War Developing and Upcoming Military Technology - Something new at least 3 times a week.

Snekposter · Jul 10, 2020

Late for the prop plane talk, but the Tucano is IMO not the best plane for the US, mostly because it really only has the one engine. As far back as the 1930's the USAAC/USAAF only wanted twin-engine planes for its dedicated attack planes duties for reasons of redundancy, range, and payload, and while we did end up getting a shitton of ordnance in the air on planes like the P-47 and P-51 during the later years of WW2, that simply doesn't compare with the ridiculous ordnance loads of the P-38, P-61, Twin Mustang, or God-Forbid, the A-26 Invader.

Clear evidence that the US military is technologically behind, utilizing a detection device that can be blinded by home electronics! Worse, every single soldier is equipped with a pair!

BONE_Buddy · Jul 10, 2020

Snekposter said:
Late for the prop plane talk, but the Tucano is IMO not the best plane for the US, mostly because it really only has the one engine. As far back as the 1930's the USAAC/USAAF only wanted twin-engine planes for its dedicated attack planes duties for reasons of redundancy, range, and payload, and while we did end up getting a shitton of ordnance in the air on planes like the P-47 and P-51 during the later years of WW2, that simply doesn't compare with the ridiculous ordnance loads of the P-38, P-61, Twin Mustang, or God-Forbid, the A-26 Invader.

The thing is, these "Light Attack Aircraft" aren't for us (mostly), they are for peoples who are literally unable to field anything else. Twice the engine means 4x the maintenance.

With the advent of smart munitions (usually maintained by the US), you don't need a massive payload. Especially considering the operations they are used in, counter terrorism. The real advantage of having them is being able to spot the enemy before they can set off an ambush, and pillbox busting on the side. A very few JDAMs should also be enough to resolve most Insurgent Related Difficulties. The A-29s have some decent, if simple, electro-optical equipment of them which serves the Surveillance roll quite well.

Now, if we want to get Light Attack Aircraft for the United states, I agree. I like something like the OV-10 Bronco much better.

1Tonka_Truck · Jul 10, 2020

BONE_Buddy said:
The real test to see how serious the Japanese government it about tje program will come when they have to start shelling out real money. I for one will be very interested in the dollar amount they put up.

We are talking about the same country where a car manufacturer spent $1bn US to develop one car, in 1980's money.

BONE_Buddy said:
Now, if we want to get Light Attack Aircraft for the United states, I agree. I like something like the OV-10 Bronco much better.

SOCOM had to fight tooth and nail just to get the air force to buy A29s. Chances of them spending money on developing a twin engine light attack craft are... not good. I'd be ok with remanufacturing old OV-10s bit that's not gonna happen either.

Snekposter · Jul 10, 2020

That's because the modern Air Force hates CAS or anything that isn't a high-speed jet or drone and yet in typical bureacratic "No, you can't have this", refuse to allow the Army to operate CAS planes of their own.

NerdShamer · Jul 10, 2020

@It's HK-47 I think you missed a few threads.

Look on the bright side: If the North Koreans are using biplanes, then we can bring the Meat Chopper out of retirement.

M16-MGMC-447thAAABtn-near-Neufchateau-Belgium-19450101-usasc-1.jpg

It's HK-47 · Jul 10, 2020

NerdShamer said:
@It's HK-47 I think you missed a few threads.

fite me irl im jacked son ill cry on ur dog

Snekposter · Jul 10, 2020

Sorry to disappoint you, Komi-sama, but the US has a much better meat chopper these days:

BONE_Buddy · Jul 10, 2020

If one recalls, there was quite the discussion about the role of vehicles in a paratrooper environment. Well, here is more signs that the US is reinvigorating its Airborne forces:

https://defence-blog.com/news/army/new-details-about-u-s-armys-infantry-squad-vehicle-revealed.html

Last month, the U.S. Department of Defense and GM Defense LLC announced an agreement worth about $214,3 million to build, field and sustain the Army’s new Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV).

The ISV program will provide Infantry Brigade Combat Teams an additive lightweight vehicle to move Soldiers and their equipment quickly over complex and difficult cross-country terrain. Designed to provide rapid ground mobility, the expeditionary ISV is a light and agile all-terrain troop carrier intended to transport a nine-Soldier infantry squad moving throughout the battlefield.

The total production ISV contract award value is $214.3 million to procure the initial Army Procurement Objective of 649. The approved Army Acquisition Objective is 2,065 vehicles.

This is the second important production contract award for Army light tactical wheeled vehicle modernization programs of record in the last year. The Army announced in June 2019 the production contract of the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. JLTV is modernizing the Army’s and U.S. Marine Corps’ light tactical wheeled vehicle fleets with a leap-ahead balance of payload, performance and protection.

“The Infantry Squad Vehicle meets the challenges we’ve faced to give our IBCT Soldiers greater mobility and increased survivability,” said Chris Stone, the Maneuver Capabilities Development and Integration Directorate’s deputy Army capability manager – Infantry Brigade Combat Team at Fort Benning, Ga. The CDID is the Army’s proponent for generating and validating the operational need for the Infantry Squad Vehicle.

“As the Army’s newest light tactical vehicle, ISV will allow IBCTs more flexibility and a greater advantage getting to the objective,” he added.

The ISV’s basic operational capabilities include:

Nine-man squad carrying capability

Payload of 3,200 lbs.
External sling load by a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter
Internal load/external lift by CH-47 Chinook helicopter
Low-velocity air drop by fixed-wing C-130 or C-17 transport aircraft
Exceptional mobility over all terrains

The comprehensive team responsible for bringing the ISV program to production contract award involves not only Army acquisition professionals, but also relevant stakeholders representing the Army’s funding and testing communities, Army Futures Command, and Forces Command. Soldier evaluation via user-acceptance efforts has been a key element of the ISV program from the outset, and has helped compress the time it takes to field a modernized capability that meets infantry Soldiers’ needs.

“The Infantry Squad Vehicle program has focused on meeting the Army’s emphasis on enhancing Infantry Soldier mobility and survivability by rapidly fielding modernized capabilities. Our product management team for Ground Mobility Vehicles undertook a great challenge to develop a strategy using experimentation and technical demonstrations to streamline the ISV acquisition process,” said Timothy G. Goddette, the Army’s program executive officer for Combat Support and Combat Service Support, or PEO CS&CSS, headquartered here.

“Using an innovative acquisition approach through an Other Transaction Authority — a flexible, collaborative tool designed to speed acquisition and modernization — the ISV team awarded the production contract for this capability in 16 months. Using normal acquisition processes, it could have taken as many as 36 months,” Goddette explained.
View attachment 2.webp

The ISV acquisition strategy was structured to promote the highest level of competition possible, including affordability. Due to competition, the program office will realize a reduction from the original independent government cost estimate for the program. This provides best value to American taxpayers. What’s more, a senior Army officer who has commanded at all levels in an IBCT was tapped to serve as the ISV program’s Source Selection Authority.

According to Steve Herrick, the Army’s product lead for Ground Mobility Vehicles, PEO CS&CSS, the next steps in the ISV program include GM Defense delivering eight ISVs to Aberdeen Test Center in Maryland within four months. “Following delivery, our program office, along with Army testers, will execute an aggressive and tailored testing plan,” he said.

Herrick went on to explain the Army will conduct tailored production qualification testing to address the vehicles’ ability to meet the performance specifications in areas not previously tested. This will also build confidence in areas already tested, he said. The ISV will also undergo transportability certification, which includes low-velocity air drop and helicopter sling loading. Next summer and fall, the Army will hold an initial operational test and evaluation.

“The program office is marching toward delivering ISVs to the first unit, the 1/82nd at Fort Bragg, approximately eight months after the contract award,” Herrick added. “We are excited about the commercial nature this product brings to the Soldier, and in the future, we could possibly see greater leaps in technology and concepts to include reconnaissance or electric vehicles.”

__________
Personally, I like it. Is it a front-liner's armored fist for a breakthrough assault? no, no is isn't and it shouldn't be.

Apparently it is based heavily on the Chevy Colorado ZR2 and uses 90% Commercial off the Shelf parts (read: didn't have to be developed using DoD dollars).

BONE_Buddy · Jul 10, 2020

In other news:

https://defence-blog.com/news/army/u-s-army-orders-new-generation-airburst-ammunition-for-strykers.html

U.S. Army orders new generation airburst ammunition for Strykers

The U.S. Army has selected a new generation 30mm airburst ammunition for the up-gunned Stryker Brigade Combat Team fleets.

U.S. defense company NG announced on 9 July that it has been awarded a contract to develop the next generation airburst cartridge for the 30mm XM813 Bushmaster Chain Gun.

“Northrop Grumman is leading the way in developing new ammunition types that provide existing gun systems with increased capabilities to defeat difficult targets ranging from threat drones to targets in defilade positions,” said Dan Olson, vice president, armament systems, Northrop Grumman. “Our air bursting technology is proven and the addition of this new round will provide the Army with an even more capable gun system for our soldiers.”

The 30mm x 173mm airburst cartridge will feature a contact set fuze design with three operational fuze modes: Programmable Airburst, Point Detonation and Point Detonation with Delay. The initial contract will fund the completion of the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase and final qualification by the Army.

Northrop Grumman will also begin deliveries this year of the first airburst type cartridge to support the U.S. Army’s Germany-based, 2nd Cavalry Regiment’s Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV) fleet that were recently ‘up-gunned’ with the company’s 30mm Bushmaster® Chain Gun®. The new airburst cartridge in development also will support additional U.S. Army platforms to include, but not limited to, the future Stryker Brigade Combat Teams.

The newly fielded gun system nearly doubles the range of the platform’s current .50-caliber machine gun. The addition of an airburst cartridge provides a complete family of ammunition that arms the crew to meet the challenges posed by peer and near-peer adversarial threat systems.

View attachment 2.webp
{Air burst ammunition pictured bursting in air.}
The new improved version of Stryker infantry carrier vehicle with a 30mm turret was created to fill a capability gap in the European theater that puts Soldiers at unacceptable risk. This variant increases lethality and provides 2CR the additional assets needed to defend the NATO Alliance against any adversaries if called to do so.

Thornforg · Jul 10, 2020

BONE_Buddy said:
As a side note, I hate the term "Suicide Drone." It

"Suicide Drone" culturally appropriates the English definition of the word 'Jihadi'.

NerdShamer · Jul 10, 2020

This feels strangely suited for invading China or North Korea...

BONE_Buddy · Jul 10, 2020

NerdShamer said:
This feels strangely suited for invading China or North Korea...

The ISVs will be great for an "Island Hoping" campaign in the South China Sea.

The use case against the DPRK is more limited, at least at the beginning of such a conflict.

Kamov Ka-52 · Jul 10, 2020

BONE_Buddy said:
snip

Why opt for a hugely cost ineffective indigenous design? There's already stuff on the market that should be able to fill all the JSDF's needs at a fraction of the expense, especially as it doesn't seem to be being designed with export markets also in mind.

BONE_Buddy · Jul 10, 2020

Kamov Ka-52 said:
Why opt for a hugely cost ineffective indigenous design? Its not like there aren't things which could presumably match their needs already on the market.

So, from what I hear there are a few different reasons, most overlap.

Wanting to have the aircraft designed and built in Japan. This is an end in and of itself.
Any aircraft they build must have the stated purpose of being an Air-Superiority Fighter because of cultural reasons. Muh Defense Force.
The US wouldn't license out F-22 production to anyone else, let alone Japan. So, they Japs have wanted t o make their own knock off variant for a while.
Rumors that this is a ploy to get in on the partner list for America's next generation fighter. That wouldn't surprise me, but this could also be a genuine attempt.
Wanting to reduce reliance on the US. Not an inherently bad idea, just a really expensive one.

There are other arguments for it, I am sure. I am also sure that if this project goes forward, we will hear them. After all, this has get the Defense Money from the notoriously stingy Japanese Government.

Snekposter · Jul 11, 2020

I just hope whatever new-build fighter they go with isn't as notoriously flammable as what they put up in the air during WW2.

The Un-Clit · Jul 11, 2020

SiggyB said:
One secret hope is that anti-missile systems become so sophisticated that we go back to ye olden days of throwing slugs at each other. A pipe dream for sure, but one I wish for nonetheless.

I'm with you there, fam. I'd LOVE to see battleships make a comeback. The destruction that can be laid down by 16-18' slug-throwing cannons sending tons of dumb matter up to 25miles downrange is astounding, and delivers it at a fraction of the price of a Tomahawk or any ship or shore launched missile really. I don't expect to see it, but I'd sure love it.

NerdShamer · Jul 11, 2020

Snekposter said:
I just hope whatever new-build fighter they go with isn't as notoriously flammable as what they put up in the air during WW2.

The A6M was unarmored so it would be light enough to serve aboard their fleet carriers. After that, an mix of dwindling resources, the advent of better birds from the U.S., and a dwindling pool of experienced pilots.

But all things considered, the Zero was essentially an death trap.

BONE_Buddy · Jul 11, 2020

Trump Says He's Working To Get 10 More Icebreakers For The Coast Guard From "A Certain Place"

If this comes to fruition, it would be a huge boost for the service's icebreaking capacity as competition in the Arctic region grows.

www.thedrive.com

Trump Says He's Working To Get 10 More Icebreakers For The Coast Guard From "A Certain Place"
If this comes to fruition, it would be a huge boost for the service's icebreaking capacity as competition in the Arctic region grows.

U.S. President Donald Trump says his Administration is working to secure 10 icebreakers for the U.S. Coast Guard. He also claimed that these ships would be cheaper to acquire than that service's future Polar Security Cutters, a new class of heavy icebreakers, the first of which is now under construction. This comes just over a month after Trump ordered the Coast Guard to review its existing icebreaker plans and to look into the possibility of buying or leasing additional ice-capable ships, including nuclear-powered types.

Trump made these comments in a speech during a visit to U.S. Southern Command's headquarters in Doral, Florida, just outside Miami, on July 10, 2020. You can watch his full remarks in the video in the Tweet below. The icebreaker-specific portion begins at around 6:00 in the runtime.

https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1281641347422642177

{ LIVE: President @realDonaldTrump delivers remarks at @Southcom

}

"We've approved the two new state-of-the-art National Security Cutters and two Polar Security Cutters for the United States Coast Guard," Trump said. "We have under construction right now the largest icebreaker in the world and we're going to be trying to get, if we can, an extra 10 icebreakers."

"We only have one. Russia has 40. We have one," he continued. "So, we will have two, but we think we'll have 10."

At present, the U.S. Coast Guard actually has two operational icebreakers, the heavy icebreaker USCGC Polar Star and the medium icebreaker USCGC Healy. Polar Star's sister ship Polar Sea remains in the service's inventory, but in an inactive state, primarily as a source of spare parts. The Polar Star is aging and has been increasingly prone to serious breakdowns in recent years. Healy, while newer, is still over 20 years old now and is also simply smaller and less capable when it comes to busting through thick ice on the water.

{ The USCGC Polar Star, the Coast Guard's only active heavy icebreaker. }

In April 2019, the U.S. Navy announced that it had hired VT Halter Marine, on behalf of the Coast Guard, to build the first new Polar Security Cutter. The initial contract was valued at nearly $746 million. The ship is expected to have a displacement of around 33,000 tons with a full load. This is roughly the same displacement as Russia's future nuclear-powered Project 22220 icebreakers, the first three of which are now in the final stages of construction. The Polar Security Cutters are set to be some of, if not the largest conventionally-powered icebreakers in the world.

{ An artist's conception of the Coast Guard's future Polar Security Cutter. }

The Russian government intends to build at least five Project 22220 icebreakers and has other ice-capable ships under construction, as well. At present, it does have around 40 icebreakers in service and in the works, in total. The disparity between the size of the Kremlin's icebreaking fleets and those of the Coast Guard has become an increasingly pronounced issue for the U.S. government in recent years, especially as geopolitical competition in the Arctic region has grown.

Even with 10 more icebreakers, the United States would trail significantly behind Russia in total fleet size. Still, it would represent a huge increase in American icebreaking capacity compared to what the Coast Guard has now.

Trump did not say specifically where the U.S. government would acquire these additional icebreakers from and whether it would do so through an outright purchase or some other type of arrangement, such as a lease deal. "We're trying to do a deal with a certain place that has a lot of icebreakers and we're seeing if we can make a really good deal where you can have them very fast," the President said cryptically.

"We're working on it and I think we can surprise you at a very good price, which will be nice," he continued. "Much cheaper than the one we're building and that's also nice."

This would all seem to indicate Trump is talking about the potential to buy or lease existing ships. This was something that the President alluded to in his Arctic memorandum, which focused heavily on icebreaking, in June.

"In anticipation of the USCGC Polar Star's operational degradation from Fiscal Years 2022-2029, an analysis to identify executable options, with associated costs, to bridge the gap of available vessels as early as Fiscal Year 2022 until the new PSCs required to meet the objectives of this memorandum are operational, including identifying executable, priced leasing options, both foreign and domestic," the memo explained. "This analysis shall specifically include operational risk associated with using a leased vessel as compared to a purchased vessel to conduct specified missions set forth in this memorandum."

It's unclear, though, where this many existing icebreakers could be sourced from quickly. No other single country, except Russia, operates 10 icebreakers, in total, which the Coast Guard would consider suitable for independent Arctic operations.

{ A breakdown of major icebreakers in service, under construction, or otherwise in planning around the world, as of 2017. }

Certain friendly countries, most notably Finland, do have shipyards with significant expertise in building ice-breakers and other ice-capable ships, but having any new ships built, even abroad at yards with applicable designs already in production, would still take time. The Coast Guard already sought to keep costs as low as possible and simplify construction as much as possible with regards to its new Polar Security Cutters by choosing a relatively mature design derived from that of a ship, the Polarstern II, already being built in Germany.

There is also a possibility that Trump may have misspoken, at least in part. The Coast Guard's existing plans, at least as they are known publicly, call for a fleet of three new heavy icebreakers and three new medium icebreakers. The plan could be to increase the overall size of the service's future icebreaking fleets to 10 ships, which would only take the addition of four more vessels, either via new production or a lease arrangement.

Trump's Arctic security memo, which he issued on June 9, gave the Coast Guard 60 days to submit its full report on its icebreaker plans to the White House, by way of the Departement of Homeland Security. This means the review should be completed by the first week of August.

So, we may find out more specific details about the future of America's icebreaking fleets, and the "certain place" that additional ships might come from, soon.

_________________________________________________________
Icebreakers have a high strategic value. They are practically required for doing serious operations in the arctic. Having only one means that if it breaks down, we simply won't be able to use our surface fleet in the region. China has also said that they are going to try and focus on the polar region(s), most hilariously saying saying that they are "arctic adjacent."

The speech by the President was also pretty informative, and very short at a little less that 10 minutes.

The Un-Clit · Jul 11, 2020

NerdShamer said:
The A6M was unarmored so it would be light enough to serve aboard their fleet carriers. After that, an mix of dwindling resources, the advent of better birds from the U.S., and a dwindling pool of experienced pilots.

But all things considered, the Zero was essentially an death trap.

Yeah, not including a parachute and not bothering to make their fuel tanks self-sealing which would have cost pretty much nothing but allow their planes to NOT explode in flames when hit with a couple of bullets tells you the mindset of the Imperial Japanese high command regarding air power. They seemed to understand the true advantages of air power in naval warfare quicker then pretty much every other world power, but still failed to understand the value of the pilots of those airplanes almost completely. It's no wonder they came up with the Kamikaze concept once they ran out of decent trained pilots, they already thought of their pilots as nothing but the interchangable lumps of flesh controlling their flying machines, moving them to controlling flying bombs was just the logical next step.

BONE_Buddy · Jul 11, 2020

The Un-Clit said:
Yeah, not including a parachute and not bothering to make their fuel tanks self-sealing which would have cost pretty much nothing but allow their planes to NOT explode in flames when hit with a couple of bullets tells you the mindset of the Imperial Japanese high command regarding air power. They seemed to understand the true advantages of air power in naval warfare quicker then pretty much every other world power, but still failed to understand the value of the pilots of those airplanes almost completely. It's no wonder they came up with the Kamikaze concept once they ran out of decent trained pilots, they already thought of their pilots as nothing but the interchangable lumps of flesh controlling their flying machines, moving them to controlling flying bombs was just the logical next step.

So, from what I have heard, it was a problem with production and design.

Simply put, before WW2 Japan had little access to rubber. They produced very little of the valuable materials from the home islands and their colonies. This is a problem because self-sealing tanks use quite a lot of rubber, especially compared to the standard fuel tanks.

Besides the material cost, you had problems with the manufacturing of the systems themselves. Compared to making a fuel tank which doesn't self seal, the takes which do self seal are much more complicated. It seems absurd to say, but Japan was a nation which was just beginning its industrialization. As such, it has very wide discrepancies for what it could actually make and produce easily. Therefore, it wasn't just something that they could check a box on and have it made, there had to be actual government effort put into fielding said self sealing tank, which they did in the last half of the war.

They didn't focus on putting self sealing tanks into their Zeros because several Japanese design studies came back with very disappointing reports about early native self sealing tank designs. It was found that the hydro-static shock of a round impacting these early self sealing tank designs would just rupture that tank completely. That combined with middling results when the tanks didn't fail spectacularly put the top brass off of the idea for a long time.

Then comes the design considerations of the Japanese Zero. The fundamental concept was that Maneuverability was its Survivability. The going thought process was that if you were caught in the enemies guns, you were already dead, so one should focus on being able to avoid the kill box. In their minds it was better to not get hit, than to be able to survive the first 50 rounds of a 200 round burst of gunfire.

So, to put it all together:

Does self sealing fuel tanks help survivability? Sure, but it is only of moderate effectiveness when it works.

Well, can we make it easily? No, it will cost a lot to get production going, and the materials needed are going to have to be imported.

Would it be a net benefit to the vehicle? Well, We are already talking abut an aircraft that had no armor, few redundancies, and an extremely lightweight construction. Agility is it's strength and adding this system would only make it slower and heavier, and therefore less maneuverable.

Putting oneself into that frame of mind allows you to see why the Japs did what they did.

Of course, we now know today that a lot of the Japanese air doctrine was drawing off the wrong assumptions. In fact, one could call a many of the decisions stupid in hindsight. But before the war at least, there was a rational reason for why things were made the way they were.
_
But that is just what I have heard.

Deployed Ships Underway	Non-deployed Ships Underway	Total Ships Underway
46	33	79

Fleet Forces	3rd Fleet	4th Fleet	5th Fleet	6th Fleet	7th Fleet	Total
3	1	2	23	15	56	100

War Developing and Upcoming Military Technology - Something new at least 3 times a week.

Operation: Desert Snek

Not dead yet.

Loaded Like A Boxcar Moving Like A Racecar

Operation: Desert Snek

Friendship Windmill

Meatbag's Bounty of Bodies

Operation: Desert Snek

Not dead yet.

Not dead yet.

Thanks for the company.

Friendship Windmill

Not dead yet.

Killed by Ukrainian MANPADS

Not dead yet.

Operation: Desert Snek

The nexus of the crisis and the origin of storms

Friendship Windmill

Not dead yet.

The nexus of the crisis and the origin of storms

Not dead yet.