US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Jan 2, 2017
Friday at 9:36 PM

and here's what DoDBuzz had to say December 31, 2016:
Air Force Opens $16 Billion Trainer Aircraft Competition

source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
while
Time to Get Serious About T-X
The United States Air Force is at a crossroads with respect to its key training aircraft. For the last fifty years, it has relied upon the venerable T-38 Talon to train the vast majority of its pilots. While a half century-plus service life is impressive, it is also an unmistakable sign that the service needs to modernize its training enterprise.

This need, and how the Air Force responds to it, has significant implications for pilot recruiting, training, national security, and the defense budget. In other words, it will affect all Americans for decades to come.

Accordingly, it was a noteworthy event when Air Force acquisition officials released a request for proposal (RFP) at the end of 2016—the formal kick off of the competition to replace the T-38. The program is envisioned as a multi-year effort to procure roughly 350 aircraft that will be used over the next 40+ years to train Air Force pilots in basic airmanship and develop fighter pilots basic skills. It is worth nearly $50 billion over its projected lifetime. Whoever wins this contest will be entrusted with building a system to train future combat airmen for decades into the future. However, this is far from a simple decision and there are several key factors acquisition officials must consider when seeking the best option.

First, the Air Force needs an information-age training system. When the T-38 prototype first flew in 1956, it was built in an era where mechanical processes were the backbone of aviation. While computers existed, they were primitive by today’s standards—filling entire rooms and capable of executing only basic tasks. Today’s airmen fly aircraft that are products of the information age. Their ability to gather, process, and disseminate information in a collaborative fashion is just as important as capacity to shoot down an enemy aircraft or drop a bomb. When the T-38 was fielded, phones were bolted to the walls, were mechanical devices, and were strictly limited to voice communications. Today, we carry them everywhere and they are massively powerful information tools, not just voice communication devices. This revolution has also occurred in the cockpit, which means pilots must be trained in an appropriate fashion. It is no longer just about stick and rudder skills—it is also all about harnessing data in an effective, dynamic fashion. The T-X must reflect this reality.

Second, the Air Force needs a training solution that minimizes reliance upon combat aircraft. Today’s student pilots execute a significant portion of their training in front line planes like the F-16 and F-15. This is hugely inefficient, for the hourly operating costs for these types are far higher than a trainer. Detailing combat aircraft as trainers also reduces the number of planes available to meet combatant commander requirements. This is incredibly important considering that the Air Force has far too few fighters and bombers to meet current demand. Addressing this issue demands a modern training system that can span a broad range of operating considerations.

Third, this acquisition effort is not just about buying an aircraft; the Air Force needs a robust family of systems to effectively and efficiently train its pilots. Given the range of skills being taught today, optimal training requires harnessing capable ground-based simulators as well as live, virtual, and constructive training aids. Learning how to operate a radar or practicing the basics of air-to-air refueling—both tasks can be simulated on the ground. This allows a student the time to concentrate on attaining new skills without the cost associated with flying an actual airplane. Incorporating such systems is not “gold-plating” the training experience; it is a basic common sense approach to better train students and save money.

Fourth, the training enterprise must afford flexibility so that new upgrades can be added as requirements dictate without taking years or costing a fortune. This means harnessing open mission systems (OMS) to avoid proprietary control issues. OMS will also allow the Air Force to potentially grow the T-X aircraft past its training role. Given the wide array of missions the T-38 has executed over its service life, this is a smart factor to consider. It will also enhance T-X sales opportunities abroad with allies.

Finally, the Air Force should also seek to acquire an aircraft that will prove efficient from a life cycle perspective. We procure an aircraft once, but we sustain it for life. The incoming Administration has already clearly communicated a focus on good governance in acquisition, focusing on sustainment costs as well as the acquisition cost of new systems. Whether looking at hourly fuel burn, maintenance costs, or logistics considerations, the T-X program affords the opportunity for the Air Force to save money by prioritizing an efficient solution. The Air Force’s bid request details over 10,000 discrete requirements. However, it includes none related to the program’s lifecycle cost or for operations and sustainment costs. Given how long this system will stay in the Air Force, life cycle efficiencies should be prioritized, and analysis and evaluation of life cycle costs for this multi-billion dollar program should be added as one of the evaluation criterion.

Pilot training represents the foundation on which so many Air Force missions depend. The T-38 is a plane that has served admirably over the years, but the nation can no longer rely on an aircraft whose design dates back to the Eisenhower administration. Past being simply worn out, pilots need a training enterprise that matches modern requirements and budget realities demand an efficient solution. It is critical to get this acquisition effort right as the Air Force needs this capability sooner rather than later.
source is DefenseNews
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
(LOL "the fiscal spigots will be opened" but yeah $60b would be roughly ten percent increase

EDIT
info01.jpg
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

After weeks of uncertainty and mounting evidence that only
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
were the path to a significant boost to the US military, President Trump has signaled the fiscal spigots will be opened in the interests of a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

“I think it’s significant in signaling this is a priority among the alphabet soup list of growing priorities for the new administration and Congress,”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, a member of the Breaking Defense Board of Contributors, says in an email. “But it still doesn’t change much the trajectory of his overall federal budget under
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


“What it does mean is that the buildup will ultimately get done (mostly through debt-financing) after this Congress bangs its head against the wall of the forthcoming ideologically radical budget and watching it fail at a later date,” Eaglen said.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and made clear in the piece what his choices are.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
appears to have helped prepare this battlefield, slamming Trump’s pick for OMB director, Mike Mulvaney, earlier this week for voting against military spending as a member of the House. Although McCain has said he might oppose Mulvaney’s nomination, it now looks as if the House member will squeak through.

Sean Hannity, one of Trump’s favorite Fox broadcasters, asked the president last night how important a balanced budget is to him.

” I want a balanced budget eventually. But I want to have a strong military. To me, that’s much more important than anything,” Trump said, leaving little room for him to be misinterpreted.

The president has trumpeted how he is going to help control the costs of weapons and he told Hannity: “And I’m negotiating the price of airplanes, can you believe this? But I understand airplanes. I’ve bought a lot of airplanes.”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
today ordered complete program reviews of the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
programs, carefully noting in the memos that both are “critical acquisition” programs.” Appearing to indicate that Air Fore One is the lower hanging fruit, Mattis said Deputy Defense Bob Work will execute the review with an eye to “substantially reduce the program’s cost while delivering critical capabilities.” The F-35 review is being done to “significantly” reduce costs.

During his interview with Hannity, Trump claimed he “cut off hundreds of millions of dollars off one particular plane, hundreds of millions of dollars in a short period of time. It wasn’t like I spent, like, weeks, hours, less than hours, and many, many hundreds of millions of dollars. And the plane’s going to be better.” It’s unclear whether Trump was pointing to the F-35 or to Air Force One, both of which he has lambasted for high costs. It is clear that Trump’s public pressure on Lockheed Martin, builder of the F-35, appears to have them more publicly amenable to agreeing to lower costs. But we’ll have to see what LRIP 10, the next batch, looks like.

Of course,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
for several years now, and Air Force One is only budgeted for $170 million in spending so far, although the program is estimated to eventually cost $3.73 billion. The main drivers for Air Force One costs are, of course, survivability and communications. The Secret Service plays a major — if usually unacknowledged — role in setting the requirements for the plane and for the helicopters used to ferry the president and his top aides. So if the president really wants to control costs for Air Force One, he may need to push the people who protect him to lower their sights.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:
huh?
Senators Question Army Chief on Supposed Polymer Magazine Ban
A handful of senators want the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
chief of staff to explain why the service supposedly banned soldiers from using highly reliable polymer magazines such as the PMAG in their
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

The senators' letter may be misinformed, since soldiers have used PMAGs extensively in some of the heaviest gunfights of the war in Afghanistan.

Sen. Joni Ernst, a Republican from Iowa, a combat
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on Friday led Sens. Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas; Jim Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma; Johnny Isakson, a Republican from Georgia; and David Perdue, a Republican from Georgia, in sending a letter to Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley questioning "why polymer ammunition magazines for United States Army rifles are not authorized for use in combat or in training."

The letter stems from the Marine Corps'
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
for its M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle after the weapon
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in an Army test with M855A1 ammunition. The Corps also authorized PMAGs for its M16A4s and M4 carbines.

"Reports state that the polymer magazines approved for use by the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
had zero magazine-related stoppages through all of the tests carried out by the Marine Corps when combined with any ammunition tested. Additionally, reports state they also reduce damage to the chamber face and feed ramps when using M855A1 ammunition. As our national debt approaches $20 billion, ensuring the longevity of these rifles is important," the letter states.

The letter also states, "The Army and Marine Corps simultaneously issued orders stating that polymer magazines were not authorized for use in 2012."

Army officials from the TACOM Life Cycle Management Command did issue a message in April 2012, declaring that only government-issued aluminum magazines were authorized for use in the M4 and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

TACOM officials released the message to address reports of Army units using "unauthorized" commercial, polymer magazines such as the popular PMAG, introduced by Magpul Industries Corp. in 2007. The decision left combat troops puzzled, since the PMAG has demonstrated its extreme reliability in combat and has an Army-approved national stock number, which allows units to order them through the Army supply system.

Army officials, however,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that TACOM's message was poorly written and not intended as a directive on the use of PMAGs. Matthew Bourke, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon responding to questions from Mililtary.com at the time, said the message should have included guidance that the final decision rests with commanders in the field.

"At best, the message is incomplete; at worst, the message allows soldiers to jump to the wrong conclusions," Bourke said. "Maintenance Information Messages [from TACOM] are permissive. They are not an order. They are not a directive. All content and direction in those messages are optional for the recipient."

Military.com reached out to the Army for comment but did not receive a response by press time.

Meanwhile, TACOM announced in July that it was introducing a new M4 Enhanced Performance Magazine.

The new magazine will feature a tan body and blue follower and will be engineered to address feeding issues with M855A1 ammunition.

The Army first started to improve M4 magazines in 2008 after reliability tests found that the original follower caused many of the weapon's feeding malfunctions during the test.

PMAGs have developed a word-of-mouth reputation for being extremely reliable as well as durable.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
units such as Army's
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
issue PMAGs, as do many infantry units before war-zone deployments.

Soldiers from B Troop, 3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, had been issued PMAGs before deploying to Afghanistan in 2009. On Oct. 3 of that year, they fought off a bold enemy attack on Combat Outpost Keating that lasted for more than six hours and left eight Americans dead.

Some soldiers reported firing up to 40 PMAGs from their M4s without a single stoppage.
source is Military.com
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Jan 2, 2017

while
Time to Get Serious About T-X

source is DefenseNews
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
very interesting: "Northrop’s operating margins held at 11%, according to the company’s 26 January fourth quarter earnings report. If the USAF trainer competition turns into a price-shootout, as many analysts have speculated, Northrop could damage its tenuous margins."
Analyst floats theory for Northrop CEO's caution on T-X
Northrop Grumman shocked press and analysts this week with a lukewarm response on its US Air Force T-X trainer bid, but the company might be better positioned to lose the competition rather than eat away at its bottom line, says one Washington-based analyst.

It’s possible that Northrop chief executive Wes Bush is looking to hold back a price-aggressive bid by Aerospace Systems management in an effort to protect the company’s operating margins, defense analysts Jim McAleese writes this week. In a 25 January earnings call, Bush announced Northrop was assessing the USAF’s request for proposals, despite the fact that the company has designed an aircraft specifically marketed to the trainer competition.

Northrop’s operating margins held at 11%, according to the company’s 26 January fourth quarter earnings report. If the USAF trainer competition turns into a price-shootout, as many analysts have speculated, Northrop could damage its tenuous margins.

The Aerospace Systems segment launched an aggressive bid on the USAF’s next-generation bomber, but, unlike the B-21, the trainer programme doesn’t represent a must-win for Northrop. As Bush watches the B-21’s programme execution, he might also take a lesson from the exquisite and expensive aircraft programme, according to McAleese.

“It is also highly-probable that Aerospace Systems’ initial performance on B-21 program-execution, will ultimately determine whether CEO Bush supports the necessary ‘eye-wateringly-aggressive-pricing’ that will be required to win the $16 billion T-X contract award in late 2017,” he says. “If Aerospace Systems is performing poorly on B-21, then expect CEO Bush to force higher-unit-pricing in T-X best and final offer, even if it results in Northrop being successfully ‘out-bid’ by another offeror, such as Boeing/Saab or Lockheed.”

Meanwhile, Raytheon dropped out of the competition this week, following a tiff with its Italian partner, Leonardo. Raytheon will not enter the competition with another partner, but Leonardo did not close the door on the competition.

"Leonardo is evaluating how to leverage on the strong capabilities and potential of the T-100, in the best interest of the U.S. Air Force," Leonardo says in a 25 January statement.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Rewiew only for F-35C possible a good idea not much but these administrative things have also a cost.
And if the difference btw a Advanced Super Hornet and a more capable F-35C is small not intersting buy the less expensive the more important is waht need the warfighter.

Right now F-35C 130 millions Sup Hornet 70 recurring costs not fly awaay or with support i precise important the true price ... surely Advanced Super Hornet at less 80 - 85 and F-35C ordered in more big qty going for 110 mill

Hence the advantage of having two manufacturers that can compete with one another for MOD get a better deal, price US military" market " is enough big ! for have at less 2 constructors.

F-35C vs Super Hornet. It’s on!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

On top of all that Brother Obama "fined" me for not having health care??? nearly $1,000, because I'm an old white guy, I didn't qualify for the "freebies"? LOL
:D Good joke Budy i like much your sense of humor Smiley amis.PNG but sorry for you to consider also my point is for military things.
 
Last edited:

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Also general review after Congress ...

Main point


Trump Signs Order Promising a ‘Great Rebuilding’ of the Military

The full text of the executive order is as follows:


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including my authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, I hereby direct the following:

Section 1. Policy. To pursue peace through strength, it shall be the policy of the United States to rebuild the
U.S. Armed Forces.

Sec. 2. Readiness.
(a) The Secretary of Defense (Secretary) shall conduct a 30-day Readiness Review. As part of this review, the Secretary shall:
(i) assess readiness conditions, including training, equipment maintenance, munitions, modernization, and infrastructure; and
(ii) submit to the President a report identifying actions that can be implemented within the current fiscal year and that are necessary to improve
readiness conditions.
(b) Concurrently with the Readiness Review, the Secretary, together with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), shall develop a Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 budget amendment for military readiness, including any proposed reallocations.
(c) The Secretary shall work with the Director of OMB to develop levels for the Department of Defense's FY 2018 budget request that are necessary to improve readiness conditions and address risks to national security.
(d) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary shall submit to the President a plan of action to achieve the levels of readiness identified in the Secretary's Readiness Review before FY 2019. That plan of action shall address areas for improvement, including insufficient maintenance, delays in acquiring parts, access to training ranges, combatant command operational demands, funding needed for consumables (e.g., fuel, ammunition), manpower shortfalls, depot maintenance capacity, and time needed to plan, coordinate, and execute readiness and training activities.

Sec. 3. Rebuilding the U.S. Armed Forces.
(a) Upon transmission of a new National Security Strategy to Congress, the Secretary shall produce a National Defense Strategy (NDS). The goal of the NDS shall be to give the President and the Secretary maximum strategic flexibility and to determine the force structure necessary to meet requirements.
(b) The Secretary shall initiate a new Nuclear Posture Review to ensure that the United States nuclear deterrent is modern, robust, flexible, resilient, ready, and appropriately tailored to deter 21st-century threats and reassure our allies.
(c) The Secretary shall initiate a new Ballistic Missile Defense Review to identify ways of strengthening missile-defense capabilities, rebalancing homeland and theater defense priorities, and highlighting priority funding areas

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
huh?
Senators Question Army Chief on Supposed Polymer Magazine Ban
source is Military.com
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I thought they straightened that out back in 2012?
It's not a Ban like what happened to Dragon Skin. Where the DOD said "absolutely not". What it is, is the Army saying, "We the Army acquisitions office do not procure those. individuals or combat units can buy them and use them in combat zones, but they are not standard issue."
In the Combat zones Troops use magazines that works and PMAG's are winners.
What it is is the Army saying if you are stateside and in training you should use USGI issue which is about to be the new Enhanced Performance Magazine. this is because they have an established line and production for the magazine.
The USMC just put PMAG on the radar big time as it's going to be there official magazine.
PMAG.jpg they ( the Marines) also had a ban on PMAG's because earlier generation 1 and 2 did not fit the M27(HK416) Gen 3 however does. hence the Marines giving it a green light and Coyote color.
 
Top