US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Brumby said:

I have not been following this program nor understand the technologies involved. However mid air refueling is not exactly new challenges. It would appear to be me that the KC-135 airframes are getting old and there is a need to switch to a newer platform that is in the KC-46. Why this is becoming a multi Billion dollar problem is inexplicable. The irony is that the Airbus KC-30 is up and operational.

Click to expand...

When Boeing really, truly and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

by underbidding what was then EADS North America (now Airbus) by at least 10 percent, the chairman of the losing company, Ralph Crosby, said he believed it important that Boeing be watched closely to make sure they delivered at that price and on schedule.

“If they aren’t, then they should be held accountable,” he said at the press conference announcing EADS would not protest the win.

Well, Boeing’s KC-46 is quite late and very over-budget. It was supposed to be ready for a spring 2017 arrival at Altus Air Force Base, Okla. and McConnell AFB, Kansas. That will not happen, Air Force Brig. Gen. Duke Richardson, the program executive officer for tankers,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

the Memorial Day weekend (in the best tradition of government trying to avoid the news cycle).

“Technical challenges with boom design and issues with certification of the centerline drogue system and wing air refueling pods have driven delays to low rate production approval and initial aircraft deliveries,” Richardson said.

The government now expects to make the Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) decision, known as Milestone C, in August 2016

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

to fix the problems. It appears the current problem lies with one of the aircraft’s most important roles — refueling

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and the A-10 due to because of high loads on the refueling boom.

Boeing had similar problems with the Italian tankers, the first tankers based on the 767. That drogue system exhibited serious stability problems that took years to find fixes for. In the end, the Italian tankers came in six years late. They performed their first tanking of a foreign aircraft only recently. However, it was a substantial milestone, with the Boeing-built KC-767A becoming the first foreign tanker to undergo refueling certification trials with a U.S. aircraft.

The KC-46 has refueled an Air Force F-16 using the boom. The tanker has also transferred fuel to a Navy F/A-18 and a Marine Corps Harrier, which use the hose-and-drogue system for refueling,

The tanker uses a boom to refuel Air Force planes and hoses that extend from the wings and center body to refuel Navy, Marine Corps and allied aircraft.

What is the Air Force or the Office of Secretary of Defense doing to hold Boeing accountable? Not much, so far.

“Throughout KC-46 development, the Air Force remained cautiously optimistic that Boeing would quickly address these issues and meet the original goal,” he continued. “However, we understand that no major procurement program is without challenges and the Air Force remains committed to ensuring all aircraft are delivered as technically required.”

What many may have forgotten is that Boeing won the deeply troubled tanker competition because it offered a lower price and promised that technical risk was low, so cost overruns and schedule delays were unlikely. I still remember asking Boeing about the technical risks of integrating a glass cockpit — which the Italian version of the tanker does not have — and being told essentially that it was

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. Those risks have clearly been greater than most of us knew from the beginning.

The good news for the taxpayer is that none of the more than $1.3 billion cost overruns Boeing has incurred so far are costing us a dime because of the fixed price contract used. The last of the first 18 aircraft will be delivered by January 2018 instead of by August 2017.

Click to expand...

Jura said:

I put one sentence in boldface below

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

What many may have forgotten is that Boeing won the deeply troubled tanker competition because it offered a lower price and promised that technical risk was low, so cost overruns and schedule delays were unlikely.

Click to expand...

So far, U.S. Air Force leaders have said only that it will eventually be able to fly without crew.

While plans for the B-21 — née Long Range Strike-Bomber — have

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

an unmanned option, Air Force officials have shown little interest in having that capability on Day One of the plane’s service life. This is unwise; an unmanned option would increase the U.S. military’s operational flexibility, providing much-needed endurance and persistence at only a marginal increase in cost.

To date, the Air Force has

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

that the B-21 will be inhabited — that is, it will carry aircrew — when it enters service around 2025 and that it will be nuclear-certified about

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. (It has also said no nuclear missions will take place without crew aboard.) However, the service has not offered a definitive statement on when the aircraft is expected to feature an uninhabited capability. It is

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

“not a short-term priority” for the Air Force, and thus unlikely to be incorporated into early production models.

But delaying – or, worse yet, dropping – the uninhabited option would be a grave mistake. Uninhabited platforms offer a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

over their inhabited counterparts, especially against the kinds of anti-access/area denial, or A2/AD, capabilities that many U.S. competitors – including China, Russia, and Iran – have been

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. An uninhabited B-21 could have much greater refueled endurance and persistence than it could with people onboard, enabling it to conduct ultra-long missions — for example, loitering in or near enemy territory until a target presents itself. Untethered from pilot endurance limits, a B-21 could stay aloft for days with aerial refueling, and could marshal many more sorties in an extended campaign.

As road-mobile missiles – such as China’s DF-21D “carrier killer” – and other A2/AD systems proliferate, the demand for such capabilities will increase. Although the U.S. Navy’s uninhabited carrier-based program

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

to provide a supplementary long-range, stealthy strike capability, changes in program requirements – such as

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

in the program’s stealthiness and strike capacity – have reduced its ability to contribute. This gives an optionally-inhabited B-21 particular importance to a joint force in search of new ways to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

to U.S. surface assets and land bases.

Nor should cost be an issue; including an uninhabited option on early production models is unlikely to require substantial increased funding. Many of today’s human-inhabited aircraft already have sophisticated autopilot features, which are steadily expanding to a broader range of functions. The F-35C comes equipped with MAGIC CARPET, software that

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

two of the most challenging tasks performed by naval aviators: carrier takeoffs and landings. These features, which could be applied to both inhabited and uninhabited B-21s,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

by reducing the training burden on pilots, who must maintain their currency; and softening training’s impact on airframes, which are only certified for a set number of flight hours.

Still, there are limits. Attempting to fully automate human decision-making in combat would not be feasible but also would not be required. Uninhabited B-21s would operate as a team alongside human-inhabited aircraft, whose pilots would retain mission-level command of the uninhabited aircraft.

The largest impediment to the near-term introduction of an optionally-inhabited B-21 is neither the cost nor the maturity of relevant technologies, but cultural resistance within the Air Force itself. To their credit, service officials have acknowledged the eventual need for an uninhabited option. But their lack of urgency is consistent with a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

about such systems outside of reconnaissance and counterterrorism-strike missions. The Air Force has been reluctant to embrace some of the automated technologies – long in use by other services – that would increase the ease and safety of remotely piloting the B-21, only

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

automated takeoff and landing for its MQ-9 Reaper fleet.

For the good of the joint force, the Air Force must move beyond this reluctance. Uninhabited B-21s would allow the United States to conduct ultra-long targeting and strike missions against the increasingly precise, lethal, and long-range systems of potential adversaries, bolstering deterrence in peacetime and enabling essential capabilities in war.

Click to expand...

Jura said:

"... somewhere between 2022 and 2023 ..."
Air Force will move off Russian engines, general says

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

When the National Defense Authorization Bill comes to the Senate floor, lawmakers will face an important choice regarding the future of national security space launch. The Defense Department has relied upon United Launch Alliance’s (ULA) Delta IV and Atlas V rockets — the latter

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. Maintaining redundant launch system capabilities —

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

— is mandated by law, Title 10, Section 2273.

Given Russia’s recent hostile behavior, it’s only prudent to develop a domestic alternative. The question facing Congress is how to best attain this goal. Given budget pressures and the necessity of keeping military space launches on track, we may have to extend the use of the RD-180 as a bridge until a new American design is fielded.

This issue dates back to the Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act, when Congress mandated the military not procure launches that utilized Russian engines. This legislation stipulated that Atlas V launches would terminate after RD-180 stocks were consumed — requiring the construction of a new engine to power either the Atlas V or a substitute.

The US space enterprise is dedicated to meeting this goal.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

to launch national security payloads with its recently developed Falcon 9. Aerojet-Rocketdyne is developing the AR-1 engine as a potential replacement for the RD-180. Blue Origin is also designing a new engine, the BE-4, with this same objective.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

named Vulcan, which will be powered by either the BE-4 or the AR-1. The US has not seen this amount of energy and industrial effort in space launch development since the 1970s. Technical experts have had to relearn important skills involved with rocket engine design and production, given that the last generation of experts have either retired or are deceased.

Despite the herculean efforts of these engineering teams, a rocket with a new US-built engine is not expected to be certified for national security missions until 2022. “All of the technical experts with whom I’ve consulted tell me this is not a one or two or three-year deal,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh testified recently. “You’re looking at maybe six to seven years to develop an engine, another year or two beyond that to be able to integrate it [with a rocket].” This means a bridge solution must be found until a new system becomes available in the early 2020s.

Given the need to maintain redundant launch options, two paths exist: the first, continue missions with Space X’s Falcon 9 rocket and ULA’s Delta IV, or allow limited use of RD-180 engines to sustain Atlas V national security launches until at least one domestic alternative is available. Given that both the Falcon 9 and Delta IV are powered by US-built engines, the choice appears clear.

The Pentagon should buy the additional 18 RD-180s and use the Falcon 9 when necessary. Why? Because the alternative of buying Delta IV launches is so expensive that it would break the Air Force’s budget. Pursuing this path would add an additional $1.5 billion to $5 billion to the launch budget, equating to upwards of 50 F-35s or two Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers.

“The impact on the existing Air Force space mission would be significant because you have to take billions of dollars out and try to do something else with it,” Air Force Space Command’s Gen. John Hyten explained. “What are you going to take out? Are we going to stop doing GPS? Are we going to stop doing missile warning?”

The House Armed Services Committee agrees with the department’s approach to the challenge and authorized the use of an additional 18 RD-180 engines. The Senate Armed Services Committee disagreed and only authorized the use of nine Russian rocket motors—half the stated requirement. With the NDAA coming to the Senate floor this week, this issue will undoubtedly drive much debate.

The imperative for developing a US-made replacement for the RD-180 is undeniable. Given the difficult choices driven by Congress imposing sequestration, the US must chart a prudent path to meet future launch requirements while fiercely championing the development of a new domestically-developed launch design as the enduring solution to guarantee America’s access to space.

Click to expand...

FORBIN said:

Air Superiority 2030 Flight Plan

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

18 ways the Army wants to make you deadlier

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, Army Times5:42 p.m. EDT June 1, 2016

If you look at a soldier from World War II or Korea or Vietnam, you will see similarities to today’s infantryman: helmet, rifle, bullets, boots: the basics.

Naturally, there’s a lot of differences, too. In five years, there will be more, and 15 years, more still, as the Army works to keep the technological edge of the dismounted combat troop.

As wide-ranging as they are, both near-term and long-term advances sought by the Army reveal some emerging themes.

• The Army wants soldiers better protected, but also lighter and more agile.
• The Army wants better situational awareness, including improved vision at night.
• The Army wants to empower smaller units with more portable versions of tech now available to higher echelons.

But what about your guns? Improvements may be more incremental. Physics have limits and so do budgets. But the Army is upgrading carbines with a more reliable barrel, it has picked out a new sniper rifle and it is working to do the same for a new handgun.

These improvements come from a variety of sources, including the Army’s Research, Engineering and Development Command (working closely with industry and academia), the Maneuver Center of Excellence (infused with ideas direct from the battlefield) and of course Program Executive Office Soldier, which develops prototypes and procures field equipment as technological advances become available.

The result: an Army constantly developing and prioritizing new gear to make the dismounted soldier safer and more lethal. Here are just some of the programs underway that could mean new gear to the front lines — sooner than you think.

1. M4A1

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

offers a heavier barrel; some soldiers reported M4s overheating, becoming warped and then jamming during extended use, particularly in Afghanistan. It also adds ambidextrous safety controls and converts the weapon’s three-round burst option into fully-automatic.

Will this actually happen? Yes. Here's what won't happen, however: The Army also ran a market survey in March 2015 for additional M4 upgrades dubbed M4A1+. Ideas included: an extended Picatinny rail, a floating barrel for enhanced accuracy, and an optional sniper-style single-stage trigger for marksmen, flash suppressor, removable sights, and more neutral colors, among a variety of other enhancements. But the “plus” died with the survey; there’s currently no formal requirements, program of record nor funding.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

2. XM17 (Modular Handgun System)

What does it do? This will replace the Beretta M9 as the Army’s sidearm.

How heavy is it? The 351-page requirement document does not specify a weight, but presumably similar weight to a standard striker-style handgun, between 1.5 and 2 pounds.

When might you have one? The Army plans for full-rate production in 2018.

Why should you care? The Army has used an iteration of the M9 as its standard sidearm since 1985. The new pistol will feature better modularity, ergonomics, and accuracy. The requirements require a striker-style firing mechanism. The modular aspect will include ability to adjust grip size, and to add accessories via a Picatinny rail. The competition is open caliber, so the 9mm NATO standard round could be upsized to a .40 or a .45 caliber weapon. In addition the Army, which has stuck with full metal jackets for decades, has not ruled out hollow-point or fragmenting ammunition.

Will this actually happen? Probably. But not definitely. Companies (the Army won’t say how many) have submitted their candidates for the contract for the Army to evaluate, so the wheels are in motion. But that was also true of the Individual Carbine program canceled in 2013, and soldiers still carry M4s with no replacement plans in sight. Complaints of cost/waste have already emerged:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

quipped he could find a new pistol with $17 million and a trip to Cabela’s, and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

the MHS program in his series of “Americas Most Wasted” reports. If such complaints intensify in a tight budget environment, the Army could pull the plug.

3. Compact Semi-Automatic Sniper System

What does it do? It shoots people from far away. The Army

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

a variant of Heckler & Koch’s G28 for the role, replacing the M110.

How heavy is it? Roughly 12.7 pounds, or 3 pounds lighter than the M110.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Why should you care? This stand-alone weapon offers the ability to set a laser on a target, gauge distance automatically, program a grenade to go that distance (with manual adjustments) and fire the grenade. Fire control takes into account various ballistics and environmental factors to aid accuracy, as do magnified optical and thermal sights. In short, aim at a wall, push a button to program the point you want the grenade to explode. From there, aim fire. The 25mm grenade is designed to explode right where you told it to, from up to 500-600 meters away.

Will this actually happen? More likely than not. It’s been in the pipeline for years; it was pulled from the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2013 due to injury-causing malfunctions. The company and Army hope the kinks are worked out: it’s a program of record recently named in the 2017 budget as a priority that meets a critical capability gap, so this isn’t far out.

Click to expand...

5. IRAP (Increase Range Anti-Personnel)

What does it do? Along with the separate XM25 weapon, the Army is pursuing a new 40mm grenade cartridge that can be fired by the M320, one with better range and accuracy as well as advanced fuze functionality (when and why it explodes).

How heavy is it? Roughly the same as an M433 grenade round.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

smart grenade, which can sense a wall or building or obstacle and then automatically explode just after passing it. SAGM required no pre-programming; just point your standard grenade launcher and shoot. The requirements from a December

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

indicate the Army wants increased range, lethality and accuracy as well as increased fuze functionality and versatility compared to the M433. The survey asked vendors what would trigger an airburst or explosion, and whether any other equipment like fire control would be needed for a demonstration.

Will this actually happen? With plans to become a program of record next year: very likely. The Army says the round is not competing against the XM25 — although every defense dollar is competing against every other defense dollar, especially in at least a relatively similar functionality. Unlike the XM25, SAGM doesn’t require the Army to buy new guns. If the price-tag doesn't vary too much from standard grenades, it’d be easy to imagine this supplementing or supplanting those purchases. Even if not, the Army still sounds like it's fairly committed, though no solicitation has been issued.

6. XM1112

What does it do? Designed for the M320 grenade launcher, the XM1112 is a 40mm airburst non-lethal munition. The round has a fuel enriched pyrotechnic payload, proximity air burst, and selectable delay option fuse. It is capable of a flash-bang effect, which causes visual and sound impairment.

It can be used for force protection, clearing, patrols, crowd control and offensive or defensive operations.
How heavy is it? About half a pound.

When might you have one? The rounds are scheduled to be fielded in fiscal year 2018.

Why should you care? This less-lethal round provides soldiers with a significant increase in standoff range compared with the currently fielded 40mm non-lethal rounds. The new XM1112 gives soldiers 300 meters of standoff, compared with the current 50 meters provided by the non-lethal rounds already in the force.

This new capability also helps minimize civilian casualties and collateral damage while giving soldiers more flexibility during escalation of force and in non-combat environments.

Will this actually happen? It looks really good, but fielding also depends on Army priorities and resourcing strategy.

7. XM1116 (non-lethal round)

What does it do? This non-lethal extended range marking munition is designed for the 12-gauge shotgun. It can be used for force protection, crowd control, patrols and at checkpoints. It is similar to a bean bag round, and it marks its target so soldiers can later identify or capture the person they were targeting.

How heavy is it? 1.43 ounces.

When might you have one? The Army is slated to field the XM1116 in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2018.

Why should you care? The 12-gauge XM1116 provides an improved capability that allows soldiers to employ non-lethal marking capabilities at an effective range of 30 to 50 meters. This additional capability helps minimize civilian casualties and collateral damage while giving soldiers more flexibility during escalation of force and in non-combat environments.

Will this actually happen? Most probably, but it also depends on Army priorities and resourcing strategy.

Integrated Head Protection System (Photo: PEO Soldier)


8. Integrated Head Protection System/Light Weight Army Combat Helmet

What do they do? Protect your dome. And in the case of the Integrated Head Protection System, also your jaw. And neck. And eyes. And hearing.

How heavy is it? Unclear, but lighter than your current combat helmet, in both cases, especially the Light Weight Advanced Combat Helmet.

When might you have one? The IHPS could arrive by the end of 2018. The LWACH is slated to start arriving at DLA in early 2017.

Why should you care? PEO Soldier has been working on a more comprehensive helmet with a more comfortable fit. Like a number of Army programs, modularity will play a role, with a soldier able to remove the a jaw protection element and a face shield as well as attach accessories to the helmet. Overall the helmet will have better fragmentation, ballistic and impact effectiveness. Current designs also feature ability to add ballistic appliques to the helmet, which provide additional protection. Meanwhile, the LWACH offers an even lighter-weight alternative to the ACH.

Will this actually happen? Seems likely. The Army has worked on the system for three years. The IHPS, the more heavy-duty and involved version, is currently in source-selection (the Army is picking a manufacturer). Meanwhile the LWACH just needs to pass some qualification testing.

9. TEP a.k.a. better body armor

What does it do? Stops/slows bullets and shrapnel, without slowing the soldier quite so much. Components of the Torso and Extremities Protection system — such as the Ballistic Combat Shirt and Modular Scalable Vest — will offer protection of the Army’s heavy-duty body armor, only at a lighter weight and with better range of motion.

The Amy is rolling out a variety of plates, tailor-able to the mission to be worn with the Modular Scalable Vest. (Photo: Courtesy PEO Soldier)


How heavy is it? Roughly 23 pounds loaded up with heavy plates (assuming medium size).

When might you have one? Most of the Armor should field around 2019, with new plates sometime thereafter.

The Army's new Ballistic Combat Shirt was designed to improve comfort. (Photo: Courtesy PEO Soldier)


Why should you care? Because you like the protection of the Improved Outer Tactical Vest (31 pounds, fully loaded) but think it could be lighter and less obstructive. The ballistic shirt consists of protection on the upper back, upper chest and neck, while completely covering the arms with ballistic/protective sleeves. That eliminates the bulky IOTV shoulder pads. The vest also offers similar protection at a lighter weight, thanks to new materials, and carries all the same plates as the IOTV. The Army is also developing new plates (the heaviest part) that are roughly 7 percent lighter than current plates for the same protection. They also allow for modularity to cater to different protection levels and body types. In addition, an outer-wear pelvic protector offers the same protection as the two-part system soldiers currently use, only, again, lighter and more agile. Meanwhile, a Load Distribution System consists of a ballistic combat belt that flows underneath the vest and a load-bearing spine that distributes weight to the waist rather than putting it all on the shoulders.

The Army's new Blast Pelvic Protection will replace two current protective items: an undergarment and an over-garment. (Photo: Courtesy PEO Soldier)


Will this actually happen? Most likely, yes. The armor has cleared the engineering and development phases last summer and has generated positive soldier feedback in testing.

Click to expand...

10. JETS

What does it do? JETS doesn’t fly but it guides things that do fly — and go boom. Joint Effects Targeting System offers soldiers a portable system to more quickly call for precision artillery fire.

How heavy is it? Total: 17 pounds, including tripod. The Handheld Target Location Module will weigh a max of 5.5 pounds. Supporting capabilities include a Precision Azimuth and Vertical Angle Module and a Laser Marker Module, which may or may not be needed depending on the environment.

When might you have one? Limited rollout targeted for 2018, with broader fielding to follow. The end-goal will be fielding one per platoon.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

How heavy is it? Between 1 and 1.5 pounds.

When might you have one? Starting sometime in 2019. This summer a limited quantity will be made for soldier testing. Eventually the goal is to give 18 to each infantry platoon.

Why should you care? A soldier wants to identify threats and acquire targets quickly. The thermal-capable rifle scope sends a wireless signal of what it sees to a processor in the back of the helmet that’s wired to the ENVG (both are removable for daytime operations). A soldier has three imagery options in how the FWS image displays: The gun scope's image overlaid on the ENVG view (Crosshairs and a circle distinguish the rifle scope view from the overall view), picture-in-picture (rifle scope’s image remains stationary in the corner, while the rest of the view is from the ENVG), or scope image only (soldiers can simply relay the rifle’s image direct to the goggle, ignoring the broader ENVG image.) That means soldiers can aim their rifle while retaining a full 40-degree peripheral view of what’s in front of them to maintain situational awareness, rather than a traditional rifle scope, which closes the keyhole to 18-26 degrees. They can also look around corners without exposing more than their gun. The sight has a thermal imaging range of 1,000 meters, nearly double most thermal rifle scopes. They can also aim their rifle precisely without raising it to eye level. The signal from helmet to scope should also prove difficult to jam since it’ very short-range with low power emittance.

Will this actually happen? There’s a very good chance. There are working models, it’s a program of record, and it’s fairly tied into the ENVG program. Again, situational-awareness is crucial, so the landscape would have to change substantially to derail plans.

13. FWS-CS

What does it do? The crew serviced version of FWS was specially designed for all your machine gun needs (M240 7.62mm, and M2 .50-caliber). It allows even longer-range, IR-capable precision. In Hi-Def.

How heavy is it? The requirement sets a max of 3.25 pounds.

When might you have one? 2021. There has already been limited testing; initial low-rate production is slated for 2019.

Why should you care? This is the first high-definition thermal weapon sight for dismounted soldiers. It will offer, at worst, 1280x1920 resolution, and will have a thermal-capable range of 2,400 meters. So if it emits heat from within about a mile and a half, you can see it and shoot it precisely, even with smoke or fog. There’s also a laser range-finder in the sight that can align the crosshairs based on range, weapon and ammo. There is a specialized goggle, simpler than ENVG-III and without the full 40-degree-wide field of view. But it still shows the soldier what the scope sees via wireless connection, so the soldier can aim without getting his face right behind the machine gun’s sights. Battery life minimum, per requirements, is 3.5 hours of continuous use, with a spare giving 7 hours for the standard 72-hour mission requirement.

Will this actually happen? Probably. It’s further out than FWS-I and that adds a layer of uncertainty, but this does exist and the Army has been testing on a limited basis — to generally rave reviews according to Lt. Col. Tim Fuller, project manager for soldier maneuver sensors.

14. FWS-S

What does it do? FWS-Sniper is a clip-on that allows a sniper infrared capabilities, all while still being able to use their favorite daytime scope. The add-on clips to the sniper rifle right in front of the regular optic.

How heavy is it? Less than 10 ounces.

When might you have one? 2021; there has already been limited testing; initial low-rate production is slated for 2019.

Why should you care? A sniper doesn’t necessarily like the idea of removing his optic to switch to a thermal one, Fuller said, even if you promise he won’t have to zero the rifle again. So this allows the same optic to do the zoom-in work while the clip-on adds the IR layer for night missions. The Army has worked to leverage research in organic light-emitting diodes (OLED): an LED that’s an organic compound that emits light in response to a current, in this case a display of IR detection. That puts the benefits of thermal sights into a sniper’s hands without messing with a favorite scope. There’s also a wired remote so the sniper doesn’t have to adjust focus on FWS-S by reaching all the way to the front of the optic.

Will this actually happen? It has a parallel production and fielding schedule to FWS-CS, and probably similar odds of coming to fruition.

Prox Dynamics' PD-100 Black Hornet. (Photo: United Kingdom Ministry of Defense)


15. Pocket-drones

What does it do? "Soldier Borne Sensors" are essentially pocket-sized drones that can give a squad eyes in the air. What will likely look like a toy will provide crucial situational awareness.

How heavy is it? The drone itself will max out at 150 grams, while the entire system — controls, battery and charger — will weigh 3 pounds at most.

When might you have one? By 2018.

Why should you care? Because you don’t like surprises, and might want to take a look over the next hill or around a building or wall without an immediate risk of someone (or several someones) shooting at you. The British and Norwegians have used Black Hornet P-100 drones in Afghanistan for years, but the Army wants to go bigger with mass distribution to dismounted squads. The Army hopes an increasingly competitive industry can offer the following minimum capabilities at a fraction of the six-figure price-tag per PD-100: Max weight 150 grams, deployable within 60 seconds, camera that can detect human-sized object within 50-75 feet 90 percent of the time, wind tolerance of 10-15 knots, and range of 500-1,200 meters.

Will this actually happen? Probably. After market research and an industry day, Fuller said the Army has a decent idea of what’s possible, and is optimistic. Now it’s a matter of getting the right partners together to make a functional, mass-producible product that reliably gets the job done at an affordable price.
.

Click to expand...

16. Lightning Pack Rucksack Harvester

What does it do? This kinetic rucksack turns your bouncing rucksack into a power-generator. Incidentally, that harvesting of energy naturally offers a bit of shock absorption.

A soldier conducts dismounted maneuvers wearing Lightning Pack's Rucksack Harvester. (Photo: David Kamm/NSRDEC)


How heavy is it? Currently about 11.2 pounds, but maker Lightning Packs and PEO Soldier are still working to reduce weight and increase efficiency. Eventually it’s expected to weigh less than 10 pounds.

When might you have one? Around 2019 at the earliest; maybe 2020. User evaluations are scheduled for mid-to-late 2017.

Why should you care? While adding weight to a ruck sounds awful, reducing jostling and generating power has appeal. While walking (or running) a regular backpack moves up and down, and each time it comes down, the body has to catch it, creating strain greater than the mere weight of the pack. The Lightning Pack, when unlocked (toggled by push of a button), allows the pack to slide up and down rails between the pack and the rack — which acts as shock absorption to reduce jostling, and also captures power. Walking at 2.5 mph creates 4 watts, and at 3.5 mph about 40 watts.

Will this actually happen? Maybe. The product is still being refined, with an effort to make it more productive, lighter and less bulky. (The gap created between pack and back pushes the load back slightly and therefore gives it more leverage against the soldier). In the end, the Army will have to weigh whether the mission-extending power and shock absorption outweigh the weight and cost of the system.

17. Wearable Solar

What does it do? Rests face up on your rucksack and collects a sliver of the sun’s bountiful energy as you walk (or if you just leave your rucksack sitting on the ground).

How heavy is it? Roughly one pound or less.

When might you have one? 2019-2020. It is tracking on the same timeline as the Lightning Pack, with user testing in 2017.

A soldier conducts dismounted maneuvers wearing a rucksack equipped with solar panels. (Photo: David Kamm/NSRDEC)


Why should you care? With Nett Warrior and a variety of other tech needs, a soldier needs power. This offers energy generation in a panel for minimal weight. It generates 40 watts at full sun. The current prototype, which simply ties to the top of a rucksack, is gallium arsenide; that’s unlikely to be a final solution because of the material’s expense. A cheaper material like silicon is more likely.

Will this actually happen? Maybe. As with the Lightning Pack, the question becomes whether costs are justified by the energy-production capacity. That depends on advancement of the technology.

18. Knee harvester

What does it do? It doesn’t harvest knees; instead this device, which looks like a knee brace, harvests the work legs do and converts it into energy.

How heavy is it? About 2 pounds per knee, currently.

When might you have one? 2019 at the earliest.

A Soldier wears Bionic Power's Knee Harvester. (Photo: David Kamm/NSRDEC)


Why should you care? It’s another way to create energy for soldiers, extending a mission’s expiration date. In this case the device generates about 7-12 watts per knee at 3-4 mph. Since it’s harvesting energy there’s naturally a bit of resistance, so soldiers might not like the sound of that. But the resistance is designed to be minimal, and also has an upside in that the inherent deceleration can save some energy for the soldier walking downhill.

Will this actually happen? Maybe. It depends on if the (electric) juice is worth the squeeze. It’s hard to imagine adding a degree of difficulty to repetitive movement for a few watts, but science isn’t always intuitive.

Senior reporter Michelle Tan contributed to this report.

Click to expand...

SOCOM chooses 300 Norma Mag for ASR
It’s official – SOCOM has selected the 300 Norma Mag as the new Advanced Sniper Rifle (ASR) cartridge!

The 300 Norma Mag is based off of the 338 Norma Mag case necked down to accept a .30 caliber bullet. It launches a 220gr .308 bullet at just over 3,000 fps. That’s 4,400 ft/lbs of energy! This cartridge is not to be confused with the 308 Norma Mag.

Source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The 300 Norma Mag really shines when it is shooting either the 230gr Berger Hybrid bullet – this bullet has an out-of-this world 0.743 Ballistic Coefficient (BC)! (If you’re looking to learn about BC, check out

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

) When loaded up to 3,000 fps, this bullet from the 300 Norma Mag will stay supersonic out to 1,500 meters! This is as far as a much heavier 300gr SMK shot out of a 338 Lapua can make it before it goes subsonic! Even though the 300 Norma will only have 80% of the energy of the 338 Lapua at that distance with those bullets, it can still make it there accurately with considerably less recoil. Another benefit to the 300 Norma Mag is the overall length is shorter than the 338 Lapua Mag – it is effectively the same length as the 300 Win Mag.

Despite its benefits, it is still an interesting choice. For example, it is based off of the same parent cartridge as the 338 Lapua mag….the 416 Rigby. This means that a bolt with a large face is needed which often means a large action. It is nice that it isn’t a rimmed magnum like the 300 Win Mag (I’m biased against rimmed cases), but I’m not yet convinced that the performance necessitates a larger bolt face and action. For example, when loaded with the same bullet, the 300 Win Mag, 300 RUM, or 30 Nosler don’t fall that far behind the 300 Norma Mag. In fact, there’s less of an energy difference at 1,000 meters between the 300 Norma and the 300 Win Mag (the weakest of the 3 alternatives) than there is between the 300 Norma Mag and the 338 Lapua Mag. And, each of the alternatives listed use a smaller bolt face and a standard “magnum” action.

I’ll be interested to see why this particular cartridge was selected. If I could, I would’ve bet on the 30 Nosler but I would’ve lost.

Click to expand...