US military, technology, arms, tactics

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1049
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby dinesha » 04 Jul 2018 18:04

Nuclear Gravity Bomb Completes First Qual Tests on B-2 Bomber
https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 ... omber.html

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1049
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby dinesha » 07 Jul 2018 13:52

Expeditionary Fast Transport vessel Burlington (EPF 10) Completes Builder's Trials
https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... rials.html

Image

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1049
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby dinesha » 13 Jul 2018 13:07

The US Military Has a New Facility for Overseeing Nuclear War
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/arti ... uclear-war
ith its shielded electronics and underground levels, the C2F and at least some of its occupants might survive the initial blasts in a nuclear war. "But I doubt it would last long in a later exchange," Kristensen said. "A couple of direct hits with high-yield warheads would likely shake the underground structure to pieces."


"Nuclear command and control today is less dependent on super-secure underground facilities, but in a flatter architecture than makes use of numerous redundant and dispersed facilities," Kristensen said. "So an adversary could blow up Offutt, but by that time the national command leadership would be long gone and it wouldn’t prevent [Strategic Command] from retaliating or continuing the fight, if one can imagine that in a nuclear war."

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19531
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Philip » 14 Jul 2018 18:22

The USN's latest stealth DDG Zumwalt class Michael Monsoor, returned to base after an engine was wrecked ($20M) during acceptance trials.Turbine blade failure reportedly.

Huge USN naval exercises off Hawaii tested fof the first time land based anti- ship missiles ( Norwegian) out to a target, an old LST, at a range of 60km.The Japanese also tested their own SSM-12 equivs. at the same target which was attacled by multiple air, sea and land , without warheads so that the target could last as long as possible.Hits were to the superstructure nit hull.
A Chin vessel was snooping on the exercises.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20851
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Prem » 15 Jul 2018 09:36

https://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/new ... yptr=yahoo
Boeing KC-46A tanker clears final flight test hurdles for first delivery

An integrated team from the Boeing Co. and the U.S. Air Force have cleared the final flight tests required for first delivery of the KC-46A Pegasus tanker. The first delivery of the tanker is planned for late October, and will go to McConnell Air Force Base in Wichita. “With this milestone complete, the test program has demonstrated a level of maturity that positions Boeing to deliver, and the Air Force to accept, an aircraft by the end of October 2018,” Will Roper, the Air Force service acquisition director, says in an article published Friday morning on the USAF website. The service says recent tests involving the aircraft’s Remote Vision System and receiver certifications of the F-16 Fighting Falcon and C-17 Globemaster combine with previous testing activity to achieve the minimum flight testing requirements for first delivery. The tanker program is now moving on to additional receiver aircraft testing and certifications for operational testing to begin in 2019. Boeing (NYSE: BA) plans to build 179 of the new tankers for the USAF, which will begin updating the service’s aging fleet of Eisenhower-era KC-135s. The program also represents production work in Wichita, where the city’s largest employer, Spirit AeroSystems Inc. (NYSE: SPR), builds the forward fuselage and other components on the 767 model that serves as the tanker’s platform
.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1049
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby dinesha » 18 Jul 2018 16:43

Boeing gets USD 3.9 billion contract for new Air Force One jets
http://www.newindianexpress.com/busines ... 45006.html

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35822
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby SaiK » 22 Jul 2018 19:32

Watchdog Says USAF Is Wasting F-22s On Patrols And Deployments, Should Consolidate Force

http://amp.timeinc.net/thedrive/the-war ... source=dam

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2629
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby kit » 23 Jul 2018 01:48

SaiK wrote:Watchdog Says USAF Is Wasting F-22s On Patrols And Deployments, Should Consolidate Force

http://amp.timeinc.net/thedrive/the-war ... source=dam



more like the Dubai police using their Lamborghinis for "policing" ..for how long is the moot point !!

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20851
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Prem » 27 Jul 2018 08:39

https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... r-weapons/
U.S. Submarines Will Soon Carry Tactical Nuclear Weapons

The U.S. Navy’s fleet of ballistic missile submarines will soon carry tactical nuclear weapons, as Congress prepares to fund development of a new, low-yield nuclear warhead. The submarines, which form a functional invulnerable retaliatory force in case of surprise nuclear attack, will soon be able to launch missiles with less powerful tactical nuclear weapons. Not everyone is sold on the new weapon, which critics charge is unnecessary and could lower the threshold for nuclear war.Every four years, the sitting presidential administration conducts a review of U.S. nuclear forces. The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, commissioned by President Trump, calls for replacing some of the existing nuclear warheads on the Ohio-class submarines with low-yield warheads. The goal is to have the ability to strike urgent, time sensitive targets virtually any place on Earth.Each Ohio submarine carries twenty Trident D-5 missiles, and each missile is outfitted with an unknown number of W76-1 nuclear warheads. (The U.S. keeps the number of submarines at sea and warheads per submarine intentionally ambiguous, although we know Washington has pledged to never deploy more than 240 missiles at sea at any one time.) Now it appears at least some of those warheads will be replaced with the W76-2, which has a much smaller explosive yield.The Administration argues that the U.S. may need to strike quickly strike targets with tactical nuclear weapons. An example might be a nuclear-armed missile sitting on a North Korean missile launch pad. Most tactical nukes are aircraft delivered bombs, and could take the better part of a day to ready and then reach their target. A tactical nuke delivered by a submarine-launched ballistic missile, on the other hand, could be delivered in less than an hour.How small a warhead yield are we talking about? That’s a good question. The existing W76-1 warhead has an explosive yield of 100 kilotons (for reference, the Hiroshima bomb was 16 kilotons.) The B61-12 tactical nuclear gravity bomb has a “dial-a-yield” mechanism that allows for yields of .3 (or just 300 tons of TNT), 1.5, 10, and 50 kilotons. The W76-2 would likely have a yield similar to the B61-12’s low end.Critics, on the other hand, believe the new warhead is unnecessary and dangerous. They believe that the W76-2 is a solution in search of a problem, noting that sudden “bolt from the blue” crisis that suddenly demands a tactical nuclear weapon placed on a target in less than an hour is very unlikely. They believe that existing tactical nuclear weapons would be forward deployed near a potential crisis, making them available more quickly than commonly believed.

Shameek
BRFite
Posts: 695
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 20:44
Location: Ionosphere

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Shameek » 09 Aug 2018 23:21

War Without End

An article on the Afghanistan campaign and challenges faced by them.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4554
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Neshant » 10 Aug 2018 02:55

Prem wrote:https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a22550758/us-submarines-will-soon-carry-tactical-nuclear-weapons/
U.S. Submarines Will Soon Carry Tactical Nuclear Weapons

The U.S. Navy’s fleet of ballistic missile submarines will soon carry tactical nuclear weapons, as Congress prepares to fund development of a new, low-yield nuclear


Supposedly the USN had developed variable yield nukes that could be programmed to detonate either as tactical or strategic nukes with varying yields to suite the battle circumstance. That would enable a tailored response to an attack.

Shameek
BRFite
Posts: 695
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 20:44
Location: Ionosphere

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Shameek » 11 Aug 2018 19:43

Airline employee stole a plane from Seattle airport. F-15s were scrambled to intercept. Unfortunately the plane crashed and he was killed.

Link

Eric Leiderman
BRFite
Posts: 356
Joined: 26 Nov 2010 08:56

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Eric Leiderman » 14 Aug 2018 01:31

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/08/13/ ... mines.html

Helicopter deployed mine destructor neat idea still under development

quote

The Navy can now use sonar and video-guided underwater warheads to attack and destroy enemy sea mines at the bottom of the ocean, improving protection for submarines and surface ships while bringing new combat ability to maritime war operations, service officials said. Unquote

Link attached for graphic and full article

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 12 Sep 2018 16:00

USAF Revives ‘Extreme Range’ Jassm Concept


The U.S. Air Force has revived a decade-old concept for a new version of the AGM-158 joint-air-to-surface standoff missile (Jassm) with potentially five times more range than the original version.

Lockheed Martin received a $51 million contract on Sept. 10 to plan and schedule development of an “extreme range” version of the missile dubbed Jassm-XR.

All work under the new contract, which includes a new missile control unit, should be complete by Aug. 31, 2023, the Defense Department says.
Lockheed’s tactical missile unit in Orlando, Florida, first unveiled a concept for an ultra-long-range Jassm-XR in 2004.
A 2009 report by the Defense Science Board (DSB) described such a weapon as designed with a range up to 1,000 nm.

By contrast, the merely extended-range version of the missile, designated as the AGM-158B Jassm-ER, is listed with a range of more than 500 nm. The original version of Jassm has a listed range of more than 200 nm. Lockheed has also designed a version of the Jassm-ER for the U.S. Navy, which is called the long-range anti-ship missile (LRASM).

Most likely longer and heavier than previous versions of the missile, the Jassm-XR is designed for launch from bombers and heavy strike aircraft, the DSB report says.

Such a weapon would add a new subsonic cruise missile that bridges the gap between the range of the AGM-158B and the 2,400 nm endurance of the Boeing AGM-86 conventional air launched cruise missile.

If the Jassm-XR retains the stealth features of the original version, the new weapon would come close to matching the range and low observable characteristics of the Raytheon AGM-129A, a nuclear-capable cruise missile that the Air Force retired in 2012 without a replacement.
While still in service, six AGM-129As could be loaded on each of two pylons under the wing of a Boeing B-52H, allowing each bomber to carry a total of 12 missiles.

Chinmay
BRFite
Posts: 156
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:25

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Chinmay » 13 Sep 2018 08:18

What would the operational role of such a weapon be, given that the -158B, and JSOW will cover the lower range(300-500nm) spectrum while the AGM-86 and THawks will cover the long range spectrum of targets?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 13 Sep 2018 09:23

Very few CALCM's remain in the active USAF inventory. They will eventually go away and will be likely replaced by a conventional LRSO when it is available. Advantages of the JASSM-XR would be RCS improvement, better sensors, Anti-GPS jamming capability etc. Basically, the current JASSMER and LRASM are much more modern systems with a lot invested in their future including RF/IR dual band seekers etc. Additionally, the USAF was quite impressed with the CHAMP which was an ALCM with a HPM payload. They didn't mass convert those missiles becuase they wanted a smaller and more modern form factor. The JASSM XR could be a very good compromise.

JSOW is just a glide munition and does not share the same target sets with the JASSM although that area too will be modernized as the USAF has another, more affordable, cruise missile program that is also on Lockheed's books (see below). Basically from SDB up to JDAM (GBU-X) and JSOW up to JASSM - each will be getting a 2x range increase given the distances and capability needs in Pacific.

https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2017-12 ... se-Missile

No Air Launched Tomahawk exists and it is not an RCS optimized weapon like the JASSM. The USAF is tasked with a number of target sets as part of the joint forces so it must maintain a given inventory and standoff and stand in weapons. For the legacy bombers it appears that newer payloads will be hyperosonic weapons and longer ranged subsonic cruise missiles.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 13 Sep 2018 16:03

Very interesting. Beyond a dozen or so for the Director Operational Test and Evaluation, I expect both the USAF and Navy will buy a fleet for themselves since this is full size and has room and power provisioned for Electronic Warfare Payloads.

The Air Vehicle was designed by retired AFRL and Skunk Works aerospace engineers and is being manufactered by STS.

Department of Defense develops stealth target drone

Long foreseeing this moment, when adversaries break its decades-long monopoly on the technology, the US Department of Defense has been working to find ways to test its ability to spot and shoot down stealth aircraft. One part of that effort is the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) office’s development of a fifth-generation aerial target (5GAT), a full-sized stealth unmanned air vehicle.

Typically, the DoD gives its stealth aircraft development to multibillion dollar prime contractors such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman. But not in this case, as responsibility for this aircraft has fallen into the hands of a little-known aerospace start-up named Sierra Technical Services.

Empowering a small start-up is exactly the point, actually.

The “goal for the 5GAT effort, as a proof of concept, is to assess the ability to conduct a rapid prototyping and experimentation to enable the fielding of a low-cost, all composite, full-scale, unmanned target that delivers the requisite performance and mission capability at a fraction of the cost of current target programmes,” says the DOT&E. “The 5GAT contract award occurred in March 2017. Its maiden test flight is scheduled to occur only 26 months later, in May 2019.”



Image

Image

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 16 Sep 2018 19:37

Here's a quick summary of the 2019 (FY19) Defense spending bill. Select highlights of procurement include -

- 13 Navy ships (2 Virginia class SSNs, 3 LCS, 2 DDG-51 etc)
- 93 F-35 (As Bs and Cs)
- 24 F/A-18E/F
- 19 C-130s
- 66 AH-64Es
- 15 KC-46 Tankers
- 10 P-8As
- 13 V-22 Ospreys

https://s22.postimg.cc/va8nz0nsh/FY19_budget.png

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 17 Sep 2018 16:28

AviationWeek just visited GE and have a few scoops on efforts on the two Adaptive Cycle Engines currently being developed by GE and P&W. Both contractors have been under contract since 2016/17 to produce and deliver 3 XA100 and 3 XA 101 test engines to the US Air Force for testing.

* GE has begun receiving parts required to fabricate the first of their three XA100's that are due to begin testing in early 2020

* P&W is also expected to begin its testing of the XA-101 around the same time

* The USAF this month awarded both P&W and GE contracts in excess of $800 Million (combined) to begin working on tech. beyond AETP and for 6th generation applications. All in the USDOD investment in AETD-->AETP-->Follow-up now exceeds $3.5 Billion.

* The USAF has exercised options to mount the XA100/101 on the F-35 for ground testing. While no flight test activity has been funded for either the XA-100 or 101, this is likely baked into a future option which may well be exercised over the next year or two.

Next-gen Combat Engine Work Spools Up


Progress toward adaptive-cycle combat engines for future U.S. fighters is accelerating, with first components delivered for prototype three-stream demonstrator engines, and new contracts awarded for the development and testing of technologies for flight-weight adaptive engines.

Parts for General Electric’s XA100 have begun to arrive at the company’s Evendale, Ohio, facility, while both GE and Pratt & Whitney have secured additional work to evaluate suites of variable cycle, thermal management and other technologies aimed specifically at all-new combat aircraft concepts for the 2030s and beyond.

Adaptive engines are a new class of combat propulsion systems that will use variable inlets, valves and ducts to modulate an additional bypass flow, or third stream. This flow can be employed to increase thrust or, alternatively, increase range by improving cruise efficiency. Adaptive propulsion has become a baseline requirement in next-generation Air Force and U.S. Navy combat aircraft studies, and mastery of the technology forms a key part of the Pentagon’s drive to maintain U.S. air superiority in the 21st century.

The work is being conducted under the U.S. Air Force’s Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP), a broadbased initiative launched in 2016 to mature variable-cycle technology for sixth-generation fighters as well as, potentially, provide a future reengining option for the Pratt & Whitney F135-powered Lockheed Martin F-35. The program, which also leverages earlier variable-cycle testing conducted under the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Adaptive Engine Technology Development program (AETD), is initially focused on demonstrators in the 45,000-lb.-thrust range.

Even as GE works on the XA100 demonstrator and Pratt develops its virtually identically sized XA101 counterpart, both are also now working on additional clean-sheet adaptive engine concepts specifically for sixth-generation designs. Awarded as modifications to the original AETP program agreement, the contracts for this new work cover a broader application of other advanced engine technologies—including three-stream architecture—and go beyond the limiting confines of the F-35-centric XA100/101 demonstrators.

Announced on Sept. 7, the $437 million Air Force Life-cycle Management Center contract award to Pratt follows an earlier agreement signed with GE for the same amount in late June. The deals enable each engine-maker to exploit a “suite of technologies,” says Dan McCormick, general manager of GE’s Advanced Combat Engine program. In GE’s case, “these include the adaptive engine architecture but also areas like ceramic matrix composites, additive manufacturing and high compression compressors,” he says. “So [there is] a tool kit of technologies we have been maturing through AETD and AETP.”

Pratt says that “along with a demand-modulated engine architecture,” the company “is also maturing an adaptive technology suite that includes control systems as well as power and thermal management systems to enable enhanced range, persistence, survivability and maintainability capabilities for advanced weapon systems.”

The work is “really to validate these suites of technologies and, although mixed differently and maybe with different sizes of engines, they would go into a family of aircraft going forward,” adds McCormick. “From a timing sequence, the F-35 was ahead of the sixth-generation process, and the Air Force is now stepping through the process of figuring out what the requirements are going to be for that next-generation aircraft, which then informs the propulsion requirements. So we started down the F-35 path with the AETD in 2012 and are really just starting the early phases of looking at these technologies and sizing engines for the next generation.”

While the XA100/101 designations have been applied to F-35-size engines, “there is not a name yet for what might be a next-generation derivative engine, because we are still in the early phases of what that might look like,” McCormick says. As the size and configuration of the potential follow-on combat engines is likely to differ considerably from the initial adaptive demonstrators, these later engines are unlikely to be defined as derivatives in the same way current military turbofan families do.

“We don’t really think of what we are doing under this new contract necessarily as a derivative of the XA100. It is really taking the suite of technologies and figuring out how we mix them differently,” says McCormick. Variation may be driven by different mission requirements and even whether the application is a single- or twin-engine design as defined by typical parameters such as range, maximum acceleration and Mach number, he explains.

The Air Force, which has ordered three each of the XA100/101 prototype demonstrators from GE and Pratt respectively, has previously laid out a more conventional derivative path for AETP in which scaled core versions could potentially reengine aircraft such as the F-15 and F-22. A scaled common-core AETP derivative could meanwhile be offered for sixth-generation Penetrating Counter Air and Next-Generation Air Dominance combat aircraft concepts.

Parts for the first XA100, engine 001, are meanwhile starting to arrive at GE’s Evendale facility. “We are starting at ground zero, but the supply chain is off and running, and we have hundreds of parts in the system. A couple of weeks ago we received our first finished part,” says McCormick, who adds that most of the early components are long-lead items such as forgings and castings.

Assembly is due to take place through 2019, with testing expected to begin by early 2020. The Air Force has meanwhile exercised “option one” of the AETP contract, under which it will install a test-cell XA100 engine in an F-35 for ground evaluation. There is currently no plan to flight-test the engine, which has been designed to fit inside the F-35A conventional-takeoff-and-landing variant as well as the F-35 carrier variant. The XA100 is incompatible with the lift system on the F-35B and therefore will not be available for testing on the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing variant.

Based on component, rig and core tests undertaken to date, McCormick says the company is “comfortable” the XA100 would meet the thrust, range and thermal management requirements if the initiative evolves into a full-up development program. “The thrust objective was 10% growth, and today we exceed those requirements,” he explains. Lockheed Martin and Honeywell, which is the developer of the F-35’s integrated power package, have also verified the improved thermal management system (TMS) through analysis. Targeted TMS improvement is an increase of more than 160% efficiency, which would result in more than doubling the F-35’s current low-altitude dash time.

The requirements also call for a 30% increase in range over the current aircraft. “Probably range is where we are most challenged. It’s a pretty high bar, and we believe we can get there,” says McCormick.



GE XA 100 -

Image

P&W XA 101 -

Image

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1437
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Manish_P » 18 Sep 2018 10:23

King Khan talking about things as only King Khan can...

Let's Talk About The Air Force's Plan To Increase Squadrons From 312 To A Whopping 386

You know you are truly living in a flush defense budget era when the Secretary of Air Force can present an initiative to massively expand service's force structure, going from 312 squadrons today to 386 by 2030, with a straight face. This is an increase in overall size of nearly 25 percent. Just a couple years ago the USAF couldn't even afford the fleet it already had yet alone the one it planned to procure. Now it wants to execute the biggest end-strength expansion since the Cold War.


That justification is up for debate, but Secretary Wilson is right, the USAF needs more capacity, at least in certain areas, to meet even current demands. Over the last decade and a half, the force as a whole has shrunk continuously to become just a shadow of what it was during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, let alone what it was during Desert Storm over a decade earlier. In 30 years, the number of fighter squadrons the service has on hand alone has dropped by 59%, from 134 to just 55.


The cold hard truth is that you can have the best aircraft in the world, but they can only be in one place at one time, and that place is as often as not sitting broken on the ground.


And from the Air Force Magazine

USAF Plans Dramatic Increase in Number of Squadrons

Specifically, USAF wants five more bomber squadrons; seven more space squadrons; 14 more aerial refueling squadrons; seven more special operations squadrons; nine more combat search and rescue squadrons; seven more fighter squadrons; two more remotely piloted aircraft squadrons; one more airlift squadron; and 22 more command and control and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance squadrons.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 18 Sep 2018 15:51

Don't make much of these numbers announcements. Each US service is required to present its end strength and vision in line with the new NDS. That said, it is up to future politicians and service leaders to prioritize what they invest in. The current crop can only leave them options.

I wouldn't expect a former photographer and fast food restaurant owner to dig very deep into the USAF's force structure but if one looked at say the end of the cold war (after the reduction in fighter squadrons which was justified) and now one can see that the USAF, in support of the overall US DOD needs, trade away some of its active fighter end strength to fund growth in areas like Remotely Piloted Operations and Space. In fact RPA fleet went from virtually nonexistent in the cold war to the giant size it is today.

https://slideplayer.com/slide/8232282/

For reference, the USAF in 2015 had reached a CAP support requirement of 65 (CAP = 24x7 ISR orbit requiring a minimum of 4 RPAs and dozens of people to support in CONUS and OCONUS). Same with their investments in space, GPS which are to the benefit of the entire DOD and not just the service. So it isn't like they have just dropped and cut squadrons aimlessly, they have been diverting resources to other more pressing needs. The NDS for them, as it for other US services, defines strategic priorities going forward and as such they must present their plan to shape up in order to meet those - How much of this is actually funded is anyone's guess. The US defense budgeted has gone through a few upward revisions over the last two cycles and most expect it to stay flat between the 2020-2022 time-frame (after the rise) so an increase in fighter squadron capability, for example, would have to come by reducing some other capability or passing that responsibility on to another agency.

Image

I can definitely see a path for the USAF to get some of these in certain political scenarios one of them being the re-balance of the conventional and strategic deterrent as in money cut from the triad modernization being funneled towards a stronger conventional capability. This is something that the Democrats, for example, can support. But barring that, an overall 24% goal is too ambitious..it is likely to be in the high single digit percentages.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35822
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby SaiK » 18 Sep 2018 17:49

Why the Air Force Won't Buy the F-15X or 'New' F-22 Raptor
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... ptor-31442


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Neela and 47 guests