US military news, discussions and history

[SvenSvensonov]

Army To Hold New Pistol Competition Next Year

U.S. Army weapons officials announced it plans to launch a competition to replace the M9 9mm pistol in January after a recent meeting with interested pistol makers.

Program Executive Office Soldier hosted a third industry day for the Modular Handgun System Oct. 28-29 – an event that drew representatives from 20 companies, according to Debi Dawson, spokeswoman for PEO Soldier.

Attendees discussed the Army’s draft solicitation for the new weapon system, which will replace the current M9 standard Army sidearm, Dawson said in an Oct. 31 Army news release. The Army issued the draft solicitation, which identifies design and performance requirements for the new handgun system, Sept. 29. The draft solicitation calls for a commercially available weapon tailored to the unique needs of the military services.

The solicitation specified no particular caliber, but the Army is seeking a handgun system that outperforms its current sidearm. The Army is also seeking a modular weapon, meaning it allows adjustments to fit all hand sizes.

Since the M9 entered the Army’s inventory in 1986, handgun technology has advanced significantly with the introduction of lighter weight materials, ergonomics and rails for accessories, Dawson said. Through the competition, the Army intends to replace the M9 with a state-of-the-art handgun.

Current plans call for the Army to purchase more than 280,000 handguns from a single vendor, with delivery of the first new handgun systems scheduled for 2017. The Army also plans to buy approximately 7,000 sub-compact versions of the handgun. The other military services participating in the MHS program may order an additional 212,000 systems above the Army quantity.

Army officials plan to release a final solicitation for the MHS in January, Dawson said in the release.

The Army held two previous industry days at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J., Dec. 18, 2013, and July 29. The purpose of these industry days was to enhance vendor-government communications by involving likely competitors throughout the planning process. The days also allowed the Army to obtain their feedback on whether the products and proposed strategy are achievable and affordable.

During the industry day meetings, Army representatives discussed details about the “more accurate, ergonomic, reliable, durable and maintainable” handgun system the service seeks to buy through full and open competition, Dawson said.

Throughout the process, the Army encouraged industry attendees to suggest ways in which the Army can improve the plan and process. The Army has adopted a number of suggestions and ideas, according to the release.

The competition itself will choose a handgun that performs best in the hands of warfighters who will play a critical part in the evaluation. More than 550 military personnel from all of the services will participate and provide feedback on the performance of each of the candidate system after firing them in simulated combat scenarios. This particular warfighter assessment is an important part of the evaluation process.

The Army spent years on an effort to search for a replacement for its M4 carbine, but ended up terminating the competition before it was complete and adopting the improved M4A1 version used by special operations forces.

Beretta officials maintain that the company has offered to upgrade M9 many times. The Marine Corps adopted the M9A1 in 2006 that features a rail for attaching lights or lasers, checkering on the front and back of the grip and a beveled magazine well for smoother magazine changes.

From Army To Hold New Pistol Competition Next Year | Kit Up!

 

[Hakan]

Excellent idea--have you heard anything from the admins about whether they have agreed to create such a forum, and what the timetable might be?

Sorry for the late reply, but I seem to be missing a lot of functionality these days. My bookmarks are gone, and now I don't seem to get alerts anymore, so apologies to anyone who tags me and doesn't get a response.

I havnt heard any news but ill remind them to make one.

In the mean time we should pick a picture for the forum. You know those little thumbnail things.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

@SvenSvensonov Thanks for opening this thread to provide a much-needed mini-forum for the US. I see that much of the thread thus far seems to focus on various systems or military history, both of which are beyond my area of competence. However, I try to keep up to date with the high-level geopolitical and strategic issues, at least, but please let me know if the following article doesn't fit what you are trying to achieve here.

Hi LeveragedBuyout;

Your contributions are absolutely welcomed here! For clarification, anything relating to the US military is acceptable, even if it is negative as our Russian "friend" would offer us. Technical information, financial and budgetary news, past, present and future projects, humanitarian efforts, joint training, political news (if it involves the military such as the reopening of a foreign base or the establishment of a missile shield in a foreign nation, or something similar), personal experiences, pictures, they are all very much welcomed.

I havnt heard any news but ill remind them to make one.

In the mean time we should pick a picture for the forum. You know those little thumbnail things.

I'm thinking something like this, but I'm open to suggestions as well. Nothing says "Merica, F*** Yeah!" like a hot chick with a gun!

 

[Chak Bamu]

Glad to see this. Exciting addition to PDF.

As someone who loves USA for its Constitutional values (but not foreign policy), I welcome this.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Hi LeveragedBuyout;

Your contributions are absolutely welcomed here! For clarification, anything relating to the US military is acceptable, even if it is negative as our Russian "friend" would offer us. Technical information, financial and budgetary news, past, present and future projects, humanitarian efforts, joint training, political news (if it involves the military such as the reopening of a foreign base or the establishment of a missile shield in a foreign nation, or something similar), personal experiences, pictures, they are all very much welcomed.



I'm thinking something like this, but I'm open to suggestions as well. Nothing says "Merica, F*** Yeah!" like a hot chick with a gun!

Agreed, my vote is for the girl with the gun, but we need to find one wearing a stars and stripes bikini.

 

[AMDR]

Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carrier

http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideaircraftcarriers/cvn21.htm

Designation: CVN
Length: App 1100 ft
Width: 250+ ft
Beam: 135+ ft
Displacement: 102,000 tons
Propulsion: 2 nuclear reactors,
4 shafts
Speed: 30+ knots
Crew: App. 4,600 (includes air crew)
Airwing: 85 fixed, UAV, rotary
Armament:
- 2 x 08 ESSM SAM (16 missiles)
- 2 x 21 RAM SAM (42 missiles)
- 3 x 20mm CIWS Phalanx
- 4 x .50 cal MG
Elevators: 3
Catapaults: 4
Ships in class: 2 building, 10 planned
CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford (Outfit)
CVN-79 John F. Kennedy (Build)
CVN-80 Enterprise (Named)
:
USS Gerald R. Ford, CVN-78, was first floated in dry dock on October 11, 2013, and was officially launched and christened on November 9, 2013. She has been moved out of her building dry-dock to Pier 3 at Nweport News Shipbuilding where she will continue outfitting and thereafter undergo builders and acceptance trials and be commissioned in 2015-2016. She is the first of class, and her sister ship, second in class, USS John F. Kennedy, CVN-79, will now begin building in that same dry-dock, and then follow the Gerald R. Ford in five years, followed by USS Enterprise, CVN-80, six years after that. Altogether ten of these vessels are expected to be built to replace the ten Nimitz class nuclear aircraft carriers currently in use by the United States Navy.
The new CVN21 aircraft carrier is designated the USS Gerald R. Ford class, named after the 40th President of the United States, Gerald R. Ford, who served in the U.S. Navy aboard aircraft carriers in World War II, and who passed away in December 2006. In December 2012, with the decommissioning of CVN-65, USS Enterprise, the Secretary of the Navy announced that the 3rd Ford Class carrier, CVN-80, would be named USS Enterprise. It is expected that 10 of the new class will be built, replacing the US Nimitz class carriers on a one for one basis every 6 years. They will be the largest warships ever built. They will be the mainstay of the US Navy's power projection and sea lane protetction capabilities throughout the 21st century.

Each of these vessels will carry an airwing of fixed wing aircraft, VSTOL aircraft, helicopters, and unamanned arial vehicles (UAV) that is larger and more powerful than many nation's complete air force. By having the resources, the experience, and the capability to operate these vessels (where each vessel is surrounded by an extensive force of other surface and sub-surface combatants that make up each Carrier Strike Group (CSG)), the United States will remain the unchallenged, dominant sea force on earth.

The USS George HW Bush, CVN-77, was christened on October 7, 2006, and replaced the USS Kitty Hawk, CV-63 in 2008. Although officially listed as a Nimitz class carrier, CVN-77 also represents a transformation step in US carrier development from the Nimitz class towards the Ford Class.

Initial steel cutting for the USS Gerald R. Ford was accomplished in August of 2005. The keel laying occurred in late 2009. In January 2013, the new integrated island was lifted onto the deck of the Ford. In May 2013, the last section of the catrapault was lifted, completing the flight deck and placing the vessel at 100% structurally complete and on track for launch. USS Gerald R. Ford, CVN-78, will replace the USS Enterprise, CVN-65, America's first nuclear powered aircraft carrier, which, as stated, was decommissioned in December 2012.

First steel for the second in class, USS John F. Kennedy, CVN-79, was cut in February of 2011 and she had proceeded to a point where she take the yard space that the Ford is currently occupying.

The Ford Class carriers are being built by Newport News Shipbuilding (Renamed Northrup Grumman Shipbuilding), which built the USS Enterprise, and all ten Nimitz class carrirrs.

Diesign Considerations and Featuers:
Among the design innovations and features that the Ford class carriers will introduce are:

A much more efficent nuclear reactor system providing three times more power.
Electromagnetic aircraft launch and recovery replacing current steam catapaults and current arrestor systems.
A redesigned, more efficent, and more stealthy island.
More automated systems, providing for reduced manpower requirements and more efficent aircraft weapons handling, battle management, and damage control operations.
Potential exotic defensive weapons systems operating off of the increased electrical power.
20% more sortie capability for the embarked airwing.
25% more operational availability of the carrier.
With these innovations, and the many others that will be developed into the new carrier, the US Navy is making a direct statement that its 21st century, next-generation carrier fleet will
continue to have as its centerpiece large-deck, nuclear-powered vessels that can project power and protect sea lanes anywhere in the world, at any time.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carrier

WorldWideAircraftCarriers.com - Nimitz Class Page

Designation: CVN
Length: App 1100 ft
Width: 250+ ft
Beam: 135+ ft
Displacement: 102,000 tons
Propulsion: 2 nuclear reactors,
4 shafts
Speed: 30+ knots
Crew: App. 4,600 (includes air crew)
Airwing: 85 fixed, UAV, rotary
Armament:
- 2 x 08 ESSM SAM (16 missiles)
- 2 x 21 RAM SAM (42 missiles)
- 3 x 20mm CIWS Phalanx
- 4 x .50 cal MG
Elevators: 3
Catapaults: 4
Ships in class: 2 building, 10 planned
CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford (Outfit)
CVN-79 John F. Kennedy (Build)
CVN-80 Enterprise (Named)
:
USS Gerald R. Ford, CVN-78, was first floated in dry dock on October 11, 2013, and was officially launched and christened on November 9, 2013. She has been moved out of her building dry-dock to Pier 3 at Nweport News Shipbuilding where she will continue outfitting and thereafter undergo builders and acceptance trials and be commissioned in 2015-2016. She is the first of class, and her sister ship, second in class, USS John F. Kennedy, CVN-79, will now begin building in that same dry-dock, and then follow the Gerald R. Ford in five years, followed by USS Enterprise, CVN-80, six years after that. Altogether ten of these vessels are expected to be built to replace the ten Nimitz class nuclear aircraft carriers currently in use by the United States Navy.
The new CVN21 aircraft carrier is designated the USS Gerald R. Ford class, named after the 40th President of the United States, Gerald R. Ford, who served in the U.S. Navy aboard aircraft carriers in World War II, and who passed away in December 2006. In December 2012, with the decommissioning of CVN-65, USS Enterprise, the Secretary of the Navy announced that the 3rd Ford Class carrier, CVN-80, would be named USS Enterprise. It is expected that 10 of the new class will be built, replacing the US Nimitz class carriers on a one for one basis every 6 years. They will be the largest warships ever built. They will be the mainstay of the US Navy's power projection and sea lane protetction capabilities throughout the 21st century.

Each of these vessels will carry an airwing of fixed wing aircraft, VSTOL aircraft, helicopters, and unamanned arial vehicles (UAV) that is larger and more powerful than many nation's complete air force. By having the resources, the experience, and the capability to operate these vessels (where each vessel is surrounded by an extensive force of other surface and sub-surface combatants that make up each Carrier Strike Group (CSG)), the United States will remain the unchallenged, dominant sea force on earth.

The USS George HW Bush, CVN-77, was christened on October 7, 2006, and replaced the USS Kitty Hawk, CV-63 in 2008. Although officially listed as a Nimitz class carrier, CVN-77 also represents a transformation step in US carrier development from the Nimitz class towards the Ford Class.

Initial steel cutting for the USS Gerald R. Ford was accomplished in August of 2005. The keel laying occurred in late 2009. In January 2013, the new integrated island was lifted onto the deck of the Ford. In May 2013, the last section of the catrapault was lifted, completing the flight deck and placing the vessel at 100% structurally complete and on track for launch. USS Gerald R. Ford, CVN-78, will replace the USS Enterprise, CVN-65, America's first nuclear powered aircraft carrier, which, as stated, was decommissioned in December 2012.

First steel for the second in class, USS John F. Kennedy, CVN-79, was cut in February of 2011 and she had proceeded to a point where she take the yard space that the Ford is currently occupying.

The Ford Class carriers are being built by Newport News Shipbuilding (Renamed Northrup Grumman Shipbuilding), which built the USS Enterprise, and all ten Nimitz class carrirrs.

Diesign Considerations and Featuers:
Among the design innovations and features that the Ford class carriers will introduce are:

A much more efficent nuclear reactor system providing three times more power.
Electromagnetic aircraft launch and recovery replacing current steam catapaults and current arrestor systems.
A redesigned, more efficent, and more stealthy island.
More automated systems, providing for reduced manpower requirements and more efficent aircraft weapons handling, battle management, and damage control operations.
Potential exotic defensive weapons systems operating off of the increased electrical power.
20% more sortie capability for the embarked airwing.
25% more operational availability of the carrier.
With these innovations, and the many others that will be developed into the new carrier, the US Navy is making a direct statement that its 21st century, next-generation carrier fleet will
continue to have as its centerpiece large-deck, nuclear-powered vessels that can project power and protect sea lanes anywhere in the world, at any time.

View attachment 145327
View attachment 145329View attachment 145336View attachment 145328View attachment 145325View attachment 145324

Some extra information:

The US Navy's programme CVN 21 for the future generation aircraft carrier programme was previously known as the CVN(X).

In January 2007, The US Navy announced that the new class would be called the Gerald R Ford Class.

The first two ships, USS Gerald R Ford (CVN 78) and USS John F Kennedy (CVN 79), will be commissioned in 2015 and 2019, and further ships of the class will enter service at intervals of five years. A total of ten Ford class carriers are planned with construction continuing to 2058.

The CVN 78 will replace USS Enterprise (CVN 65), which entered service in 1961 and will approach the end of its operational life by 2015. The total acquisition cost of the CVN 21 is expected to be $11.7bn.

The US Department of Defense awarded Northrop Grumman Newport News in Virginia a $107.6m contract in July 2003, a $1.39bn contract in May 2004 and $559m to prepare for the carrier construction and to continue the design programme on the ship's propulsion system.

The CVN 78's first steel was cut in August 2005. A $5.1bn contract for the detailed design and construction was awarded to Newport News in September 2008. The keel was laid in November 2009.

Northrop Grumman was awarded a contract for the planning and design of the second carrier, CVN 79, in November 2006. In May 2011, the US Navy announced that the carrier will be called John F Kennedy (CVN 79).

Construction of the USS John F Kennedy (CVN 79) began in February 2011 and is expected for completion in 2020.

CVN 21 future aircraft carrier design
The Gerald R Ford class carriers will have the same displacement, about 100,000t, as its predecessor, the Nimitz class George HW Bush (CVN 77), but will have about 500 to 900 fewer crew members.

The manpower reduction was a key performance parameter added to the original four outlined in 2000 in the operational requirements document for the CVN 21 programme. It is estimated that the new carrier technologies will lead to a 30% reduction in maintenance requirements and a further crew workload reduction will be achieved through higher levels of automation.

The other main differences in operational performance compared with the Nimitz Class are increased sortie rates at 160 sorties a day (compared with 140 a day), a weight and stability allowance over the 50-year operational service life of the ship, and increased (by approximately 150%) electrical power generation and distribution to sustain the ship's advanced technology systems. Another key performance requirement is interoperability.

CVN 21 aircraft carrier hull
All US Navy aircraft carriers since the 1960s have been built at Northrop Grumman Newport News. Northrop has extended its design and shipbuilding facilities with a new heavy plate workshop and burners, a new 5,000t thick plate press, covered assembly facilities and a new 1,050t-capacity crane.

The hull design is similar to that of the current Nimitz Class carriers and with the same number of decks. The island is smaller and moved further towards the aft of the ship.

The island has a composite mast with planar array radars, a volume search radar operating at S band and a multifunction radar at X band, and also carries the stern-facing joint precision approach and landing system (JPALS), which is based on local area differential global positioning system (GPS), rather than radar.

The aircraft carrier traditionally carries the flag officer and 70 staff of the carrier battle group. The flag bridge, which was previously accommodated in the carrier's island, was relocated to a lower deck in order to minimise the size of the island.

The ship's internal configuration and flight deck designs have significantly changed. The lower decks incorporate a flexible rapidly reconfigurable layout allowing different layouts and installation of new equipment in command, planning and administration areas.

The requirement to build in a weight and stability allowance will accommodate the added weight of new systems that will be installed over the 50-year operational life of the ship. The removal of one aircraft elevator unit and reducing the number of hangar bays from three to two have contributed to a reduction of the weight of the CVN 21.

Weapons
The carrier will be armed with the Raytheon evolved Sea Sparrow missile (ESSM), which defends against high-speed, highly manoeuvrable anti-ship missiles. The close-in weapon system is the rolling airframe missile (RAM) from Raytheon and Ramsys GmbH.

Gerald Ford Class carrier aircraft
The carrier will be capable of carrying up to 90 aircraft including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, F / A-18E / F Super Hornet, E-2D Advanced Hawkeye,EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft, MH-60R / S helicopters and unmanned air vehicles and unmanned combat air vehicles.

The flight deck has a relocated and smaller island, and there are three rather than four deck edge elevators. Deck extensions also increase the aircraft parking areas. The aircraft service stations are located near the 18 refuelling and rearming stops.

General Atomics was awarded the contract to develop the EMALS electromagnetic aircraft launch system, which uses a linear electromagnetic accelerator motor. EMALS demonstrators were tested at the Naval Air Systems Command (NASC) Lakehurst test centre in New Jersey. It is planned that EMALS will replace the current C-13 steam catapults.

If successful, EMALS technology offers the potential benefit of finer aircraft acceleration control, which leads to lower stresses in the aircraft and pilots and provides a slower launch speed for unmanned air vehicles and allows a wider window of wind-over-deck speed required for the launch sequence.

The contract for the development of an advanced turbo-electric arrestor gear has been awarded to General Atomics. The electro-magnetic motor applies control to the synthetic arrestor cable to reduce the maximum tensions in the cable and reduce the peak load on the arrestor hook and on the aircraft fuselage.

Aircraft weapons loading
The flow of weapons to the aircraft stops on the flight deck were upgraded to accommodate the higher sortie rates. The ship carries stores of missiles and cannon rounds for fighter aircraft, bombs and air-to-surface missiles for strike aircraft, and torpedoes and depth charges for anti-submarine warfare aircraft.

"Sortie rates for the CVN 21 increased to 160 sorties a day compared with 140 a day for the Nimitz Class."
Weapons elevators take the weapons systems from the magazines to the weapons handling and weapons assembly areas on the 02-level deck (below the flight deck) and express weapons elevators are installed between the handling and assembly areas and the flight deck. The two companies selected by Northrop Grumman to generate designs for the advanced weapons elevator are the Federal Equipment Company and Oldenburg Lakeshore Inc.

The deployment of all-up-rounds, which are larger, rather than traditional weapons requiring assembly will require double-height magazines and store rooms and will also impact on the level of need for weapons assembly facilities.

The US Navy outlined a requirement for a minimum 150% increase in the power-generation capacity for the CVN 21 carrier compared with the Nimitz Class carriers. The increased power capacity is needed for the four electro-magnetic aircraft launchers and for future systems such as directed energy weapons that might be feasible during the carrier's 50-year lifespan.

Sensors
Raytheon was contracted in October 2008 to supply a version of the dual-band radar (DBR) developed for the Zumwalt Class destroyer for installation on the Gerald R Ford. DBR combines X-band and S-band phased arrays.

Propulsion
Northrop Grumman is developing the advanced nuclear propulsion system and a zonal electrical power distribution system for the CVN 21.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

A long read, but this is information about CVN-78, and the Gerald Ford Class's Duel Band Radar:

The AN/SPY-3 consists of three active arrays and the Receiver/Exciter (REX) cabinets abovedecks and the Signal and Data Processor (SDP) subsystem below-decks. The VSR has a similar architecture, with the beamforming and narrowband down-conversion functionality occurring in two additional cabinets per array. A central controller (the resource manager) resides in the Data Processor (DP). The DBR is the first radar system that uses a central controller and two active-array radars operating at different frequencies.1

The DBR gets its power from the Common Array Power System (CAPS), which comprises Power Conversion Units (PCUs) and Power Distribution Units (PDUs). The DBR is cooled via a closed-loop cooling system called the Common Array Cooling System (CACS). The power and cooling systems are not shown in Figure 1.

The X-band has, in general, favorable low-altitude propagation characteristics, which readily support the horizon search functionality of the AN/ SPY-3. A large operating bandwidth is required to mitigate large propagation variations due to meteorological conditions (i.e., evaporative

ducting). The X-band arrays are smaller and lighter than the S-band arrays. This allows the X-band radar to be positioned higher, which results in improved performance in low-flyer detection and tracking.2 The VSR provides a high-power-aperture product (the power-aperture product is a figure of merit of radar systems, the product of the total average radar transmitted power and the antenna area), and sufficiently small beam widths to support accurate target tracking. The VSR’s primary role is to perform the volume search function.

The AN/SPY-3 and the VSR are both advanced, solid-state, active phased-array radars. Solid-state arrays offer several advantages:

• Lower transmit and receive losses relative to passive arrays

• Higher operational availability

• Graceful transmit degradation versus a single transmitter system2

The REX consists of a digital and an analog portion. The digital portion of the REX provides system-level timing and control. The analog portion contains the exciter and the receiver. The exciter is a low-amplitude and phase noise system that uses direct frequency synthesis. The radar’s noise characteristics support the high clutter cancellation requirements required in the broad range of maritime operating environments that DBR will likely encounter. The direct frequency synthesis allows a wide range of pulse repetition frequencies, pulse widths, and modulation schemes to be created. The receiver has high dynamic range to support high clutter levels caused by close returns from range-ambiguous Doppler waveforms. The receiver has both narrowband and wideband channels, as well as multichannel capabilities to support monopulse processing and sidelobe blanking. The receiver generates digital data and sends the data to the signal processors.

The DBR uses IBM commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) supercomputers to provide control and signal processing. DBR is the first radar system to use COTS systems to perform the signal processing. Using COTS systems reduces development costs and increases system reliability and maintainability. Referencing Figure 1, the high-performance COTS servers perform signal analysis using radar and digital signal-processing techniques, including channel equalization, clutter filtering, Doppler processing, impulse editing, and implementation of a variety of advanced electronic protect algorithms. The IBM supercomputers are installed in cabinets that provide shock and vibration isolation. The DP contains the resource manager, the tracker, and the command and control processor, which processes commands from the combat system.

The DBR utilizes a multitier, dual-band tracker, which consists of a local X-band tracker, a local S-band tracker, and a central tracker. The central tracker merges the local tracker data together and directs the individual-band trackers’ updates. The X-band tracker is optimized for low latency to support its mission
of providing defense against fast, low-flying missiles, while the VSR tracker is optimized for throughput due to the large-volume search area coverage requirements.

The combat system develops doctrine based on the current tactical situation and sends the doctrine to the DBR. The combat system also has control of which modes the radar will perform. Unlike previous-generation radars, the DBR does not require an operator and has no manned display consoles. The system uses information about the current environment and doctrine from the combat system to make automated decisions, not only reducing reaction times, but also reducing the risks associated with human error. The only human interaction is for maintenance and repair activities.

The DBR supports the modes of operation as shown in Figure 2. The primary modes for AN/ SPY-3 are horizon search/track while scan, surface search/navigation, periscope detection and discrimination, and environmental mapping. During engagements, AN/SPY-3 also performs precision
tracking, ownship missile tracking, missile communications, and target illumination. The primary mode of operation for VSR is continuous volume search, precision tracking, and environmental mapping. Several modes can be performed by either band as directed by the resource manager, such as limited volume search, precision tracking, or cued acquisition. This allows the radar flexibility if one of the bands is taxed due to other modes being performed, such as when the AN/SPY-3 is performing illuminations.

Previously, the Navy utilized separate radar systems for air traffic control (ATC), target illumination, target tracking, surface search and navigation, missile tracking, and environmental mapping. The DBR suite integrates these functions into one system, providing a robust and effective solution for the Navy. An integrated system has several advantages over a collection of separate systems—lower cost, lower weight, lower ship space required, and most importantly, less manning is required.

Engineering Development Model (EDM) Integration & Test
The DBR integration and test effort has been separated into two parallel efforts. The first effort focuses solely on AN/SPY-3, whose development started much earlier than VSR. The second effort focuses solely on integrating VSR. Both systems continue to be integrated and tested separately at Wallops Island until late 2009, when both systems will be integrated to form the DBR.

AN/SPY-3 Integration and Test
This section discusses the integration and testing at Wallops Island on the Self-Defense Test Ship (SDTS), and at the Surface Warfare Engineering Facility (SWEF).

Wallops Island Land-Based

Testing
The AN/SPY-3 Development Contract, awarded to Raytheon in 1999, produced an EDM that was installed at Wallops Island, Virginia, in 2003. This installation is shown in Figure 3. At this location, the AN/SPY-3 EDM System was integrated, and full-power radiation was achieved for the first time. Previous subsystem integration activities were limited to single-element radiation inside a near-field range. As the system
matured, the effort transitioned from a hardware verification activity to a system functionality test program, which specifically focused on the Air Search and Track functionality. The test program adopted an incremental strategy that began with tracking low-cost targets (e.g., Learjets) and culminated with testing against target drones.

Self-Defense Test Ship (SDTS) Testing
After completing the land-based testing in 2005, the AN/SPY-3 system was shipped to Port

Hueneme, California, to be installed upon the SDTS, the decommissioned USS Paul F. Foster (DD 964). Figure 4 shows the SDTS and identifies the location of the AN/SPY-3 radar on the ship. The test objectives remained similar, but these tests were conducted in an operational environment with ship-motion and land-clutter backgrounds. The AN/SPY-3 completed its testing program in 2006 but remained on the SDTS until 2008 to observe Ship Self-Defense System (SSDS) testing. The testing, completed while installed on the SDTS, was essential to production decisions and gave insight into the operational environment.

VSR Integration & Test
The VSR development produced an EDM that was installed in the SWEF located at Port Hueneme, California, in 2007. This installation is shown in Figure 5. This test period focused on hardware characterization, including measurements of Effective Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP) and system stability. (EIRP is a figure of merit for antenna systems and is a way to compare the radiated power of antennas.) In 2008, the system was shipped to Wallops Island, Virginia, to be installed in the WIETC, shown in Figure 6.

Platform Integration
The DBR is being integrated into both the Zumwalt-class destroyer and the Ford-class aircraft carrier. Each platform introduces its own set of design considerations, which range from prime power type to sensor priority differences. The examples listed in this section are not intended to be complete; they represent only a sampling of the platform design considerations for both Zumwalt and Ford.

DDG 1000 Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
The physical arrangement of the sensors in the Zumwalt deckhouse is illustrated in Figure 7. To accommodate integration into the Zumwalt class, the DBR design has been uniquely influenced in the areas of prime power type, array structure, and VSR radome design. With the introduction of the Integrated Power System (IPS) for Zumwalt, the 440-VAC EDM design was changed to accommodate the ship-power-supplied 4160 VAC. The CAPS design is being updated to accommodate the voltage change.

CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford-Class Aircraft Carrier
The physical arrangements of the sensors in the Ford-class island are illustrated in Figure 8. To accommodate integration into Ford class, the DBR design has been uniquely influenced in the areas of prime power type and sensor priorities. Similar to the design changes in Zumwalt, Ford class will supply CAPS with 13.8 kVAC. Design updates to CAPS are in process to accommodate this change.

In addition to being the primary antiair warfare (AAW) sensor for the Ford class, DBR is also the primary ATC sensor. To accommodate this added functionality, DBR has added a short-range search fence to the baseline functionality set that runs concurrently with other functionalities, such as long-range volume search and track, horizon search and track, etc. To date, the combat system and ATC mission areas have had dedicated sensors on aircraft carrier platforms. The concept of sharing the DBR across mission areas is a new concept and requires careful consideration of how the system is integrated.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

Navy Expects LCS Mine Killing Drone Prototype by 2016

The Navy is building a 40-foot-long unmanned surface vehicle designed to launch from a Littoral Combat Ship and detonate and destroy underwater mines while keeping ships and sailors at a safe distance, service officials said.

The first prototype, scheduled to be finished by 2016, will pave the way for initial production of the Unmanned Influence Sweep System, or UISS, Capt. David Honabach, program manager, unmanned maritime systems, told Military.com.

The Navy hopes to have the UISS in the fleet by 2017.

“UISS is a program to satisfy the Navy’s need for rapid, wide-area mine-clearance capability to neutralize magnetic and acoustic mines. We can hunt for mines, sweep mines and neutralize them,” Honabach explained.

The system consists of an unmanned surface vessel with an acoustic generator and magnetic cable underneath the boat, designed to emulate the acoustic and magnetic signature of a surface warship.

The technology is engineered to sweep an area for mines and spoof a mine into detonating by mirroring the acoustic and magnetic characteristics of an actual warship, Honabach said.

“Mines have different triggers. Some mines will detonate with an acoustic trigger and some with a magnetic trigger – and some with both. We generate a magnetic field that emulates a warship and we acoustically emulate a warship,” he said. “We use a Mark 104 acoustic generator and a magnetic cable that trails behind the boat with an electric current that passes through it.”

In September of this year, the Navy awarded Textron Systems a $118 million deal to build a prototype to be followed by six vehicles.

“Textron has two years to finish the final design and construction of the EDM (engineering design model). Then, there is a test program to validate the design before moving into low-rate initial production to deliver six UISS’,” Honabach added.

The Navy, which plans to have a deployable system by 2019, began development of the technology in 2008 by working on prototype vehicles and launch and recovery equipment. The unmanned surface vehicle is being constructed with special ruggedized materials so that the boat can withstand the shocks from the detonation of nearby underwater mines, he said.

“The shock factor has to be built into the craft so it can withstand those types of stresses. We toughened the USV beyond what you would see in a normal boat, giving it additional capabilities to withstand the higher shocks. It is unmanned. Equipment can withstand a lot higher G-forces than humans can,” Honabach explained.

The idea is to build an unmanned surface vehicle that can adapt to and embrace newer mine-clearing technologies as they emerge.

In total, the Navy plans to acquire at least 40 UISS systems, Honabach added.

Designed to be launched and recovered from an LCS, the UISS is networked with infrared sensors and communications gear to a command and control center on-board the ship.

The unmanned surface vessel is navigated with what’s called semi-autonomous navigation technology. It uses an inertial navigation system updated with GPS. The boat is pre-programmed to drive itself to specific areas or “way points” along a certain route, Honabach added.

“The vessel is executing a pre-programmed track and feeding back video, IR (infrared) and radar back to the operator,” he explained.

The LCS uses a multiple vehicle communications system which allows the ship to simultaneously communicate with other ships, sensors and unmanned systems.

The UISS is designed to fit in the mission bay area of a Freedom variant or Independence variant LCS.

The Navy already has several unmanned boats equipped with sonar to detect mines and plans to acquire several more next year.

“We’re switching from sweeping systems with men to mine systems that are sweeping without people,” he said.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Regrettably there is little to offer with all conditions met.

If Palin worked out a lit more she'd be nice, but at present is a bit on the chubby side. Then again... so is much of the US, so maybe this isn't such a bad option after all.

I see cheap beer, an american flag bikini and a crazy chick with a gun and probably a few mental health problems. Sounds 'Merican to me!
View attachment 145452

View attachment 145454

I'd prefer this over Palin's crazy a**
View attachment 145453

Sarcasm doesn't translate well in writing, so I sincerely hope that your suggestion of that fake Palin photo was along those lines. If not, perhaps we should stick to your more formal recommendations for the forum image to avoid immediately dividing ourselves along political axes.

 

[Oldman1]

F35 launched from catapult and landing.

 

[AMDR]

SMAW upgrade will put rounds on targets faster
SMAW upgrade will put rounds on targets faster | Marine Corps Times | marinecorpstimes.com

A Marine with 8th Engineer Support Battalion, 2nd Marine Logistics Group fires a rocket from a Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon, or SMAW, during a field operation aboard Camp Lejeune, N.C., July 29, 2013. The unit trained with SMAWs alongside service members with 2nd Assault Amphibian Battalion and 2nd Combat Engineer Battalion, 2nd Marine Division. (Lance Cpl. Sullivan Laramie / Marine Corps)

Procurement officials are working to make the Corps’ Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon lighter and more lethal, but safer for Marines.

Current versions of the SMAW rely on an archaic targeting system. Marines must fire a series of 9mm tracer rounds to walk the weapon onto target.

Zeroing in usually takes two or more shots before a Marine can fire the main rocket.

Not only does that make neutralizing a threat slow, but it means the gunner operating the SMAW spends more time exposed to enemy fire.

“The current employment method is time consuming and adds unnecessary exposure time and ranging/targeting errors,” reads a notice to industry posted Oct. 15 to FedBizOpps.gov.

“Due to the large inventory of existing SMAW rockets, the USMC does not seek an alternative Infantry Assault Weapon System to replace SMAW,” the notice states. “Instead, the USMC intends to modify the SMAW launcher’s existing alternate targeting and ranging system components (in lieu of the spotting rifle and day optic).”

The new targeting system will use an integrated thermal weapon sight and laser range finder to make “the launcher lighter, more accurate, quicker to employ, and easier to maintain.”

Ultimately, the new targeting system must mount to the SMAW using standard Picatinny rails and compute a firing solution based on range, ambient temperature and the type of rocket being fired.

The SMAW can currently fire a high explosive, dual-purpose rocket for use against bunkers, buildings and lightly armored vehicles; a high explosive anti-armor round for use against tanks; and a novel explosive rocket for use against caves and bunkers.

In an effort to refine the service’s final request for proposal, set to be released in November, Marine Corps Systems Command held an industry day Sept. 16-17 at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia.

Following the request for proposal, a contract will be awarded by the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, 2015. Ultimately, a fielding decision will be made within about three years — during the first quarter of 2017.

The SMAW program has already seen other efforts to upgrade the system including the development of a round that can be fired from enclosed spaces.

A Marine could, for example, fire the rocket through a window from within an enclosed building. The immense back-blast from first-generation SMAWs would severely injure or even potentially kill an operator firing it from within an enclosed space.

While it remains to be seen who will ultimately submit proposals to produce the next-generation SMAW targeting system, attendees at the mid-September industry day included Defense industry giants like FLIR Systems, Inc.; Raytheon Systems; and L-3 Communications, among many more.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

AFSOC Boss Wants Directed Energy Weapons

The head of Air Force Special Operations Command says he is in the market for a directed energy beam weapon and plans to look at acquisitions possibilities as part of the 2017 defense budget.

Such a weapon could be used to knock out communications and power stations without the devastation and loss of life caused by bombs, rockets and missiles — something Air Force Lt. Gen. Bradley Heithold said was on the mind of many who lived through Operation Just Cause in Panama in 1989.

The operation to grab one-time U.S. ally and Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega resulted in hundreds of civilian casualties.

“All we really had were kinetic rounds coming out of the airplane and really what you were trying to do was dismantle the Panamanian defense forces, wall them off and do the mission we had in hand,” said Heithold at a meeting with reporters Monday during the 2014 Air & Space Conference in Washington.

There are capabilities already being put to him, he said, but the timing and perhaps the technology still is not right.

“I’m a fan of looking at directed energy weapons, more of a fan of non-lethal directed energy weapons, so I’ve always kept [planning] space on my AC-130s for them,” he said. His 1998 paper suggested taking out the 20mm gun and replacing it with a directed energy weapon, but the technology at the time required a space the size of a small conference room.

The technology is catching up, he said, and whenever he is at the annual conference he meets with industry representatives to find out what they have in development.

“The more mature the capability becomes the more intriguing it is to me,” he said.

Heithold said he has not set a timeframe for seeing an AC-130 toting a directed energy weapon, but the soonest he expects to bring it up for funding would be for fiscal 2017. The 2015 budget is set and the budget plan for 2016 is already being briefed at the Pentagon, he said.

“So the next opportunity to make any sort of ‘muscle move’ in the programmatics of what AFSOC will look like in the future is fiscal ’17, which … we start [building] any time now,” he said.

From AFSOC Boss Wants Directed Energy Weapons | Defense Tech

 

[SvenSvensonov]

How Budget Pressure Prompted the Success of Virginia-Class Submarine Program

The following is an excerpt from the book F.I.R.E. – How Fast, Inexpensive, Restrained and Elegant Methods Ignite Innovation, Copyright © 2014 by Dan Ward. Reprinted courtesy of Harper Business, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers

In 1995 Congress terminated the US Navy’s Seawolf submarine program (SSN-21) citing a mismatch between the projected $33.6 billion cost for twelve submarines and the fact that the Soviet navy was not quite the threat it had been in the early 1980s when Seawolf began.

Original plans called for as many as twenty nine Seawolves, but the Navy ended up with three, at an estimated cost of approximately $4.4 billion each. As so often happens on defense programs, the costs and delays had piled up significantly over the years. A 1993 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) calculated that “it will cost $683 million… which is 125 percent over the original contract cost estimate.”

Other aspects of the program had similar problems, so Congress told the sea service to cut its losses and start over. The Navy needed something much less expensive and less complex than the Seawolf. Thus the Virginia-class (SSN-774) submarine program was born.

Let’s skip straight to the punch line: in December 2011, the Virginia- class USS Mississippi(SSN-782) was commissioned a year ahead of schedule and $60 million under budget. This was an impressive encore to the USS New Hampshire (SSN-778), which in 2008 came in eight months early and with $54 million left over. Prior to that, the USS New Mexico (SSN-779) was delivered four months early, having required a million fewer work hours than its predecessor, the USS North Carolina— you get the picture. These continuous cost underruns came on top of an already reduced price tag, and in the final accounting each Virginia sub cost a bit under $2 billion, which as you recall is less than half the price of a $4.4 billion Seawolf.

The Navy’s Virginia team relentlessly pursued features that were less expensive, required less maintenance, lasted longer and were less complicated to install, without reducing the boat’s ability to do the job. One such feature was a “wet” sonar system instead of the pricier, more complicated sonar array used on other subs. Another was the payload integration module, which offered a modularized, mission- configurable weapons bay. This allowed the boat to adapt as mission needs changed, and reduced costs by $20 million per hull.

No policy, regulation or law required this approach. Instead, the project leaders genuinely believed it was important to be fast, inexpensive, restrained, and elegant and they made decisions accordingly. They pursued speed, thrift, simplicity, and control at every opportunity, understanding that these principles would enhance not only programmatic performance (cost and schedule) but also the final product’s operational performance. The result was a fleet of submarines that was not only delivered early and under budget, but also performed impressively at sea.

In what are perhaps my favorite lines from any government report ever, a GAO report explains the Navy modified three critical requirements by making them less demanding: The original requirements, they determined, “were unrealistic and would not be worth the cost needed to achieve them.” In addition, they noted, “the change will not affect operations.”

I love everything about those two comments, but I’m particularly smitten by the second: the change will not affect operations. Obviously, changes like this make sense only if the resulting system can still get the job done. And indeed, the Virginia submarines passed their sea trials and are serving proudly today. Even if you’re not in the submarine business, I suggest enshrining those two lines on a brass plaque, or at the very least on one of those yellow sticky notes, and posting them somewhere prominent.

Now, the Virginia- class submarines are not perfect. In 2010 they had a little problem when sonar- absorbing coatings sloughed off at sea, reducing the sub’s stealthiness. I don’t want to trivialize this situation, but I also don’t want to make too much of it. The Navy resolved the problem in relatively short order, with minimal impact to operations.

Such technical problems should not be taken lightly, but neither should they be treated as an indictment of the high- speed, low- cost approach to development. Similar problems regularly pop up in more traditionally managed programs. Spending more time and money on the Virginia subs might— might— have prevented this particular problem, but would have surely introduced any number of new problems, both technical and programmatic. As proof, allow me to direct your attention back to the terminated Seawolf program.

At the end of the day, the Virginia- class submarines offer compelling evidence for the feasibility of building high-tech stuff under budget and ahead of schedule. The Navy’s experience shows that delays and overruns are not inevitable, and if it can do this on such a big, expensive project, surely the rest of us can do it on our projects as well.

From Opinion: How Budget Pressure Prompted the Success of Virginia-Class Submarine Program - USNI News

My Comments:

Apart from being my favorite piece of Navy kit, the Virginia's follow a blueprint all future navy systems should. Under-budget and delivered early, these systems are cost effective, high tech designs that will serve proudly for many years.

 

[Oldman1]