Pax Americana, Technological Readiness and broken weapons systems

[AmericanPride]

Not specifically military focused, but related nonetheless:

Yet despite the remarkable success of the U.S. innovation economy, many players in both government and industry have been pulling back from the types of bold long-term investments in fundamental science that could seed the great companies of the future. The entire innovation ecosystem is becoming more shortsighted and cautious. And by failing to invest sufficiently in basic research today, Washington risks creating an innovation deficit that may hobble the U.S. economy for decades to come. This concern has become acute since the White House released its budget blueprint, which proposes crippling cuts to science funding.

How to Maintain America's Edge

[AdamG]

Top generals have been insisting for years that if North Korea launched a missile at the United States, the U.S military would be able to shoot it down.
But that is a highly questionable assertion, according to independent scientists and government investigators.
In making it, the generals fail to acknowledge huge questions about the effectiveness of the $40 billion missile defense system they rely on to stop a potential nuclear-armed ballistic missile fired by North Korean or Iran, according to a series of outside reviews.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-...cid=spartandhp

[AdamG]

Fighter jets with laser weapons set to take to the skies in 2021 as Lockheed Martin wins $26 million 'Lance' high-energy laser contract

'LANCE' contract will build on technology from the Athena and Aladin lasers $26.3m contract aims to design, develop, and produce system for fighter jets. An airborne platform is smaller, presenting more of a challenge, experts say

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...aser-jets.html



Anyone remember the last time the USAF traded up for shiny new weapons systems?


“There was this strange idea in the Department of Defense that the gun was passé,” says military aviation historian Richard P. Hallion. “And the gun has never been passé.” Compared to the missiles of today, he says, the air-to-air missiles arming F-4s and F-8s during Vietnam were primitive and unreliable.

[Compost]

There is potentially yet another problem with the F-35A CTOL variant of the JSF. For Air-Air Refuelling the F-35A has on its fuselage spine a standard US Air Force-style AAR receptacle designed to interface with the heavy flying boom of an aerial tanker. By contrast the maritime F-35B STOVL and F-35C CATOBAR variants for the US Marine Corps and US Navy are equipped with a retractable AAR elbow-probe designed to interface with a less heavy long hose-drogue towed by a tanker, or by a buddy fighter temporarily configured as an expedient tanker.

The refuelling boom carried by specialised tankers is subject to damage and malfunction due to slapping and ramming, and it can also damage the AAR receptacle on a receiving aircraft. However those large tankers typically have a boom and two underwing hose-drogue pods .On that basis and the redundancy factor implicit in twin hoses it is apparent that many receiver aircraft would be better secured and more employable if dual equipped with an AAR receptacle and an AAR probe.

There have been no reports of a version of the F-35A being either dual equipped or singly equipped with just an AAR probe. So those European and other forces which have traditionally employed buddy fighters and specialised hose-drogue - or boom and hose-drogue - tankers may be doing so knowing that acquisition of the F-35A CTOL will leave them with loose ends.

[AdamG]

Air Force Could Test "Flying Aircraft Carriers" as Early as Next Year
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/air-fo...-year-cm898778

What are Gremlins for ?
According to our friends at Scout Warrior , who've also been following this project closely, one key objective of the Gremlins is to extend the range at which U.S. air forces can operate in a contested environment characterized by an adversary employing A2/AD (anti-access/aerial-denial) tactics. These include the use of cruise missiles to keep aircraft carriers at bay, forcing airplanes to fly long distances to reach their targets, and surface-to-air missiles, which make it hazardous for nonstealthy aircraft to get too close to hostile territory by air.
Obviously, nonstealthy C-130 air transports aren't the best way to penetrate such defenses. After Phase 3 of the Gremlins project is complete, the Air Force will probably want to order up a stealthy "mothership" to take over the role of "flying aircraft carrier." Such a mothership -- perhaps a modified version of Northrop Grumman 's (NYSE: NOC) new B-21 bomber , or the yet-to-be revealed carrier-launched MQ-25 Stingray , could fulfill this role.

Last time we tried that...

[AdamG]

How to Sneak New Weapons Past Government Minders
Pentagon leaders find creative ways to avoid oversight
https://warisboring.com/how-to-sneak...nment-minders/

[AdamG]

ARLINGTON, Va. — The Navy’s new class of 20 guided-missile frigates could cost an estimated $950 million per hull, the Naval Sea Systems Command FFG(X) program manager said on Tuesday. That total is more than double the current cost per hull of both variants of the Littoral Combat Ship.
Speaking at the Surface Navy Association 2018 symposium, NAVSEA’s Regan Campbell said the new class of small surface combatant would set a so-called threshold requirement for a net average cost of $950 million for the 2nd through 20th hulls in the FFG(X) next-generation frigate program following a down select to a final shipbuilder in 2020. First-in-class for the new frigate is expected to cost more than the $950 million average.
That number is almost twice the about $460 million per-hull cost of the existing Lockheed Martin Freedom-class (LCS-1) and Austal USA Independence-class (LCS-2) Littoral Combat Ships currently under construction.

https://news.usni.org/2018/01/09/nav...ouble-lcs-cost

and with tongue-in-cheek,
Littoral Combat Ship Actually Figurative Combat Ship

[AdamG]

Escalating global threats from Russia to North Korea mean the U.S. military’s regional commanders must update war plans to incorporate the use -- in the most dire circumstances -- of nuclear weapons, according to the Pentagon’s latest Nuclear Posture Review.

The Pentagon report also calls for development of a wider range of lower-yield nuclear weapons that can be launched from submarines and ships. The U.S. currently has about 1,371 nuclear weapons, down from a peak of more than 12,000 during the Cold War, and under existing treaties could raise that level to 1,550.

Mandatory glass-half-empty analysis, courtesy of HuffPo.

Critics who reviewed a leaked copy of the draft published last month in the Huffington Post said the administration’s approach is reckless and makes the use of nuclear weapons more likely.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ional-commands

[AdamG]

Something that pre-dates this thread, but you'll enjoy the read.

A Ship With No Ammunition
http://navy-matters.blogspot.com/201...mmunition.html