USA Armed Forces

News and discussion threads on defence in other parts of the world.
User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7231
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 9 times
England

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by SKB »


SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 37 times
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by SW1 »

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... eaks-cover

General Atomics has offered the first official details about a new unmanned aircraft it has been developing internally called the Mojave. Derived from the MQ-1C Gray Eagle that the company developed for the U.S. Army, it is optimized for short takeoffs and landings from semi-improved surfaces with an emphasis on supporting various kinds of expeditionary and distributed operations. Its new wing gives it a look that is reminiscent in some ways of the OV-10 Bronco. The company says that its improved short-field performance would also make it suitable for carrier-based operations without any need for a catapult to launch it or arresting gear during recovery.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6428
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 54 times
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

Oh well if we wanted to replace our Watchkeeper.....

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 37 times
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by SW1 »

https://www.afrl.af.mil/News/Article/28 ... es%7Cother

During the December test, an MC-130J flown by an Air Force Special Operations Command operational flight crew, received new targeting data while in flight which was then routed to the cruise missile flight test vehicle (FTV). The aircraft agnostic Battle Management System’s inflight receipt and upload of the new targeting data into the FTV was a first-time achievement with a live cruise missile.

Once inside the drop zone over the Gulf of Mexico, the MC-130J aircrew airdropped a four-cell Rapid Dragon deployment system containing the FTV and three mass simulants, which were sequentially released from the palletized deployment box while under parachute. Safe separation from the deployment box and weapon deconfliction was demonstrated using an unconventional deployment method (nose-down vertical orientation). Immediately after the vertical release, the FTV deployed its wings and tail, achieved aerodynamic control, ignited its engine, performed a powered pull-up maneuver, and proceeded toward its newly assigned target. The cruise missile successfully destroyed its target upon impact.

Little J
Member
Posts: 680
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Little J »

Lord Jim wrote: 09 Dec 2021, 01:45 The reason the is of great interest to me is that the winner of this competition could well become the next standard NATO round replacing the existing 5.56mm as well as 7.62mm. The US Army has stated it is going to announce the winner of the competition at the end of January 2022, but that might be a bit ambitious. How ever the new weapons and ammunition will be mature by 2030, which is the timeframe the British Army is looking to replace the L85A3. However with the new Rifle and Automatic Rifle the British Army could not only replace the L85A3 but also;

L129A1 Designated Marksman Rifle.
L119A1/A2 (Canadian C7/C8).
M6A2 Ultra Compact Individual Weapon, used by SF and Dog Handlers.
Sig Sauer MCX, used by SF.
L2A1 Battle Rifle. used by RMP.
L101A2 5.56mm used by RMP and SF.
L7A2 General Purpose Machine Gun.
L110A3 7.62mm Minimi Light Machine Gun.

This is possible by the compactness and lightweight, easily interchangeable barrels in the case of the Sig entry, that can be done in the field and with lengths from 8" to 21 " as well as its collapsible stock or bullpup configuration, and many accessories including bespoke Suppressors. Both are effective out to 800m and capable of penetrating the latest Russian Body Armour at that distance.

The L85s was supposed to have been replaced in 2025 but that has been pushed back but 2030 now seem the likely date uless no finding is available. IT will be a while until other nations adopt the new calibre as quite a few hove only recently adopted new 5.56 weapons, but the leap in effectiveness could mean SF units adopt the new calibre much sooner and their experiences with the new weapons and ammo will greatly inform the regular services.
I found this interesting, testing the new round in sniper rifles, gpmg's crew served weapons... I know they would keep away from rebarrelling an assault rifle, but still interesting to see it on 762 weapons... Almost like they might need to shrink the new round down to properly replace 556 :shh: ... Sa80a4? :thumbup: :lol:

User avatar
xav
Senior Member
Posts: 1533
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:48
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 5 times

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by xav »

“This agreement marks a very significant step forward and the culmination of a common desire to strengthen cooperation between the two navies, despite the rough seas that the two countries have recently crossed.”

Great and welcomed initiative post AUKUS 🇫🇷🤝🇺🇸 Bravo Zulu

US Navy, French Navy Ink Strategic Interoperability Framework
The U.S. Navy and the French Navy (Marine Nationale) inked a Strategic Interoperability Framework (SIF) on 17 December 2021. The agreement paves the way for increased cooperation between the two navies for the next twenty years, especially their ability to "plug and fight" side by side.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... framework/

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6428
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 54 times
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

R4eally positive news and I cannot wait to see the French Navy cross decking with the USN at some point in the future. Their Rafales did make the F-18s look a little mundane in my opinion when they operated off a US Carrier a while back.

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 141
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 82 times
Been liked: 4 times
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by wargame_insomniac »

This would hopefully be good for UK as well, if we can move past disputes with France over number of migrants crossing channel and/or number of fishing permits in each others waters etc. RN seems torn between US and European systems and weapons e.g whether to go for Mk41 VLS or Sylver VLS.

If USN and French Navy can work more closely togther with interopability, I presume that should help the RN work well with either as we share some common systems with both. RN and French Navy are of comparable size, and with similar interests in Cariibean and Indo-Pacific, it would be good if we could work well together. e.g. combined forces for future CSG deployments etc.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6428
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 54 times
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

IF everyone starts to get along and co operation flourishes, maybe the way will be open for countries to fund weapon integration with both Mk41 and Sylver, with the paying for integration of the FC/ASW with the Mk41 and France for its integration with Sylver. That wouldn't hurt the export potential of the missile at all.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 37 times
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by SW1 »

I assume this is what is behind our SF brigade rangers idea?

https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-a ... e-in-2022/

Special operations planners in the Pacific are also looking at whether they can implement portions of the Resistance Operating Concept in 2022 and beyond. The ROC is a framework for building up the capacity of friendly countries to mount an effective civil and military resistance if they were to face invasion and occupation from a hostile great power. It incorporates Special Forces, psychological operations and civil affairs.

The ROC is already driving a lot of Army SOF’s training and planning in Europe, though, where 2021 saw numerous exercises aimed at building the resistance capabilities of countries like Georgia — which, though located in the Caucasus region of Asia, falls under U.S. European Command’s responsibility. EUCOM also has a forward-deployed Special Forces unit — 1st Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group — in Germany.

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 506
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 0
United States of America

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Halidon »


Defiance
Donator
Posts: 819
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 25 times
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Defiance »

Initially, the ship would feature a 32-cell Mk-41 Vertical Launch System forward of the superstructure that could be swapped for 12 larger missile cells capable of fielding the Pentagon’s emerging hypersonic weapons being developed for the Navy, Army and the Air Force.

The current DDG-51s field 96 MK-41 VLS cells and USNI News understands that Navy requirements keep the VLS cells for DDG(X) about the same.
I take it to mean that 96 cells will be roughly the same for DDG(X) when entering service, with scope in future for that to become 64 Mk41 + 12 big boys?

If so it highlights the size-issue around hypersonic weapons. They aren't going to be bunged into Mk41 or Mk57.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7231
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 9 times
England

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by SKB »

Hypersonic = over Mach 5 (3,806 mph or 6,126 km/h)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3196
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 25 times
France

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Tempest414 »

Defiance wrote: 13 Jan 2022, 08:01
Initially, the ship would feature a 32-cell Mk-41 Vertical Launch System forward of the superstructure that could be swapped for 12 larger missile cells capable of fielding the Pentagon’s emerging hypersonic weapons being developed for the Navy, Army and the Air Force.

The current DDG-51s field 96 MK-41 VLS cells and USNI News understands that Navy requirements keep the VLS cells for DDG(X) about the same.
I take it to mean that 96 cells will be roughly the same for DDG(X) when entering service, with scope in future for that to become 64 Mk41 + 12 big boys?

If so it highlights the size-issue around hypersonic weapons. They aren't going to be bunged into Mk41 or Mk57.
Makes one think what we should have had from the type 45 program i.e 8 ships armed with 1 x 114mm , 2 x 30mm 2 x Phalanx , 64 VLS and 8 x Harpoon / NSM and we could have 6 of these ship now

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6428
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 54 times
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

Well they have chosen the calibre and now the optics. The new Rifle and Automatic Rifle should be with the troops sometime this year, and joining the British Army by 2030 we can hope. The optic is like a mini Tank FCS, automatically providing an adjusted aim point taking into account all sorts of factors. Put the crosshair on the target out there around 600m, push a button then put the indicator onto the target and pull the trigger and you have shot the balls of a fly.
https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-a ... ad-weapon/

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 37 times
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by SW1 »


Defiance
Donator
Posts: 819
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 25 times
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Defiance »

Tempest414 wrote: 13 Jan 2022, 11:19 Makes one think what we should have had from the type 45 program i.e 8 ships armed with 1 x 114mm , 2 x 30mm 2 x Phalanx , 64 VLS and 8 x Harpoon / NSM and we could have 6 of these ship now
It does, DDG(X) is going to be a pretty potent surface combatant as it tries to straddle the line between the more numerous DDG fleet but also stepping up to take the CG role

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2795
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by abc123 »

Halidon wrote: 13 Jan 2022, 05:32
IMHO they will need a nuclear propulsion if they want put lasers and new radar there. But, I have to say, I expected something larger- 15-20000 t, not just hashed up Burke class.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 819
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 25 times
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Defiance »

abc123 wrote: 16 Jan 2022, 08:38 ill need a nuclear propulsion if they want put lasers and new radar there. But, I have to say, I expected something larger- 15-20000 t, not just hashed up Burke class.
Depends how well they got on with MT30 in the DDG1000s, they've had enough time to run them around and work out their power requirements. Moreover they can't really go too overboard with DDG(X) considering the volume they'll need to purchase them in to replace the Arleigh Burkes.

I think they're pitching this at the right level. It's supposed to be DDG(X), not CG(X)

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 0

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by inch »

All down to money ,like everyone else ,a rehashed Burke class if good enough will do ,get more ships of the class for said amount instead of building 3 costing loads , trying too keep China at bay is going to be a uphill struggle with the the amount of capacity and cheapness they can turn around ships ,I don't think USN can do it alone ,we need to get are arse into gear also ,ie not just 3 t82 destroyers costing zillions , saying they are twice as capable as t45 so we only need 3-4 ,but as sure as eggs are eggs that is what will happen , while China laughing

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 819
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 25 times
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Defiance »

inch wrote: 16 Jan 2022, 10:56 All down to money ,like everyone else ,a rehashed Burke class if good enough will do ,get more ships of the class for said amount instead of building 3 costing loads , trying too keep China at bay is going to be a uphill struggle with the the amount of capacity and cheapness they can turn around ships ,I don't think USN can do it alone ,we need to get are arse into gear also ,ie not just 3 t82 destroyers costing zillions , saying they are twice as capable as t45 so we only need 3-4 ,but as sure as eggs are eggs that is what will happen , while China laughing
Indeed, this is why the FFG-62 is so critical - the USN needs more combat mass and FFG-62 class are the way they want to get it*. It doesn't have the firepower of an Arleigh Burke hull for hull, but the intention is to put them in roles where an AB is overkill and more desperately needed.

Conveniently timed though, it was released yesterday that the construction of the first of class (USS Constellation) will begin this year

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... this-year/

*or are forced to get it

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 0

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by inch »

Still should have been a t26 derivative in my book ,a 5 eyes ship ,but no USN went and picked a French / Italian ship ,, nothing wrong with the quality mind you but AHH well old news

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 141
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 82 times
Been liked: 4 times
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Defiance wrote: 16 Jan 2022, 10:47
abc123 wrote: 16 Jan 2022, 08:38 ill need a nuclear propulsion if they want put lasers and new radar there. But, I have to say, I expected something larger- 15-20000 t, not just hashed up Burke class.
Depends how well they got on with MT30 in the DDG1000s, they've had enough time to run them around and work out their power requirements. Moreover they can't really go too overboard with DDG(X) considering the volume they'll need to purchase them in to replace the Arleigh Burkes.

I think they're pitching this at the right level. It's supposed to be DDG(X), not CG(X)
Am I right in thinking that Flight III AB's will be currently replacing the Ticonderoga CG? If so presumably these DDG(X) will be eventually replacing the Flight I AB's?

From reading yesterday's article in USNI News, it does look as if the USN learned with disastrous introductions of both DDG-1000 class and LCS. Initially fitting weapons that they known will work in pratice and on;y upgrading them over time to thse new fangled energy wapons and Railguns. I hope the RN learn from this with the T83's.

And the USN will have a fair number of both LCS and FFG(X) Frigates to do the basic patrolling tasks that RN would be using River B2's and T31's.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2795
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by abc123 »

Defiance wrote: 16 Jan 2022, 10:47
abc123 wrote: 16 Jan 2022, 08:38 ill need a nuclear propulsion if they want put lasers and new radar there. But, I have to say, I expected something larger- 15-20000 t, not just hashed up Burke class.
Depends how well they got on with MT30 in the DDG1000s, they've had enough time to run them around and work out their power requirements. Moreover they can't really go too overboard with DDG(X) considering the volume they'll need to purchase them in to replace the Arleigh Burkes.

I think they're pitching this at the right level. It's supposed to be DDG(X), not CG(X)

But didn't they say that DDX will replace at least part of Ticos?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6428
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 54 times
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

Downsizing. :D

Post Reply