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

[BravoZulu]

One of the Army's top armoured vehicle modernization generals said Wednesday that the service would be needed to face down China's massive armoured force in a Pacific land war.

China has 7,000 tanks and 3,000 infantry fighting vehicles, "so 10,000 vehicles that will be decisive if we are not there," Maj. Gen. Richard Coffman, director of the Army's Next Generation Combat Vehicle Cross Functional Team, told an audience at a Centre for Strategic & International Studies event.

"In order to be decisive, we have to be there with armour to prevent the Chinese from getting into a position of relative advantage," he added.

Coffman is not the first general to defend the Army's relevance in the Pacific, a theatre that many experts say is more suited for the Navy and the Marine Corps.

But his comments come two days after China's Central Military Commission Vice Chairman Xu Qiliang made a provocative statement about the likelihood of war with the United States.

"The top uniformed soldier in China, chairman of China's Central Military Commission, stated that war with the United States is inevitable," Coffman said. "That is the first time China has made that statement publicly."

Coffman, who oversees development of armoured vehicles in the Army's modernization effort, such as the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle, warned that the Chinese are known for using armoured forces and that they are likely to be the aggressor in a potential future conflict.

"If you are the head uniformed general in the Chinese military and you say 'it's inevitable,' what does that mean?" Coffman said. "I think that means that you are willing to strike first because, if it's inevitable, why would you wait for your adversary to strike first?"
https://www.military.com/daily-news...eneral-highlights-need-fighting-vehicles.html

 

[BeNder]

US Army may nix gender-neutral fitness tests as women overwhelmingly fail, says biological differences matter​

https://www.theblaze.com/news/us-army-may-nix-gender-neutral-tests

 

[BCNTM]

The US Navy has a mechanical battery that could power laser weapons

A small mechanical battery based on spinning flywheels can deliver short bursts of high power, which the US Navy could use for energy weapons or railguns

www.newscientist.com

Interesting article for rail guns and lasers - but a fraction of the size of the containers currently in use on some US ships

 

[Chazman]

Surprise!!!!!!!!

Army announces gender-specific fitness test score percentiles after women's high fail rates on gender-neutral test

The U.S. Army announced Monday that it will use keep the events on the third version of the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT 3.0) gender-neutral, but male

americanmilitarynews.com

 

[BCNTM]

Swarms of flashing 'tic-tac shaped' UFOs chased US Navy destroyers

High-tech drones brazenly swooped four US destroyers, left, off the coast of California in July 2019, setting off a flurry of investigations and prompting comparisons with other UFO sightings.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[morris]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The Pentagon has selected two companies to move forward with developing small, portable nuclear reactors for military use in the field.

BWXT Advanced Technologies and X-energy were chosen by the department’s Strategic Capabilities Office to continue on with Project Pele, which seeks to develop a reactor of 1- to 5-megawatt output that can last at least three years at full power. In addition, the reactors must be designed to operate within three days of delivery and be safely removed in as few as seven days if needed.

The two companies, along with Westinghouse Government Services, were each given preliminary contracts of less than $15 million in March 2020 to begin design work. The final design is due to the Strategic Capabilities Office in 2022, at which point the Defense Department will make a decision on whether to move forward with testing the systems.

 

[BravoZulu]

Army revamping how it positions, manoeuvres global force as it faces an assertive China​

The U.S. Army will transform over the next 14 years into a multidomain power capable of operating as an “inside force” within an adversary’s defensive zones, according to a strategy paper released Tuesday by the service.

“Army Multi-Domain Transformation: Ready to Win in Competition and Conflict” outlines in declassified form how and why the service plans to transform into a force “able to dominate adversaries in sustained large-scale combat operations by 2035,” the Army said in news release.

“The United States Army faces an inflection point that requires innovation, creativity, and entrepreneurship in the application of combat power,” Gen. James McConville, the Army’s chief of staff, wrote in the paper’s preface.

“This bold transformation will provide the Joint Force with the range, speed, and convergence of cutting edge technologies that will be needed to provide future decision dominance and overmatch required to win the next fight.”

The transformation affects the Army worldwide, but the paper regards the Indo-Pacific region as the most imminent challenge.

“China and Russia continue to challenge the rules-based international order,” it said.

“Both have become increasingly more assertive in an effort to advance their agendas, aimed at supplanting the U.S. globally. By 2040 China and Russia will have weaponized all instruments of national power to undermine the collective wills of the United States, Allies, and partners, while simultaneously cultivating their own security partnerships.”

China and Russia have invested heavily in systems intended to deny U.S. military forces access to contested areas. The transformed Army will “provide credible, survivable capabilities that undermine area denial stratagems” by China and Russia, the paper said.

Core to the Army transformation is a fundamental change in how pre-conflict “theatre architecture” is established, which enables the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force to operate as a joint force.

The Army will establish “resilient webs of communication, protection, and sustainment” through new approaches in posturing units, equipment and personnel “to rapidly close with our enemies in the first battle and win from the outset,” the paper said.

“The Joint Force must move away from synchronizing sustainment using archaic structures that are time and manpower intensive,” the paper said. “By 2035, sustainment nodes will be survivable and capable of rapidly moving logistics to enable the Joint Force.”

The Army’s “inside” land-based force will “manoeuvre rapidly, aggregating and dispersing as required” as a “low-signature” force, the paper said.

Units will have broad fronts and rarely secured flanks as they engage in “compartmented” battles without the benefit of air and naval superiority, the paper said.

By 2028, the Army intends to have moved soldiers to and among the various theatres “to ensure that the right forces are in the right place at the right time to meet the requirements of joint force commanders, the paper said

The details of implementing this new “calibrated force posture” remain classified, the paper said.

The Army has been developing its multidomain operations concept in recent years, validating it through joint exercises.

“Many of these wargames have revealed the utility of ‘inside forces’ postured before conflict begins,” the paper said.
https://www.stripes.com/news/pacifi..._term=Editorial - Military - Early Bird Brief

 

[morris]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The U.S. Army has awarded contracts to both Bell and a Sikorsky-Boeing team to continue into a second phase of competitive development and risk reduction as the service prepares to begin its formal program to acquire a future long-range assault aircraft, or FLRAA, by 2030.

Awarded through the Aviation and Missile Technology Consortium, Bell and the Sikorsky-Boeing team will each conduct a preliminary analysis of requirements for Special Operations Command, including for medical evacuation and features that allow for the aircraft’s export to other countries, according to a March 30 Army statement.

At the start of the official program of record for FLRAA in 2022, the Army will choose a winner between the two teams to build prototypes.

 

[morris]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The XQ-58A Valkyrie demonstrates the separation of the ALTIUS-600 small UAS in a test at the U.S. Army's Yuma Proving Ground test range in Arizona on March 26, 2021. This test was the first time the weapons bay doors opened in flight. (U.S. Air Force)

The Air Force is experimenting with using the Valkyrie as a communications node for the F-35 and F-22 fighter jets, as well as assessing it as a potential Skyborg system that would be equipped with artificial intelligence and be able to fly autonomously alongside tactical aircraft.

 

[morris]

Air Force's new hypersonic missile fails to launch during key test flight

The ARRW booster did not deploy from its carrier plane as planned on Sunday (April 5).

www.space.com

To date, the Air Force has conducted seven ARRW "captive-carry" flights, in which the B-52H intentionally held onto the missile from takeoff to touchdown. Sunday's trial was supposed to be the first powered ARRW test. The goal was to demonstrate safe booster deployment and gather enough data to assess key elements of the missile system's performance, Air Force officials said.

 

[BravoZulu]

The USMC is advancing plans for a new fleet of robotically controlled, ship-killing ground vehicles as part of its Force Design 2030 effort to reconfigure the force against potential threats from China.

It is pressing ahead with development of a new capability that pairs a modified Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) with a Naval Strike Missile (NSM).

Without fanfare, the USMC in November 2020 conducted what it says was a successful test of the Navy and Marine Corps Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System (NMESIS). This is a planned initial material solution to meet a ground-based anti-ship missile requirement, as the USMC seeks to challenge peer adversaries.

‘The primary objective of the November test was to evaluate the system’s ability to launch a Naval Strike Missile and verify that the design of the vehicle does not interfere with the missile’s performance and that the vehicle is not damaged during the missile launch,’ USMC spokeswoman Teresa Ovalle said on 5 April.

She added: ‘The test confirmed the basic design concept and supported continued development.’

NMESIS fires an NSM from a launcher and fire control system integrated on a remotely controlled JLTV dubbed ROGUE-Fires.

‘The ROGUE vehicle is simply a Joint Light Tactical Vehicle that's been stripped of its armour and its crew cab, in order to provide a robotic vehicle that is controlled via a controller,’ LtGen Eric Smith, deputy commandant for combat development and integration, told the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee on 18 March.

The modified JLTV is outfitted with a lidar sensor so that it can operate in a leader-follower mode, Smith said, adding: ‘It is paired as a manned-unmanned teaming setup.’

He said a ROGUE unit would be inserted by air — either sling-loaded on a CH-53K King Stallion or inside a KC-130 — or from the sea via surface connectors, including LCACs, landing craft utility, traditional L-class ships or the planned Light Amphibious Warships.

The USMC envisages that NMESIS would function as a key part of the future Marine Littoral Regiments.

‘Our Force Design initiatives are designed to create and maintain a competitive edge against tireless and continuously changing peer adversaries,’ Ovalle told Shephard. ‘The force design effort is a threat-informed, concept-based approach within a 10-year time horizon, intended to design a force to address National Defense Strategy-defined threats.’

Smith told Congress that the elegance of the NMESIS project is the quick reuse of mature systems. ‘Joint Light Tactical Vehicle: no new technology; Naval Strike Missile: no new technology,’ he summarised. ‘We simply integrated two existing technologies and that's how we buy down the risk. That is your ROGUE-Fires platform — immediately deployable and can hold adversary ships at risk at ranges in excess of 100 miles [160km].’

Issues:
Has it occurred to anyone that 100 miles is an awfully short ranged system when you're talking about an anti-ship missile?

Additionally has anyone considered that even if you're stealthy, once you fire you're not only within the engagement range of the ship you're shooting at but every other enemy shooter in the vicinity?

These Littoral Regiments are designed to be expendable. It's the only thing that makes sense with such a short ranged missile.

 

[morris]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The deadline to submit a preliminary design for the Army’s Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) is April 16.

Among the companies that have announced bid submissions or intentions to compete are prime defense contractors General Dynamics Land Systems, BAE Systems and a Rheinmetall North America-led team to include Raytheon, Textron and L3Harris.
Oshkosh Defense has also submitted a bid as a prime contractor and is partnering with leading South Korean defense company Hanwha, sources familiar with the effort have confirmed to Defense News.
Also according to several other sources, Michigan-based Mettle Ops has submitted a bid.

 

[morris]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[TheKiwi]

....
Has it occurred to anyone that 100 miles is an awfully short ranged system when you're talking about an anti-ship missile?

Additionally has anyone considered that even if you're stealthy, once you fire you're not only within the engagement range of the ship you're shooting at but every other enemy shooter in the vicinity?

These Littoral Regiments are designed to be expendable. It's the only thing that makes sense with such a short ranged missile.

I'm not so sure. The problem with targeting ships is that they have this nasty tendency to move and are no longer at the place you thought they were. Without some kind of long range terminal guidance to assist missiles in finding their target, a (say) 500 nautical mile range missile may find that the aircraft carrier they were aimed at is 5-10 miles from the aim point.

 

[morris]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Is it part of the same information campaign about catching the "paper tiger" by it's tail?

STRATCOM commander calls on Congress to update US triad as China’s nuclear program advances weekly

www.stripes.com

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[muck]

Congress has taken Lockheed Martin to task over delays and cost overruns in the F-35 programme. Citing high flight hour costs, an availability rate sub 50 percent and new issues with the aircraft's engine that could render 800 jets untenable after 2030, the chairs of the House Armed Services Committee's subcommittees occupied with the F-35, Norcross (D-NJ) and Garamendi (D-CA), urged the consortium to make headway in addressing the problems and warned they would not continue to ask "taxpayers to throw money at the problem". (Source)

Interestingly enough, the Republicans in the committees tentatively sided with their colleagues, expressing "concerns about capability delays, affordability issues and readiness problems". While acknowledging progresses made so far, they warned Lockheed Martin not to give critics more ammunition.

New military tech tends to come with teething troubles, and said troubles are only going to become more complicated as technology progresses. However, I'd say we've entered the age of wilful deceit when it comes to armed forces procurement. Compare the actual price tag of any large armament project with its projected costs, and it's clear the programme would've never been okayed had the truth been widely known.

So, the industry just underbids knowing that halfway through the programme lawmakers will have no choice but to supply fresh money to salvage their previous investments. And of course parliament is – at least at the time of the deal – either privy to the sham or turns two blind eyes to it. The sad part is, maybe it's the only way to get a large project funded in the first place nowadays.

 

[TheKiwi]

.... Compare the actual price tag of any large armament project with its projected costs, and it's clear the programme would've never been okayed had the truth been widely known.

So, the industry just underbids knowing that halfway through the programme lawmakers will have no choice but to supply fresh money to salvage their previous investments. And of course parliament is – at least at the time of the deal – either privy to the sham or turns two blind eyes to it. The sad part is, maybe it's the only way to get a large project funded in the first place nowadays.

That is pretty much the case with any large scale government funded project these days.

The case for it involves highly exaggerated predicted figures and makes no allowance for cost overruns in order to get buy-in.

Once the project is started, the sunk cost fallacy and the investment in prestige from the decision makers and it becomes highly unlikely that it will be abandoned.

(I am looking at you almost every single mass transit project sold on the grounds that it will get millions of trips that ends up only ever making the original promised usage on special days like sports events or concerts and that goes billions of dollars over budget).

 

[muck]

With the B-52H Commercial Engine Replacement Program (CERP) nearing its conclusion, bidders Pratt & Whitney, GE Aviation and Rolls-Royce are awaiting a USAF decision on whose products will power the 77 bombers for the remainder of their lifespan. The fleet – which the USAF intends to operate until 2050 – requires some 600 engines to supplant the ageing Pratt & Whitney TF33, at projected costs in excess of $10 bn.

Compared to the TF33, the replacement must offer 40% greater range and burn 30% less fuel. The following engines have been pitched for CERP: the CF34-10E and Passport 20 (produced by GE Aviation and used in the Embraer E-190 and Bombardier Global 7500 respectively), Pratt & Whitney's PW815GA (Gulfstream G600) and a militarised version of Rolls-Royce's BR725 (G650). A decision is expected for June 2021. (Source)

A 40% range extension is quite the statement!

 

[BravoZulu]

The Unmanned Systems Integrated Battle Problem (UxS IBP) conducted off the coast of California over the last week featured sensor data exchange and remote sensing in all domains from seabed to space, and involved a variety of scenarios, including swarm attacks by drones and launch and recovery of an unmanned underwater vehicle by a submarine.

Rear Adm. Robert Gaucher, director of the Maritime Headquarters for the U.S. Pacific Fleet, and Rear Adm. James Aiken, commander, Carrier Strike Group Three, and commander of the IBP, spoke about the exercise to reporters during an April 26 teleconference.

“Just yesterday, we successfully teamed air and surface manned and unmanned capability to put [an SM-6 missile] well past over the horizon from [the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS] John Finn on a target and it struck the target very, very successfully,” Aiken said.

The manned/unmanned chain of events for the missile shoot was totally passive, [without] any active sensor. The target was detected by a combination of manned and unmanned platforms and a space system to locate and identify the target, track it with electronic support measures (ESM) bearings and pass the information to the John Finn, which was able to shoot the SM-6 at range, well beyond line of sight.

The admiral said the vignettes exercised during the IBP included focused warfighter vignettes, an anti-submarine warfare and surface ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] vignette, and an over-the-horizon strike vignette, the latter being the SM-6 event mentioned above.

Unmanned surface and air systems were used to prosecute a submarine-like target. This event included an MQ-9 SeaGuardian UAV dropping sonobuoys and up-linking data after a P-8 maritime patrol aircraft departed station.

In one scenario, a USV obtained an ESM electronic support measures bearing on a surface target, passed the locating data to the information warfare commander, who passed it to the surface warfare commander, who used a swarm drone attack against the target, a surface vessel.

During one event, a submarine was able to launch and recover an IVER-4 UUV using a torpedo tube.

“Being able to do that without divers [is] reducing a ton of risk for our divers to have to go recover … was a big win,” Gaucher said.

He also said the IVER-4 was able to conduct its own surveillance and reconnaissance and intelligence preparation of the battlespace.

“We were also able to deliver some kinetic effects in support of undersea and seabed warfare,” he said.

Control of unmanned systems during the IBP was conducted variously from a shore site, from ships at sea, or autonomously.

“I know that unmanned can proved me video from overhead,” Gaucher said. “I know I can put a towed array sensor on a medium-sized unmanned surface vessel, and I can control it from the shore for theater ASW. … I know that I can operate a system in and out of the torpedo tube of a submarine to support seabed warfare.”

“From a [Pacific Fleet] perspective, we were very pleased about how the Integrated Battle Problem came out, in particular with our ability to integrate unmanned [systems] into that battle problem in a contested environment,” Gaucher said, noting that 29 different unmanned technologies were part of the IBP, with about 50% surface, 30% subsurface, and 20% above the surface.

Gaucher stressed that goals for the IPB included using unmanned systems to avoid putting personnel in harm’s way and to improve targeting “so we get a better solution when we launch.”

https://seapowermagazine.org/navys-unmanned-systems-battle-problem-features-all-domain-sensing/

 

[morris]

The Army is making tank upgrades as simple as switching video game cartridges

A new open-standards approach would make replacing or updating capabilities as easy as plugging in a new VPX card — a rugged, standard chip about 1-inch big that’s used for defense applications.

www.c4isrnet.com