Mil News USA, Canada & Caribbean Nations Military News & Discussion Thread

[BravoZulu]

USA:
The Department of Defense has sent a plan to the White House that would cut the construction of more than 40 percent of its planed Flight III Arleigh Burke destroyers in in fiscal years 2021 through 2025.

In total, the proposal would cut five of the 12 DDGs planned through the so-called future years defense program, or FYDP. In total, the plan would cut about $9.4 billion, or 8 percent, out of the total shipbuilding budget, according to a memo from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget to the Defense Department obtained by Defense News. The memo also outlined plans to accelerate the decommissioning cruisers, cutting the total number of Ticonderoga-class cruisers in the fleet down to nine by 2025, from a planned 13 in last year’s budget.

The Pentagon’s plan would actually shrink the size of the fleet from today’s fleet of 293 ships to 287 ships, the memo said, which stands in contrast to the Navy’s goal of 355 ships. The 355 ship goal was also made national policy in the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act.

The memo comes on the heels of a wave of rhetoric from the Navy and the highest levels of the Trump Administration that the goal remains 350-plus ships, and the memo directs the Pentagon to submit a “resource-informed” plan to get to 355 ships, though its unclear how that direction might affect the Navy's calculus with regards to destroyer construction. The document gives the Navy a degree of wiggle-room to try and redefine what counts as a ship.

“OMB directs DOD to submit a resource-informed plan to achieve a 355-ship combined fleet, including manned and unmanned ships, by 2030,” the memo reads. “In addition to a programmatic plan through the FYDP and projected ship counts through 2030, DOD shall submit a legislative proposal to redefine a battleforce ship to include unmanned ships, complete with clearly defined capability and performance thresholds to define a ship’s inclusion in the overall battleforce ship count.”

Destroyers are built by General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Maine and by Huntington Ingalls in Pascagoula, Mississippi. Each destroyer costs an average of $1.82 billion based on the Navy’s 2020 budget submission, according to the Congressional Research Service.

A Trump Administration official who spoke on background said the Navy's proposed plan to shrink the fleet is being driven primary from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and that OMB is strongly behind the President's goal of 355 ship.

“OMB strongly supports 355 [ships] and is working with the Navy on it,” the official said. “OSD seems to be the most opposed to it.”
A Navy spokesman declined to comment on the contents of the memo, saying it was related to a budget still in development and was “pre-decisional.” The military has a policy of refusing to comment on budget matters before they've been submitted to congress.

The destroyer Thomas Hudner returns to Bath Iron Works after successfully completing acceptance trials. A new Navy proposal would cut destroyer construction by 40 percent over the next five years. (Bath Iron Works)
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2...-destroyer-construction-retiring-13-cruisers/

 

[bdpopeye]

USA
Fraud Alert: U.S. Army warns of fake text messages about military draft

FRESNO, Calif. (KMPH) -- The U.S. Army is warning people about a series of fake text messages tricking people into thinking they are being drafted.

In a news release published Tuesday, the U.S. Army Recruiting Command said they have been receiving calls and emails about these fake texts.

It is unclear where these fake texts are originating.

Officials want to ensure Americans that these messages are not real and they are not being drafted.

The Selective Service System is a separate agency outside of the Department of Defense, and the Army has no control over the draft.

"The Selective Service System is conducting business as usual,” according to the Selective Service System’s official Facebook page. “In the event that a national emergency necessitates a draft, Congress and the President would need to pass official legislation to authorize a draft."

The draft has not been in effect since 1973.

The military has been an all-volunteer force since then.

 

[muck]

Dillon Aero unveils new M134D six-barrelled minigun in 8.6×70 mm ☞ , new tri-barrel 503D rotary gun in 12.7×99 mm ☞

Sheesh. Wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of those.

 

[Chazman]

Exclusive: New Jersey National Guard soldiers awarded CIBs for battle in Somalia

In September of 2019, members of the New Jersey National Guard engaged in a fierce firefight with Al Shabab Somalian militants at Baledogle Airfield, where they were hit with a succession of car bombs followed up by a ground assault.

connectingvets.radio.com

 

[BravoZulu]

USAF:
The US Air Force is looking to reduce its Fairchild-Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II close air support fleet by proposing to cut its non-active force fleet by 46 aircraft, or by 33%, in fiscal year 2021.
The USAF, according to its FY 2021 budget request released on February 10, would keep its active force A-10 fleet at 143 aircraft but the service would slash its Air National Guard fleet from 85 aircraft to 46 and also reduce its Air Force Reserve fleet from 55 aircraft to 48.
Major General John Pletcher, deputy assistant secretary for financial management and comptroller, told reporters that these aircraft would be the oldest and least-ready aircraft, and that these cuts, combined with planned modernizations, would allow the USAF to have A-10s in seven squadrons flying into the 2030s.

 

[BravoZulu]

USA:
The Pentagon plans to divert $3.8 billion in military funding to pay for the construction of hundreds of more miles of the southern border wall, according to a notice sent to Congress on Thursday.

The Department of Defense "reprogramming" notice says it plans to pull $2.2 billion from an account that funds counterdrug activities and another $1.6 billion from a war account known as the Overseas Contingency Operations fund.


The transfer of funds would have an impact on the purchase of new aircraft, vehicles and weapons — including Navy V-22 Osprey aircraft and parts for an Air Force reaper drone and F-35 planes, the notice says.

"DHS has identified areas along the southern border of the United States that are being used by individuals, groups, and transnational criminal organizations as drug smuggling corridors, and determined that the construction of additional physical barriers and roads in the vicinity of the United States border is necessary in order to impede and deny drug smuggling activities," the notice says.

The move would mark the second year in a row the Trump administration has shifted money from the Pentagon to build additional sections of the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/milita...illion-military-funding-build-border-n1136636

 

[BravoZulu]

USA:
The U.S. Navy may not purchase more than four new Ford-class carriers, the head of the service said last week. A four-ship run would fall far short of the ten-ship series for the previous Nimitz-class design.

“I don’t know if we’re going to buy any more of that type [Ford-class]," Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly told DefAeroReport. “We’re certainly thinking about possible other classes. What are we going to learn on these four that’s going to inform what we do next? But we have some time now, we have up until 2026, 2027 before we have to make a really firm decision."

At $12-13 billion each, the Ford-class carriers are the most expensive warships ever built. The Navy is actively looking to trim billions out of its budget in order to fund smaller, more distributed surface warfare assets, including unmanned / optionally-manned surface combatants. Many defense analysts caution that large, high-value assets - like supercarriers - are potentially more vulnerable to new ballistic missile and hypersonic projectile threats.

The Pentagon has already committed to buy four hulls in the Ford series - the future USS Gerald R. Ford, USS John F. Kennedy, USS Enterprise and USS Dorris Miller. The last two hulls were purchased in a block-buy in order to reduce cost. USS Ford has been delivered, and construction on USS Kennedy and USS Enterprise is under way.

The first-in-class USS Ford has experienced serious challenges with next-generation technology, notably with her advanced weapons elevators. Only four of her electromagnetically-actuated elevators are functioning, all in the upper stage. Work on installing, testing and certifying her seven lower-stage elevators is under way. Without the elevators, Ford cannot arm her aircraft for sorties.

“The biggest problem . . . are the hatches and the doors,” Modly said. “There are 70 total doors for the 11 elevators and they’re down to 20 that need to be fitted properly to make sure they work."

The Navy's estimates indicate that the ship will deploy for the first time in 2024, six years behind schedule. In the interim, she is serving as the carrier flight training platform for the U.S. East Coast region.

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/modly-u-s-navy-may-not-buy-more-ford-class-carriers

 

[BravoZulu]

USA:
Lockheed Martin and the U.S. Navy moved one step closer to integrating a laser weapon system onto an Arleigh Burke destroyer after successfully conducting a Critical Design Review (CDR) for the High Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance (HELIOS) system.

“Our adversaries are rapidly developing sophisticated weapons and the threats to the U.S. Navy’s fleet are getting more challenging,” said Hamid Salim, vice president, Advanced Product Solutions at Lockheed Martin Rotary and Mission Systems. “Our warfighters need this capability and capacity now to effectively counter threats such as unmanned aerial systems and fast attack vessels.”

This year, HELIOS will undergo system integration in Moorestown, New Jersey—the home of Aegis Combat System development for 50 years. The HELIOS system will then be tested at the Wallops Island Navy land-based test site which will significantly reduce program risk before being delivered to a shipyard for integration into an Arleigh Burke destroyer next year. In addition to being built into the ship’s structure, HELIOS will become an integrated component of the ship’s Aegis combat system.

“HELIOS will provide an additional layer of protection for the fleet—deep magazine, low cost per kill, speed of light delivery, and precision response. Additional HELIOS systems will accelerate the warfighter learning curve, provide risk reduction for future laser weapon system increments and provide a stronger demand signal to the supply base,” said Brendan Scanlon, HELIOS program director, Lockheed Martin Rotary and Mission Systems.

https://news.lockheedmartin.com/202...pon-System-Takes-Step-Toward-Ship-Integration

 

[BravoZulu]

USA:
Lockheed Martin Space won a $601.3 million modification for the submarine-launched ballistic missile (model) Trident II D5 production and deployed systems support.
The Trident D5 or UGM-133A Trident II is a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), built by Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Sunnyvale, California, and deployed with the American and British navies. It was first deployed in March 1990.
A total of 14 US Navy submarines are armed with Trident II ballistic missiles, each carrying 24 missiles. The Trident missile has a range from 6,400 to 11,250 km. The dimensions of the Trident II missile are 1,360 cm long with a diameter of 210 cm, and the weight is 59,000 kg.
The Trident II missile is deployed aboard Ohio-class submarines, each capable of carrying 24 missiles.
Under the provisions of the Polaris Sales Agreement, it is also carried aboard the United Kingdom's Vanguard-class submarines. Work will take place in Utah, California, Colorado, Florida and Virginia.
Estimated completion will be in September 2024.

 

[muck]

USMC to shrink, give up most heavy weapons under new plan ☞

Marine Corps Commandant General David Berger's 10-year reform plan is reportedly designed to challenge China's ambitions in the South China Sea. In order to emphasise the strategy of "island hopping", the Corps would give up its heavy weapons and in turn receive more unmanned vehicles and rocket artillery assets (particularly anti-ship missiles).​

Changes	2020	2030	Trend
unmanned aerial vehicle squadrons	3	6	⬆
rocket artillery batteries	7	21	⬇
transport squadrons (fixed wing)	3	4	⬆
transport squadrons (tilt-rotor)	17	14	⬇
transport squadrons (rotary wing heavy)	8	5	⬇
attack squadrons (fixed wing)	18	18	➡
attack squadrons (rotary wing)	7	5	⬇
artillery batteries	21	5	⬇
tank companies	7	0	⬇
bridging companies	3	0	⬇
infantry battalions (also to be reduced in size by 15%)	24	21	⬇
total strength	189 000	170 000	⬇

The numbers are interesting and not a little surprising. And downright weird at times: an amphibious fighting force without bridgelaying capacities?

 

[DZimm]

They have been alluding to this change for a long time, apparently trying to position themselves as a forward force in the First Island Chain, inside of the Chinese A2AD umbrella. Its bold thinking, I wonder how successful it will ultimately prove to be?

 

[BravoZulu]

USMC to shrink, give up most heavy weapons under new plan ☞

Marine Corps Commandant General David Berger's 10-year reform plan is reportedly designed to challenge China's ambitions in the South China Sea. In order to emphasise the strategy of "island hopping", the Corps would give up its heavy weapons and in turn receive more unmanned vehicles and rocket artillery assets (particularly anti-ship missiles).​

Changes	2020	2030	Trend
unmanned aerial vehicle squadrons	3	6	⬆
rocket artillery batteries	7	21	⬇
transport squadrons (fixed wing)	3	4	⬆
transport squadrons (tilt-rotor)	17	14	⬇
transport squadrons (rotary wing heavy)	8	5	⬇
attack squadrons (fixed wing)	18	18	➡
attack squadrons (rotary wing)	7	5	⬇
artillery batteries	21	5	⬇
tank companies	7	0	⬇
bridging companies	3	0	⬇
infantry battalions (also to be reduced in size by 15%)	24	21	⬇
total strength	189 000	170 000	⬇

The numbers are interesting and not a little surprising. And downright weird at times: an amphibious fighting force without bridgelaying capacities?

And the loss of Tilt-rotor, heavy lift helo's, helo attack and not to mention the loss of most of the artillery and 100% of the tank force just has me shaking my head in what exactly is being achieved. A "peer-to-peer" conflict with China would seem to me to be a no-brainer that you need MORE teeth not less. The loss of infantry battalions AND a reduction by 15% is just crazy.

 

[DZimm]

The tanks I can kind of understand, the Abrams is just too heavy for their purposes. However, this does mean that the Marines are in need of some kind of a direct fire platform. I wonder if they are taking the gamble that whatever comes from the upcoming Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle program to replace the LAV will be adequate. Thats quite a gamble. I hope that they recognize this, because if one thing is certain, the US will get involved in other fights and they likely won't be the kind they have planned for. This may or may not be the best way to oppose China, but at some point, no matter how well dispersed or armed with long range missiles up you are, a contingency will come up and Marines will have to respond.

I am a little confused by the cuts to aviation, but the conclusion that I come to is that it has to be about money. The only reason you would want fewer squadrons of heavy life or tiltrotor in the Pacific is if you don't think you can afford them. That also goes for shrinking the F-35 squadrons.

I am super intrigued to know what a "Marine Littoral Regiment" will look like.

 

[Chazman]

The tanks I can kind of understand, the Abrams is just too heavy for their purposes. However, this does mean that the Marines are in need of some kind of a direct fire platform. I wonder if they are taking the gamble that whatever comes from the upcoming Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle program to replace the LAV will be adequate. Thats quite a gamble. I hope that they recognize this, because if one thing is certain, the US will get involved in other fights and they likely won't be the kind they have planned for. This may or may not be the best way to oppose China, but at some point, no matter how well dispersed or armed with long range missiles up you are, a contingency will come up and Marines will have to respond.

I am a little confused by the cuts to aviation, but the conclusion that I come to is that it has to be about money. The only reason you would want fewer squadrons of heavy life or tiltrotor in the Pacific is if you don't think you can afford them. That also goes for shrinking the F-35 squadrons.

I am super intrigued to know what a "Marine Littoral Regiment" will look like.

I think those in charge want to get away from the Marines being a second army, and want it to be an amphibious expeditionary force. I wouldn't be surprised to see things change yet again over this 10 year period.

 

[DZimm]

You are probably right, this is likely to just be version 1.0 of a changing USMC.

 

[BravoZulu]

USA:
BAE Systems has received a $339 million order from the Army to deliver 48 M109A7 Self-Propelled Howitzers, the company’s latest deal since the program was approved for full-rate production in February.
The M109A7 SPH and M992A3 CAT vehicle set is a vital program enhancement for increased combat capability and sustainment of the Army’s Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCTs).
The program offers enhanced indirect-fire artillery capabilities to the ABCTs with new technologies for power generation and survivability.

 

[muck]

@Chazman & @DZimm

I do like the fact though they tried to come up with an organisation geared towards future challenges. Far too many Western military reform projects over the past thirty years were reactive and not proactive in nature.

 

[DZimm]

USMC Force Design 2030 official document

USMC Force Design 2030

Here is the official document from General Berger, contains mostly things that have already been reported on but some further details and explanation. There is an entire section about the findings that he thinks need further study, including the proposal to change the structure of the infantry battalion, increasing LAR by 3 companies, and retaining 18 VMFA squadrons.

 

[muck]

I'm still struggling with the thought process behind standing down bridgelayer squadrons, though. I mean, you don't need those merely for heavy vehicles. Are assault boats an ordinary element of a USMC infantry battalion's TOE? Alright, they're the devil dogs and so forth, but it's not advisable to cross deep waterways on foot.

 

[DZimm]

Muck,

I think that you are getting to the crux of the problem here. I see that they are cutting units that are too heavy and that they don't think they can afford. I see that they are adding long range fires. I don't see much more investment that indicates that they are planning to operate primarily in the littorals. Where are the boats? I recognize that this is purely theoretical, but I recall an article from a few months ago where a Marine officer proposed a "Battalion Maritime Team" https://warontherocks.com/2019/12/e...d-becoming-a-second-land-army-in-the-pacific/ in essence, a Marine unit built around small boats that would operate in the littoral. Given that the USN has not really shown an inclination to invest in small boats, I see some real merit in this idea. As the article states, it would also allow them to address one of the major shortcomings of the current EABO concept, the reliance on permission from an ally to deploy to their territory. As an added bonus, with most of the worlds population, and therefore potential conflict zones, being so close to the coast, a unit like this would have applications far beyond the conflict that the US wants(massive conventional vs China) and would be helpful in the kinds of conflicts that the US will more likely find itself having to respond to. IMHO, the Marines need to think about getting wet.