US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

TerraN_EmpirE

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

By
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
on May 29, 2015 at 2:08 PM
Vyper-Adamas-900x700-vA9G3reV58cx243069-300x225.jpg

Vyper V3 Python

A very
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
competing to build
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
just got a big lift from a heavy hitter. “This levels the playing field,”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
president Shane Sterling told me of his firm’s new alliance with
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. “We as a company now have the industrial might behind us to produce our product.”

That might comes from Michigan-based
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, which started out building firetrucks but
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
during the post-9/11 wars, working mainly on
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
vehicles. The MRAPs could survive most roadside bombs but proved too heavy and awkward to maneuver offroad. The Army and Marines want to replace them with a nimbler but still well-protected
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, weighing in at a relatively modest 14,000 lbs. But the Army has also decided it needs something much lighter to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
with the Airborne: a 4,500-lb Ultra-Light Combat Vehicle, an unarmored nine-man transport, and a modestly better-armored Light Reconnaissance Vehicle.

Vyper Adamas has built small numbers of innovative vehicles for special operations customers they decline to name. In the competition to build the ULCV and LRV for the so-called Big Army, however, they were dwarfed by competitors like
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and Boeing. It turns out they had a plan for that problem all along: marry their design team to Spartan’s manufacturing power.

Vyper-Adamas-900x700-R3gbU72hGiJx243054-300x225.jpg

Vyper V3 Python

“It says a lot about our product and reputation to have a company like Spartan behind us,” Sterling told me. “They have won
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in the past five years for innovation and their ability to produce products on time.”

“As a smaller company, we are extremely nimble, with the ability to design, develop, and now implement, on an extremely large scale, the numbers of vehicles that might be asked of us,” Sterling said. “
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
recently alluded to the fact that
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to bid and compete on contacts. Well, Vyper is that company.”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I hear my parking Space Calling again....
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

By
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
on May 28, 2015 at 5:05 PM
odierno-size0.jpg

Gen.Ray Odierno

WASHINGTON: “In the next two years,” Army chief of staff
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
said today, the service could move out on four new combat vehicles and reboot its aging inventory for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. They range from
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
for Airborne soldiers to a scout car,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, and a new infantry fighting vehicle to carry heavy troops into
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

These projects are more incremental than revolutionary, more modest than ambitious, but they’re a step beyond the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
the Army is currently procuring. They don’t attempt to transform the Army like the cancelled
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
or the Reagan buildup’s famed “
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
” — but they might just be the Feasible Four.

The biggest challenge is the IFV, sometimes also called the Future Fighting Vehicle. This machine would replace the Cold War mainstay of the armored force, the M2 Bradley, which FCS and the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
programs both failed to do....
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
cheaper way to get full auto like performance for American civilians :) get a Slidefire stock for any AR or AK rifle, with bipod.

That's more like a 3 round bursts instead of full automatic, which is legal for civilians to purchase here in the US (or depending on some state laws).
 

shen

Senior Member
you are in Texas! anything legal there :)
watch the whole video, I think that guy is going at full auto speed in the later part of the video. and with bipod, you can actually hit something with Slidefire stock.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
you are in Texas! anything legal there :)
watch the whole video, I think that guy is going at full auto speed in the later part of the video. and with bipod, you can actually hit something with Slidefire stock.

True, he has the 3 types of firing mode on his selector switch (semi, 3 round burst, and auto) on his machine gun. I can buy the same type and brand but will NOT have an "auto" round bursts on my selector switch as for the civilian purchase.
 

Franklin

Captain
The title says it all.

Map: The U.S. is bound by treaties to defend a quarter of humanity

imrs.php


The United States is bound by a number of treaties that could, in theory, force it to get involved in a war if an ally is attacked. Consider, for example, the situation in Ukraine, a non-member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. If a NATO ally were to find itself under similar threat from Russia, the U.S. may find itself duty bound to war.

Or alternatively, cast your mind to the South China Sea and its territorial disputes. If China were to engage militarily with the Philippines at some point in the near future, the U.S. may well be expected to step in to protect its ally: Since 1951, the U.S. and the Philippines have had a bilateral agreement for mutual defense.

It goes without saying that war with either Russia or China would be a very big deal – especially if that war is on behalf of a third party. This becomes more startling when you realize that, thanks to various treaties and deals set up since 1945, the U.S. government is legally obligated to defend countries containing 25 percent of the world's population.

That figure comes from "The Myth of Entangling Alliances," an article by Michael Beckley, an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at Tufts University, published this month in the International Security journal.

In his calculations, Beckley includes members of a variety of defense pacts in his list, such as the Organization of American States (OAS) and NATO, as well as a number of bilateral agreements such as the Philippines. Beckley also includes two countries where no formal defense agreement has been signed (Israel and Taiwan), arguing that the Taiwan Relations Act and American pledges to support Israel act as de facto pledges of support.

In total, 69 countries have some form of defense pact with the United States, and as Beckley notes, they make up around 75 percent of the world's economic output. By WorldViews' own count, the combined population of these countries and the United States itself is in excess of 2 billion.

That's a remarkably large amount of the world for the United States to be obligated to protect, especially considering that the country largely kept clear of alliances for the first 165 years of its existence (it did sign one, with France, during the revolutionary war). In fact, America's founding fathers had promised to avoid alliances like this altogether.

“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations," is how Thomas Jefferson put it in his inaugural pledge. "Entangling alliances with none."

Things really changed after World War II, and even back in 1970, David Fromkin was writing in Foreign Affairs questioning the problems that could be caused by this new web of alliances. Now, in the light of modern situations like those of Ukraine and the South China Sea, some studies have outright suggested these alliances could have disastrous consequences: One article from last year even suggested that America's modern-day alliances resembled the disastrous web of allegiances in Europe before World War I.

Beckley, however, examines the historical evidence and finds that things aren't so cut and dried. He finds only a handful of cases where the United States became entangled in conflicts due to alliances and argues that the conflict that involved the most substantial military action (the Vietnam War) came about due to a result of a variety of factors, not just alliances. Beckley also notes that there are several examples of times in history when the United States has ignored the commitments placed on it by alliances when it didn't suit them: Rebuffing desperate French pleas for overt help during the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954, for example.

In the end, Beckley concludes that "U.S. security policy lies firmly in the hands of U.S. leaders and is shaped primarily by those leaders’ perceptions of the nation’s core interests." He is keen to note, however, that that doesn't mean we won't see war against Russia or China at some point in the near future. It's just that it will be political leaders who will decide when to ignore a military alliance – and when to go to war.

You can see a full list of U.S. military pacts below:

imrs.php

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
That article is so full fo self contradtictions and leading, sensational phrases it is almost comical.

Ultimately, despite all of the hoopla, it renders this:

Beckley, however, examines the historical evidence and finds that things aren't so cut and dried. He finds only a handful of cases where the United States became entangled in conflicts due to alliances

In the end...it is not a "News" article at all really...it is an OpEd.

The thread here is for US Military "News."

 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
I think they will achieve it. But they say first patrol in 2030...where I thought the schedule was now for 2031.

Going from 14 subs to 12 subs for the SSBN role is going to be possible because of the advances in reactor core life. That will be fine.

But with 12, you are going to have 10 operational at any one time, and with normal maintenance schedules, working up after maintenance, etc. I expect that will allow the USN to have the minimum number out to sea on deterrence patrol at any one time.

The real key is hitting the in-service date because there is no wiggle room for missing it in the life of the existing Ohio class subs. IMHO, they really should have planned to bring these subs in 3-4 years earlier to avoid any possible issues.

If they had done that, they would start building in 2017. The actual initial schedule called for a 2019 start date, but that has slipped two years now.

As it is, they are supposed to start building in 2021, launch in 2026 or so, and commission in 2028-2029 with full operational capaility by 2031.
 
Top