USA Armed Forces

[Dahedd]

What is the rather odd looking LUSV model at the end of the video.

[Lord Jim]

Well it seems the British Army are not the only ones having problems with their AFV programmes. According to Jan's the US Army has scrapped one of its biggest equipment programmes, the Optional Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) at the prototyping competition stages to revisit its procurement strategy. This programme is or wad meant to replace the Bradley IFV and form the basis to a number of medium weight platforms. This is the third time the US Army has called a halt to a programme to replace the Bradly having cancelled the Future Combat System in 2009 and then the Ground Combat Vehicle Initiative in 2014. The US Army came into increasing criticism over this programme with its very aggressive delivery schedule and the its list of requirements. Prior to the programmes termination only one Contractor, GDLS remained in the competition.

[ArmChairCivvy]

meant to replace the Bradley IFV

no wonder Bradley IFVs are being remanufactured at haste
- and as per usual, they are/ were meant to be the Interim Solution
- the 'from Piranha' interim is still going strong

[Blackstone]

Just a small correction, the NGCV/OMFV program hasn't been scrapped, the then-current solicitation for the rapid prototyping phase was cancelled. The program could still be totally rebooted, and Congress might be push them in that direction if they don't like what they hear in the wake of this cancellation, but at the moment they're not that far backwards yet. I'm sure they'd prefer to just re-issue an edited version of the old solicitation, not vastly unlike how Type 31 was edited to make bids more workable, if they can get there in a timely fashion.

[Lord Jim]

Sorry I thought I had made that point clear. The US Army is calling it a pause but, although the overall requirement still exists, they are going to have to roll it back and start again, looking both at the list of requirements and the timeframe for the programme, with various bodies wanting much more oversight. Whether this helps or hinders the next time round w will have to see.

[Lord Jim]

no wonder Bradley IFVs are being remanufactured at haste

The US Army is also halting further upgrades to the Bradley, so from now on it will be maintenance only to keep the fleet serviceable rather than adding to or improving the platform. The opinion is that the Bradley is maxed out already, mainly regarding its weight and also that funding is needed elsewhere.

[Lord Jim]

One point of interests is how they have evolved the Mk41 so that installations can in addition to the standard 8 cell launcher, be mounted in single cells, as pairs or as quad launchers. Could be of interest down the road for theoretical future updates to the T-26, T-31 and T-45.

[SKB]

Fourth Ford class carrier CVN-81 to be named after Pearl Harbour cook


Fourth Ford class aircraft carrier CVN-81 is to be named USS Doris Miller.

The Ford Class:
CVN-78 USS Gerald R Ford
CVN-79 USS John F Kennedy
CVN-80 USS Enterprise
CVN-81 USS Doris Miller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Doris_Miller_(CVN-81)
CVN-82 Unnamed, but ordered.

Miller had other US warship named after him in the 1970s, a Knox class destroyer-escort. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Miller_(FF-1091)

[SDL]

There's a video being circulated that is meant to be a USAF E-11A BACN shot down in Afghanistan....

[Qwerty]

E11 BACN crashes.

A bit like the RAF’s Sentinel R.1

[Lord Jim]

Video of the USMC's new vehicle undergoing tests. I didn't realise how big it was!

[ArmChairCivvy]

AMV, for some rqrmnt, became 28(t) XP so that the buoyancy rqrmnt could be met
- but of course that was far removed from the kinetic protection that the ozzie go-in-first, Recce Wagon needed

I just wonder where this compromise sits; it probably good (as good as it gets) as everyone who had "the wares" pitched in

[Lord Jim]

It is interesting that the South Korean Marines are getting a platform that is basically their version of the cancelled USMC Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle as well as a clone of the USNs LCAC for the new amphibious ships. The USMC needed something as their AAV7A1s are getting very tired.

[Blackstone]

KAAV is a ways off yet, but it will be interesting to see how well it avoids the EFV's biggest headaches. Supposedly, USMC still plans for a high-speed vehicle in ACV Phase II. So it could be an opportunity to explore a partnership.

[abc123]

USN will retire first four LCS aka Little Crappy Ship:

https://taskandpurpose.com/navy-littora ... retirement

[xav]

U.S. Navy Cuts Super Hornet Production to Develop Next-Generation Fighter

The Navy wants to truncate production of the legacy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in favor of pumping money into accelerating the development of its long-gestating next-generation carrier-based fighter program, the service revealed in its Fiscal Year 2021 budget request. “The decision to cease F/A-18 procurement after FY 2021 ensures the Carrier Air Wing will maintain capable strike fighter capacity to pace the most stressing threats through the 2030s,”
read the Navy documents.

The NGAD program, previously known as F/A-XX, has sought to replace the payload capacity of the Super Hornets on carrier decks as the incoming F-35C Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter brings a stealthy fighter to the air wing. The program has had fits and starts over the last decade as the service has grappled with shaping the future of the air wing.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... n-fighter/

[ArmChairCivvy]

The decision to cease F/A-18 procurement after FY 2021 ensures

that no one in their right mind will now buy from that line as the total-life costs will go up and upgrades will be minor (if any).

[Lord Jim]

Surely not for a while. With the number of Super Hornets in service and the US Navy's. ongoing programme to bring earlier Blocks up to date, there is going to be a healthy supply chain for quite a few years. New build orders from other countries will probably dry up as the cost of more advanced platforms are falling and of course there is the F-16V still being built.

I wonder what the actual timescale for the NGAD will be. All three services seem to have fallen into their old ways of wanting to not just jump by leap ahead of the possible opposition, with regards to the capability of its next generation of platforms and equipment, something the F/A-18 E/F/G were built to counter. How many $Bns has the US waisted on such programmes in the past?

[Timmymagic]

that no one in their right mind will now buy from that line as the total-life costs will go up and upgrades will be minor (if any).

It's not a great message to send when the Finland HX Fighter Programme is underway...you have to wonder on the proposal to the German Air Force now, which is now pretty much back to F-35A or Typhoon developments.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the Finland HX Fighter Programme is underway...you have to wonder on the proposal to the German Air Force now

Both set great emphasis on the ground hugging radar that can simultaneously do all the 'normal' tings, so as to be able to penetrate IADSs

And the irony is that when the SuperHornets are about to visit Finland, as part of the evaluation, within days from now
HX Challenge test periods:

Eurofighter Typhoon 9–17 January 2020
Dassault Rafale 20–28 January 2020
Saab Gripen 29 January–6 February 2020
Lockheed Martin F-35 7–17 February 2020
Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet 18–26 February 2020

... then it is announced that the last a/c for the USN order will roll off the line about a year later (when the ISD target is 2025 and OSD, with all deliveries complete, 2030).

[Timmymagic]

And the irony is that when the SuperHornets are about to visit Finland, as part of the evaluation, within days from now
HX Challenge test periods:

I'll bet Boeing are overjoyed....

Would have thought it was between F-35 and Gripen though, with F/A-18E/F third based on FAF familiarity with Hornet.

[RetroSicotte]

Worth noting that Denmark projected the lifetime costs of F/A-18 as the highest out of it, F-35, and Typhoon. Short futures are definitely a thing.

[ArmChairCivvy]

with F/A-18E/F third based on FAF familiarity with Hornet.

Short futures are definitely a thing.

I don't know where SHornet sits in the preferences in the current competition, but that familiarity argument embeds the 80% availability of the current Hornets of the FAF... something that Mattis instructed for US fast jet sqdrns and has proved an elusive target.
- and a shortened future makes upgrades/MLUs less rational, and the shrinking global pool will hit the price/ availability of spares

[Blackstone]

Blurry preview of the stonking, yuge, BIG 1000-mile cannon we're apparently building

[Jake1992]

Blurry preview of the stonking, yuge, BIG 1000-mile cannon we're apparently building

What’s the longest range cannon they’ve got so far ?
This seems far beyond ambitious