy to be survivable. In contras, there are already a range of available platforms available for strike in permissive environment. Adding drones that can operate off carriers is frankly a redundant effort. Additionally, tanking capability as you noted can be made available through the Osprey program. What is clearly lacking in the high end war is the USN capability to project power inside an A2AD. A stealthy tanker drone with limited ISR is a good stop gap until full autonomous technology catches up. Strangely, the USN respond is let us get some experience operating drones with manned platforms. Didn't the other armed services been operating drones in the past 20 years? Just talk to them.
 
related to https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/us-military-news-reports-data-etc.t1547/page-511#post-388240
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/us-military-news-reports-data-etc.t1547/page-511#post-388240
is
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, House Seapower subcommittee chairman
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
was swift to slam the Navy’s 2017 budget request. I asked him about
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to deactivate a carrier air wing, sideline seven Ticonderoga-class cruisers, and replace the UCLASS drone program with a drone fuel tanker with “limited strike” capabilities, CBARS. Here’s what
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
had to say:

On the budget overall: “The Obama administration has sent over
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that fails to fully fund our military and forces the armed services to make unacceptable tradeoffs. Although I am generally pleased to see increased investment in some of the high-end capabilities that I have been championing for years, I am concerned by the proposed force structure cuts, including $7 billion in cuts to Navy ships and personnel. President Obama has forced our armed services
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, but the undeniable reality is that our military needs more of both. It is now up to Congress to correct these errors and place our national security on a stronger footing.”

On deactivating one of the 10 Carrier Air Wings: “This administration is committed to the reduction of our naval forces. Two years ago,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. This year, they want to eliminate an aircraft carrier wing. I think this is a dangerous trajectory. My Subcommittee added almost $1 billion to ensure we retain our aircraft carrier force structure and have added over $2 billion to support additional strike fighters over the last two years. I opposed the elimination of the aircraft carrier and will seek to oppose any ill advised reductions in our aircraft carrier wing.”

On taking seven cruisers out of service for modernization: “I am concerned about the overall size of the fleet and our ability to generate sufficient presence and surge capacity. I am particularly bothered that it seems that the Navy is being forced once again to lay up half its cruisers, breaking faith with Congress and depriving the fleet of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that is going to be in more demand than ever.”

On UCLASS to CBARS: “Unmanned aircraft have the potential to fill several different
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. I continue to believe that the carrier air wing’s most glaring capability gap is its
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, although an alternative to ‘buddy tanking’ [i.e. where one fighter refuels another] is clearly also needed. I look forward to examining the scenarios and analysis driving these programmatic decisions, and will continue pressing the Navy to fully harness the incredible potential of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.”

So on that last item, the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(CBARS), Rep. Forbes looks like he might give the administration the benefit of the doubt. On toplines, cruisers, and carrier air wings? The battle’s on. Stay tuned for tomorrow, when Forbes holds a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
with independent experts.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Mar 4, 2015 gotcha :)
affected by cuts though ... the most recent from USNI News:
Navy Again Reduces Scope of Destroyer Modernization, 5 Ships Won’t Receive Any Ballistic Missile Defense Upgrades

...
the turn:
FY 2017 Navy Budget Adds 3 More Aegis Combat System Modernizations Over Next 5 Years
Ten guided missile destroyers will be fully upgraded to Navy’s top-of-the-line Aegis combat system over the next five years — three more than last year’s plan, according to an unclassified fielding profile seen by USNI News this week.

Over the five-year future years defense plan (FYDP), the Navy is set to upgrade the Arleigh Burkes guided missile destroyers (DDG-51) to the Baseline 9 standard during the ships’ mid-life maintenance period at an accelerated rate.

The full Baseline 9 Aegis upgrade replaces the destroyers’ 1980s era computer systems with modern servers and adds a new signals processor that allows the upgraded ships to not only simultaneously track, target and fire on fighter and cruise missile threats but also interdict ballistic missile threats in an Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) scheme.

The FY 2017 budget funds one full modernization for USS Roosevelt (DDG-80) and two shorter and less expensive for hull, mechanical and electric systems for other ships.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the Navy only planned on conducting one of each availability in FY 2017. The budget request also buys material for five HM&E availabilities and one combat system upgrade in FY 2019, one more HM&E modernization than had been planned.

The addition of the HM&E availability in 17 and the three full Baseline 9 modernizations falls in line with the Navy’s larger plan to upgrade the capabilities of its surface ships. The procurement budget supports keeping pace with emerging threats, provides capability to maneuver in the electromagnetic spectrum and maximizes ship service life, according to the budget documents.

The Navy will also invest in information warfare enhancements through six Ship’s Signal Exploitation Equipment installations, 16 Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services (CANES) installations and 13 Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) block upgrades.

These upgrades are among several efforts to prepare the Navy fleet for battle against a near-peer competitor, which service officials said the ships could do today but are on a bad trajectory for staying relevant in the future.

“If you ask me about the fight today and can we win against the near-peer adversary? The answer is, absolutely,” Director of Surface Warfare (OPNAV N96)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to the House Armed Services sea power and projection forces subcommittee.
“But that is today. … We see risk in tomorrow’s fight. If we do not modernize fast enough, if we do not build fast enough, if we slow down our build rate of large surface combatants, if we slow down our modernization rate of large surface combatants, there will be a risk when the advanced threats arrive in numbers from the development stages they are in now to a production stage from a potential adversary sometime in the next decade-plus.”

The addition of the ships into a full combat system upgrade is a spot of good news for the surface forces that saw modernizations for DDGs cut over the last two years as bill payers for other programs.

The three Flight IIA Arleigh Burkes (DDG-51) added to the updated profile – USS Howard (DDG-83); USS McCampbell (DDG-85); USS Mustin (DDG-89) – were pulled from last year’s budget submission
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Question.. Is the US planning to station all three Zumwalt DDGs in the Pacific??? Read this!;

U.S. officials are looking to superheroes in their quest to preserve Asia’s postwar security order in the face of an increasingly assertive China.

“If Batman had a ship, this’d be it,” Admiral Harry Harris, head of U.S. Pacific Command, told a crowd of Asia specialists in Washington last month as he pointed to a slide of a DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer, the U.S. Navy’s largest and stealthiest. “Everything that is new and cool that the United States is developing is going to the Asia Pacific.”

Harris’s account of the military component of Barack Obama’s “rebalance to Asia” comes as the president prepares to host leaders from the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations at the Sunnylands estate in California next week. Obama has sought to tighten U.S. influence after the administrations of George W. Bush and others focused more on the Middle East and elsewhere. There’s an economic imperative, too: China overtook Japan to become Asean’s biggest trading partner in 2009, after displacing the U.S. a year earlier.

Read more at
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Hummmm..does ADM Harris know something that the rest of us don't know? interesting.

"If Batman had a ship..??"
:rolleyes:
 
Top