SMALL WARS COUNCIL
Go Back   Small Wars Council > Military Art & Science Applied > Equipment & Capabilities

Equipment & Capabilities Relevant capabilities and equipment are table stakes for winning those hearts and minds.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-04-2016   #1
AdamG
Council Member
 
AdamG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
Posts: 1,964
Default Pax Americana, Technological Readiness and broken weapons systems

Or "How we self-sabotage our starting positions for the next conflict, through unacceptable QC and wasteful Defense Spending"

Quote:
A $2.7 billion attack submarine, the USS Minnesota, has been out of commission for more than a year because of a defective pipe joint near the ship’s nuclear-powered engine.

The defective part, which is worth about $10,000, was installed near the ship’s nuclear power plant. Engineers discovered the poorly welded steam pipe in early 2015, and ongoing repairs have led to the ship being stuck in overhaul ever since, according to Navy Times.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/how...oNm?li=BBnbfcL
__________________
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
AdamG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2016   #2
AdamG
Council Member
 
AdamG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
Posts: 1,964
Default

See also
On Service and the F-35
by William Herbert
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/on-...e-and-the-f-35
__________________
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
AdamG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2016   #3
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 10,647
Default A problem we share

AdamG,

The UK has a history of defence projects having issues, both historically and today. Plus a number of reports which have recommended "solutions".

Not to overlook the decisions made by politicians to end, even embark on major projects. The Nimrod maritime aircraft upgrade and the two new aircraft carriers (which will currently have no aircraft).
__________________
davidbfpo
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2016   #4
Granite_State
Council Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Green Mountains
Posts: 354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
AdamG,

The UK has a history of defence projects having issues, both historically and today. Plus a number of reports which have recommended "solutions".

Not to overlook the decisions made by politicians to end, even embark on major projects. The Nimrod maritime aircraft upgrade and the two new aircraft carriers (which will currently have no aircraft).
CIMSEC did a podcast series on the Falklands War recently, the one with "Sharky" Ward has a good bit near the end with him savaging the UK's new carrier/F-35B foolishness.
Granite_State is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2016   #5
AdamG
Council Member
 
AdamG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
Posts: 1,964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Granite_State View Post
CIMSEC did a podcast series on the Falklands War recently, the one with "Sharky" Ward has a good bit near the end with him savaging the UK's new carrier/F-35B foolishness.
Link?
__________________
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
AdamG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2016   #6
Granite_State
Council Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Green Mountains
Posts: 354
Default

http://cimsec.org/sea-control-97-fal...key-ward/19236

Their whole series on the Falklands is great, worth getting on iTunes.
Granite_State is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2016   #7
AdamG
Council Member
 
AdamG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
Posts: 1,964
Default

Good comparison-and-contrast on what sort of value we're getting for our defense dollar.


Quote:
America's new Zumwalt-class DDG-1000 destroyer is a marvel of engineering.

Sixty percent bigger than the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers it was designed to replace, but just as fast as a DDG-51 and featuring a stealthier design, Zumwalt touts two 155-millimeter guns, can carry a combination of 80 Tomahawk, Sea Sparrow, and ASROC missiles, and is one of the few warships in the U.S. fleet capable of producing enough power to operate the new railgun and laser cannon weaponry just starting to come on line.

But Zumwalt is not cheap.

Although it was initially designed in 1998 with the intention of producing 32 warships for a total cost of $36.9 billion (including R&D costs), a combination of cost overruns and procurement cuts have sent per-ship costs skyrocketing. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, each of the Zumwalt-class ships now under construction, expected to cost $1.2 billion to build, will instead cost $7.5 billion.

That's more than half the cost of a Ford-class aircraft carrier, and a big price to swallow and get only a destroyer in return. So it's little wonder that, with costs spiraling out of control, the Pentagon pulled the plug on the Zumwalt program in 2009, ordering a halt to production after just three ships.

But now there's a new threat on the horizon that could convince the Navy it can't afford not to build more Zumwalts.


http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...satellite.aspx
__________________
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
AdamG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2016   #8
Compost
Council Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 170
Default lightweight is fashionable but ...

The term lightweight is a catalyst for all manner of projects intended to benefit military operations, for example the Combat Lightweight Automatic Weapon System (CLAWS) and the Lightweight Dismounted Automatic Machine Gun (LDAM).

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...r-machine-gun/
recently highlighted a project – not apparently CLAWS but possibly LDAM - to develop a replacement .50cal MG for the classic .50cal M2 HB and as improved with QCB. Just possibly that project might be intended to also replace the derivative M3 with its higher maximum ROF.

The item’s reporter was unimpressed for several reasons not explained with all details on weights, although he did quote it is hoped to “save 16-pounds off of a 26-pound barrel”. As a summary of some of his concerns, the M2 which covers only part of the overall requirement for support MGs is bulky and with heavyweight tripod weights 128 lb, reducing to 106 lb with lightweight tripod. Keeping the M2 supplied with ammunition is burdensome – at about 28 lb for a 100-round belt without packaging - so it is often employed as a vehicle weapon. And when offloaded or back-packed by infantry it routinely needs logistic support from vehicles.

With the M2 in service as a reliable, well regarded and widely employed MG there is little point in spending development dollars on a new .50cal medium ROF MG or even just a lightweight barrel. A heavier barrel with less need for changing out on vehicles could be better value.

In somewhat the same vein the US Army has an Extended Range Cannon Artillery project to replace 39 calibre barrels by 52 calibre barrels in all its 155mm howitzers.
http://defense-update.com/20160329_m777er.html

That is intended to increase their maximum reach of about 30,000 yd to about 50,000 yd. And it includes a 52 calibre barrel that will increase the 9,300 lb weight of the towed M777 howitzer by some 1,000 lb. The M777 was quite recently developed with a part titanium carriage to obtain lightweight heli-portable support fire. The concepts for deep battle may in addition to rocket and missile artillery and attack helicopters demand long range barrels on self-propelled howitzers. However, heavying up any of the M777s for intermittent and punishing high pressure use seems illogical.

The US Army must already have procedures to ensure redundant and nugatory projects are shut out or down at an early gate. But the gate guardians could be trapped in a procedural bog or have in some other way gone missing. If either of those circumstances apply it could be appropriate to start and promptly implement a higher level weight reduction project.

Last edited by Compost; 05-05-2016 at 11:25 AM. Reason: change phrasing
Compost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2016   #9
AdamG
Council Member
 
AdamG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
Posts: 1,964
Default

"I Wore a $400,000 F-35 Helmet and It Blew My Mind"
http://gizmodo.com/i-wore-a-400-000-...ind-1779125567
__________________
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
AdamG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2016   #10
AdamG
Council Member
 
AdamG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
Posts: 1,964
Default

Quote:
Damage done by laser weapons is a function of power and time. The longer a laser can stay on a target, like a drone or an incoming missile, the more damage it can do. The more powerful that laser is, the less time it needs to spend burning its target. The U.S. Navy already has a 30-kilowatt laser mounted on a ship. Yesterday, at a summit on directed energy weapons in Washington, D.C., the Navy announced it plans to go bigger: 150 kilowatts.

National Defense Magazine writes:
The Office of Naval Research “will perform a shipboard test of a 150-killowatt laser weapon system in the near future,” said [vice chief of naval operations] Adm. Bill Moran during a speech at Booz Allen Hamilton’s Directed Energy Summit, which was held in Washington, D.C.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/o...oon/ar-AAhAvmZ
__________________
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg

Last edited by AdamG; 07-06-2016 at 01:58 PM. Reason: USN needs more sharks
AdamG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2016   #11
AdamG
Council Member
 
AdamG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
Posts: 1,964
Default

Reading music https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAMrFJB1o08
Quote:
Were it not for efforts by the U.S. military to develop a lightweight, unarmored, all-terrain vehicle for the battlefield there might not be a market for SUVs today. It all began 75 years ago last December when the United States military adopted the 'jeep', and while the iconic military vehicle was phased out and replaced by the Humvee – the High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) in the early 1980s – the Army could go full circle and bring back the jeep.

Last year the Army began gearing up its Ground Mobility Vehicle Program for fiscal 2017. It was part of the Army's Combat Vehicle Modernization Strategy that sought to procure lightweight combat vehicles for infantry brigade combat teams. The vehicles considered sound very much like what first entered service back in 1940.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/07/...back-jeep.html

Related trends - http://www.carolinacountry.com/index...bility-stamina
__________________
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
AdamG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2016   #12
Maeda Toshiie
Council Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 30
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
AdamG,

The UK has a history of defence projects having issues, both historically and today. Plus a number of reports which have recommended "solutions".

Not to overlook the decisions made by politicians to end, even embark on major projects. The Nimrod maritime aircraft upgrade and the two new aircraft carriers (which will currently have no aircraft).
The back and forth decision over catapults on the Queenie class was hilarious, if it wasn't so sad.
Maeda Toshiie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2016   #13
AdamG
Council Member
 
AdamG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
Posts: 1,964
Default

Quote:
The U.S. Air Force asked industry on Friday for proposals to replace the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile and the nuclear cruise missile as the military moves ahead with a costly modernization of its aging atomic weapons systems.

The Air Force said in a statement it expected to award up to two contracts for a new ICBM weapons system, or ground-based strategic deterrent, sometime next summer or fall. It also expected to award up to two contracts in the same time frame for a new nuclear cruise missile, or long-range standoff weapon.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKCN1092MS
__________________
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
AdamG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2017   #14
AdamG
Council Member
 
AdamG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
Posts: 1,964
Default

Wasn't this in "Hammer's Slammers"?
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/01...-will.html?m=1
__________________
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
AdamG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2017   #15
Azor
Council Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 446
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamG View Post
Wasn't this in "Hammer's Slammers"?
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/01...-will.html?m=1
These are intended to be cheaper than CHAAMP and more mindful of damaging civilian infrastructure.
Azor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9. ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Registered Users are solely responsible for their messages.
Operated by, and site design © 2005-2009, Small Wars Foundation