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

usernames can change now! · Aug 7, 2020

Reading these stories as a Raytheon shareholder is fun

BONE_Buddy · Aug 7, 2020

In other news:

Iron Dome Is Coming To US; Can The Army Plug It In?

Israel’s Rafael will soon ship the first missile defense battery to the US and wants to build a factory here. The really hard part: connecting Iron Dome to US Army command networks.

breakingdefense.com

Iron Dome Is Coming To US; Can The Army Plug It In?
Israel’s Rafael will soon ship the first missile defense battery to the US and wants to build a factory here. The really hard part: connecting Iron Dome to US Army command networks.

{ An An-225 jet transport offloads an Oshkosh military truck at Ben Gurion Airport (Credit: Israel Airports Authority) }

TEL AVIV: Earlier today, a giant Antonov 225 jet transport landed at Ben Gurion Airport, carrying US-made Oshkosh military trucks. Israeli armsmaker Rafael will mate those heavy-duty vehicles with its Iron Dome missile defense system before shipping the first battery of the weapon to America this fall.

Rafael and its US partner, Raytheon, are so confident in the future of the program that, this morning, they announced a joint venture to manufacture Iron Dome at a location to be determined in the US. (New financial incentives to spend US aid in the US also play a role). But the two batteries the Army has so far committed to purchase will be built in Israel. The really hard part is yet to come: figuring out the knotty technical details of how to connect the Israeli system to the American networks that command, control, and coordinate US forces.

{ A Tamir interceptor launches from truck-mounted Iron Dome launcher. }

“Right now … the first battery should arrive in the United States no later than the end of December,” Brig. Gen. Brian Gibson, the Army’s modernization director for air & missile defense, said in an interview last week with Breaking Defense ahead of Tuesday’s SMD conference. (Click here for the first half of that interview). After integration, testing, and training, the unit should be ready for real-world operations by September 2021. A second battery arrives in the US in February next year and will be combat-ready by the end of 2021.

That’s all the Army plans to buy, for now, to serve as an “interim Indirect Fire Protection Capability” against artillery rockets and cruise missiles. The “enduring” IFPC will likely be a completely different system, although it may include components of Iron Dome. The US plans to hold a “shoot-off” of potential missiles for IFPC at White Sands Missile Range next year, between April and June, and to select a single vendor by the fall. The Army’s urged Rafael and Raytheon to enter Iron Dome’s Tamir missile in the competition, but all entrants must show that they’re compatible with the service’s new IBCS network.

While Gibson tactfully declined to say so, US Army leaders were reluctant to buy the Iron Dome – it was forced on them by Congress as a stopgap after IFPC encountered problems and delays – and they’ve repeatedly, publicly questioned how well the Israeli system will exchange data with American equipment. Iron Dome’s advocates counter that the Marine Corps managed a successful demonstration last year with the system linked to their G/ATOR radar, so why couldn’t the Army make it work just as well?

{ A simplified (yes, really) overview of the Army’s IBCS command-and-control network for air and missile defense. }

The US soldiers operating Iron Dome batteries will have their usual secure radios and other means to talk with other units. But voice communications are far too slow and imprecise to pass detailed tracking data on incoming threats, let alone targeting data, which requires split-second precision to shoot down an enemy missile or rocket in flight – without shooting down a friendly aircraft by mistake. That’s the kind of information that must be shared machine-to-machine. Getting US Army computers to talk to foreign ones can be a true technical challenge.

“The voice side of communications I’m not concerned about,” Gibson told Breaking Defense. In the two “Interim IFPC” batteries using Iron Dome, he said, “we’ll be able to have access to our voice communications nets, both secure and unsecure, just like any other US unit.”

“The data side, we still don’t know we can integrate it,” he said. “That’s part of the effort that’s in front of us.”

Gibson is looking at three different levels of integration. In layman’s terms:

Side-by-side screens: At the minimum, the Army will put a new tactical display inside the Iron Dome command posts, a terminal plugged into the Army’s real-time “combined air picture” showing the locations of friendly, neutral, and hostile objects, from planes to missiles. But the Army terminal showing the “air picture” would be separate from Iron Dome’s built-in displays showing the view from Iron Dome’s own radars. To get the complete picture, the human operators will have to look from one screen to the other and back again, which raises the risk of a lethal mistake.

Machine-to-machine interoperability: What the Army, Rafael and Raytheon really want is to connect Iron Dome directly to other Army systems, so they can exchange at least some data automatically machine-to-machine, without human intervention. The more tracking and targeting data that can go directly to Iron Dome, the more complete the picture that the operators get at a glance. The Marine Corps reportedly managed to connect Iron Dome with their G/ATOR radar in this way.

IBCS integration: Ideally, the Army wants to fully integrate Iron Dome with its future Integrated Air & Missile Defense Battle Command System, known as IBCS. This network pulls in data from a wide range of different Army radars that don’t currently connect – and potentially from non-Army ones like the Air Force F-35 as well – and compile it into highly accurate targeting data that can be used by any Army anti-aircraft or missile defense system.

IBCS is now in testing in at White Sands Missile Range, where it will fire Patriot missiles at live targets this month. New Army systems like the LTAMDS radar will be IBCS-compliant from the start, but it will take years of effort and millions of dollars to backfit existing US systems, let alone foreign ones.

{ The mobile command post for the Army’s new IBCS air and missile defense network. }

“We’re, as a bridging solution, going to install a suite of data communications capabilities,” Gibson said, “[but] we intend, though, to not stop there and see if we can in fact integrate it with IBCS.”

How integrated can Iron Dome get? “We don’t know yet,” the head of Army Futures Command, Gen. Mark Murray, told Breaking Defense in March. “My assessment right now is, it would be — and I hate to ever use the word ‘impossible’ — but exceptionally difficult to integrate Iron Dome into our layered air defense architecture [and] to get Iron Dome talk to other systems, other radars, specifically the Sentinel radar.”

Iron Dome’s defenders would argue that the US Army has so far only looked at technical data and has not gotten their hands on a working Iron Dome system and learned what does and doesn’t work. That opportunity will come once the first battery is delivered this fall.

Iron Dome is highly regarded for its success shooting down unguided artillery rockets launched by Hezbollah and Hamas. But the US also wants to test its capability to intercept cruise missiles, a much harder target.

1Tonka_Truck · Aug 7, 2020

BONE_Buddy said:
Army’s interim short-range air defense system on track despite minor ‘hiccup’ in tests

Since nowhere in article did they bother to describe what the army selected:

A Biho turret with all the same systems integration would be slick, but this works for now.

BONE_Buddy said:
Iron Dome’s advocates counter that the Marine Corps managed a successful demonstration last year with the system linked to their G/ATOR radar, so why couldn’t the Army make it work just as well?

There is crayon joke in here somewhere.

BONE_Buddy · Aug 7, 2020

1Tonka_Truck said:
Since nowhere in article did they bother to describe what the army selected:View attachment 1504082
A Biho turret with all the same systems integration would be slick, but this works for now.

There is crayon joke in here somewhere.

Thank you very much! I should have tried to show an example of the system myself, but I got distracted by dinner.

As you say, this works for now. It is far better than nothing, which is effectively what we had before. Sure there were Stingers mounted on Humvee trucks, but they were limited in number and were effectively Stinger MANPADs strapped to a swivel. This has a much better combined package, which includes a decent RADAR.

A Crayon joke... Perhaps something like this:
"The Marine standards for integration allows for human-machine interface by way of drawings made using their emergency Crayola rations. "

Yeah, I found that joke pretty forced too.
_
continuing with the news:

We will probably be hearing stories about live fire Air Defense tests in the coming weeks:

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/08/live-fire-tests-in-august-for-army-air-missile-defense/

Live-Fire Tests In August For Army Air & Missile Defense
After weeks of COVID delays, combat soldiers are now testing both the IBCS network and the IM-SHORAD vehicle at White Sands. The first live shots against flying targets are just weeks away.

WASHINGTON: Army soldiers in the southwest desert are getting ready to “knock something out of the sky” in live-fire tests of two critical new systems, the service’s director of air & missile defense modernization said. The IBCS command network is already tracking aerial targets on radar over White Sands Missile Range, Brig. Gen. Brian Gibson told me, and it will start shooting Patriot missiles at them in the second week of August. The IM-SHORAD anti-aircraft vehicle — which mounts Stinger missiles, Hellfires, a 30 mm cannon, and compact radar on an 8×8 armored Stryker — will start its live-fire tests soon after.

{ Brig. Gen. Brian Gibson talks to troops }

Both systems are being operated, not by contractors or Army testing experts, but by regular soldiers from the actual combat units slated to receive the new weapons when they’re ready. For IBCS, Gibson said, that’s a battery from the 3rd Battalion, 43rd Air Defense Artillery regiment (“3-43”) out of Fort Bliss, Tex., which currently operates the Patriot system, but without the network connection to other kinds of Army radars and launchers that IBCS will provide. For IM-SHORAD, it’s a platoon from 5th Battalion, 4th ADA Regiment (“5-4”) out of Annsbach, Germany, which currently uses Stinger missiles carried either by hand or on Humvees, which lack the armored protection and cross-country mobility of the new Strykers.

These tests come after decades of post-Cold War neglect of battlefield air defense, when the Army fought enemies who had no attack helicopters or fighter-bombers, just the occasional unguided rocket and, in recent years, mini-drones. It was the Russian invasion of Crimea that forced the Army to refocus on high-tech foes. In October 2017, Gen. Mark Milley – then Army Chief of Staff, now Chairman of the Joint Chiefs – announced a sweeping modernization program with new weapons ranging from long-range artillery to rifles. “But none of that’s going to matter if you’re dead,” Milley said, which is why his Big Six priorities included new air & missile defense systems.

The ongoing tests also follow a delay this summer of roughly two months, required to set up multi-layered defenses against COVID-19 for the hundreds of combat troops, test technicians, and other personnel gathering at White Sands. Brig. Gen. Gibson said only a handful of personnel had tested positive for coronavirus so far and all were quickly isolated.

Gibson spoke to Breaking Defense as an exclusive preview of his upcoming remarks to Tuesday’s Space & Missile Defense conference. SMD’s grand annual gathering of the air & missile defense community will be held entirely online this year, because of the pandemic.

{ The mobile command post for the Army’s new IBCS air and missile defense network. }

A Crucial Test For IBCS 2.0

IBCS – an awkward nested acronym for IAMD (Integrated Air and Missile Defense) Battle Command System – will be the electronic nervous system for the future air and missile defense force, allowing formerly separate systems like Patriot and THAAD to share targeting data with split-second timing. Future versions may evolve beyond just linking Army systems to plug in the Air Force and Navy as well. It’s been the top-priority program for Army air & missile defenders for years.

{ A simplified (yes, really) overview of the Army’s IBCS command-and-control network for air and missile defense. }

Now IBCS is finally going through its official Limited User Test ahead of this fall’s formal Milestone C review, where Army officials will decide whether or not to move ahead to mass production. An earlier LUT, in 2016, had so many software crashes and other problems that the program was delayed by years and thoroughly reorganized. That makes this second LUT all the more crucial for IBCS 2.0.

The Limited User Test runs two and a half months – longer if COVID, weather, or technical glitches intervene – and is broken into four phases, Brig. Gen. Gibson explained:

Simulated targets, July 7-24: With the troops and equipment in place at White Sands, testers hooked up the IBCS system to simulators, checking how it handled the influx of data from a host of different scenarios. “We’ve finished Phase 1 and met all the test objectives,” Gibson said.

Live targets, July 25 though Aug. 7: This phase is ongoing. The radars connected to IBCS are now picking up actual, physical targets flying over White Sands, then feeding that real-world data over the network to the IBCS mobile command post and the Patriot batteries.

Live fire, Aug. 8-23: In this phase, the IBCS network will send the Patriot launchers not just targeting data, but orders to fire. In each of two separate live-fire events about a week apart, the system will track multiple targets and engage them with multiple Patriot missiles. Details are classified, but Gibson said each scenario would involve a mix of different threats. (We’d speculate that probably means both drones and surrogate cruise missiles).

Cyber/Electronic warfare testing, Aug. 24-Sept. 20: After testing IBCS against physical threats, Gibson said, the Army will check how the network holds up against challenges in cyberspace and the electromagnetic spectrum, along with other technical issues.

All the upcoming dates here are subject to change, Gibson cautioned, given the complexities of testing high tech in the real world. “The weather gets a vote — it is monsoon season out in the southwest,” he said. “COVID gets a vote. [And] there’s always Murphy out there.”

{ The IM-SHORAD prototype anti-aircraft Stryker test-fires a Hellfire missile in February, 2020. }

IM-SHORAD On Maneuvers

While IBCS is the brains and nerves of the future air and missile defense force, IM-SHORAD is its trench knife. In the 1990s and 2000s, the Army upgraded Patriot and fielded THAAD to shoot down high-flying ballistic missiles at long range. But for Short Range Air Defense of frontline forces against enemy helicopter gunships, attack jets, and (nowadays) drones, the Army still relies on the Cold War-era Stinger – made famous by the Afghan mujahideen – mounted on lightly protected Humvees, a combination called Avenger. The goal of the Interim Maneuver-SHORAD program is to rapidly mount a wider array of weapons on a tougher vehicle.

{ Avenger anti-aircraft missile vehicle. }

That’ll take some training for the troops to get used to, Brig. Gen. Gibson said, which is why the actual unit set to receive the first IM-SHORAD vehicles already has troops training on them at White Sands. The soldiers are already well-versed in air defense tactics, he explained, but they need to add Hellfires and 30 mm autocannon to their arsenal alongside the familiar Stingers. They need to learn how to maintain the more complicated Stryker and how to maneuver the 20-plus-ton, eight-wheel-drive machine over rough ground that would defeat their current 4×4 Humvees. And they need to practice tactics that exploit the Strykers’ superior mobility and armor protection to operate much closer to the front line.

To do that, the Army is bringing a reinforced company of mechanized infantry to White Sands – over 100 soldiers mounted in more than a dozen M2 Bradley armored transports – to train alongside the four prototype Strykers of the IM-SHORAD platoon.

As with IBCS, the IM-SHORAD field test is broken into phases, with Army testing technicians embedded with the combat troops throughout:

Maneuver, July 20-Oct. 26: The Stryker platoon has already started training to operate and maintain their new vehicles, Gibson said. Soon they’ll get “out of the motor pool” and onto the ranges at White Sands to maneuver – first as a four-vehicle platoon, then in conjunction with the Bradley company.

Live fire, Nov. 2- Dec. 18: After their combined-arms training with the Bradleys, the Stryker crews will move on to live-fire shots against aerial targets. For safety reasons, this phase is much more restricted than the free-ranging field maneuvers.

The feedback from the troops and testers at White Sands will inform the Army’s decision to buy the IM-SHORAD vehicle in bulk and fielding it to combat units. “We still are on track, by the end of this fiscal year, to make a recommendation to Army senior leadership on whether or not to proceed with buying the first battalion set of these prototypes,” Gibson told me. The overall plan is to field 144 vehicles, enough for four battalions, by mid-2023.

Now, IM-SHORAD and IBCS are far from the Army’s only air & missile defense programs, just the ones furthest along. This fall should also see the delivery of the first Iron Dome anti-rocket battery from Israel, construction of prototype LTAMDS radars, and R&D on high-powered lasers. You can read more from Brig. Gen. Gibson and other top officials in upcoming stories, part of our ongoing preview coverage for Tuesday’s Space & Missile Defense conference.

_
Yes, I know they are repeatedly using the same photos, I hate it as much as you all.

Anyway, truly integrated air defense has been a holy grail for a long time. I dearly hope it works as advertised.

BONE_Buddy · Aug 7, 2020

Finally two articles on the same Ballistic Missile Defense

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/smd/2020/08/07/alaska-based-long-range-ballistic-missile-defense-radar-fielding-delayed-by-a-year/

Alaska-based long-range ballistic missile defense radar fielding delayed by a year

{Clear Air Force Station’s $347 million Long Range Discrimination Radar complex is seen June 6, 2018. (John Budnik/U.S. Army)}

WASHINGTON — The fielding of a U.S. Air Force radar to detect ballistic missile threats, currently being installed at Clear Air Force Station, Alaska, is delayed by roughly a year, according to a recent Government Accountability Office report.

Information provided by the Missile Defense Agency in June to the GAO indicated all construction and integration activities for the Long Range Discrimination Radar had stopped in March due to the coronavirus pandemic.

While initial fielding was planned for fiscal 2021 and transfer to the Air Force was planned for fiscal 2022, the service is now expected to take ownership of the operational radar in late fiscal 2023.

“We did have some fallback in developing and delivery of systems because it requires people to be in close, confined spaces and sitting at computer terminals working through really tough problems like the development of an algorithm,” MDA Director Vice Adm. Jon Hill said at the virtually held Space and Missile Defense Symposium on Aug. 4.

MDA shut down radar installation efforts due to the COVID-19 pandemic, entering a “caretaker status,” Hill said. “That requires additional work. I mean, you’ve got a radar that is being built in a tough environment like Alaska — you can’t just stop. You have to go in and make sure the radar arrays are protected,” he added.

The LRDR is an S-band radar that will not only be able to track incoming missiles but also discriminate the warhead-carrying vehicle from decoys and other nonlethal objects for the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System, which is designed to protect the continental U.S. from possible intercontinental ballistic missile threats from North Korea and Iran.
Lockheed Martin is LRDR’s manufacturer.

The program, according to the GAO report, wrapped up its system prototype assessment in an operational environment in FY19, which showed the hardware and software was mature ahead of full-rate manufacturing. That assessment was delayed from FY18, the report noted, after testing took longer due to “required antenna reconfigurations and software fixes to complete.”

The fixes resulted in a cost overrun of $25 million and caused a delay in completing a developmental step associated with satellite tracking expected in FY18, according to the report.

“While construction was ongoing in [FY19], the program was monitoring risks that could threaten the upcoming transfer of LRDR custody and ownership to the government,” the report stated. “Specifically the program was focusing on manufacturing of the Array Panels, Sub Array Assembly Suite modules, and Auxiliary Power Group cabinets, as well as ensuring integration on site.”

Those issues “depleted schedule margin on the path towards the transfer,” which was scheduled for the fourth quarter of FY20, according to the GAO, and the transfer of LRDR custody to the government was pushed back to the first quarter of FY21 due to radar component production issues.

“The good news is construction is back up and running,” Hill said, “and we are delivering those arrays that are going into low-power and high-power testing later this year, so we are pretty excited about that.”

According to the GAO, the current test plan for LRDR has just one flight test scheduled in the third quarter of FY21, after two ground tests. The report does not clarify if the pandemic has caused a delay in these tests.

The GAO indicated concern about conducting two ground tests before the program’s only flight test, as it “increases the likelihood that the models will not be accredited when testing is complete.”

As a result, “the performance analysis and the majority of the model validation and accreditation will have to be made concurrently, just prior to the LRDR Technical Capability Declaration,” scheduled for the third quarter of FY21, the report stated. “This increases the risk of discovering issues late in development, which could result in performance reductions or delivery delays.”
_____________________________________________________________________________

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/smd/2020/08/07/support-to-pursue-hawaii-based-missile-defense-radar-continues-after-dod-drops-funding/

Support to pursue Hawaii-based missile defense radar continues after DoD drops funding

{The Sea-Based X-Band Radar is a deployed system designed to protect the Pacific region from ballistic missile threats and could be used in concert with a Homeland Defense Radar in Hawaii. (MC2 Robert Stirrup/U.S. Navy)}

WASHINGTON — Support is growing both in Congress and in the Pentagon to pursue a Hawaii-based ballistic missile defense radar that the Missile Defense Agency did not include in its fiscal 2021 funding request.

Previous MDA budget requests in FY19 and FY20 asked for funding for the discriminating radar as well as another somewhere else in the Pacific. The plan in FY19 was to field the Homeland Defense Radar-Hawaii, or HDR-H, by FY23, which meant military construction would have taken place beginning in FY21. Then in FY20, MDA requested $247.7 million for the radar. Lockheed Martin received an award to develop the radar in December 2018.

But in FY21, funding for both the Hawaiian radar and the Pacific radar was missing in the request. MDA Director Vice Adm. Jon Hill said in February, when the request was released, that the agency decided to hit the brakes on its plans to set up the radars in the Pacific, instead planning to take a new look at the sensor architecture in the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command region to figure out what is necessary to handle emerging threats.

Hill noted that the area is covered by a forward-deployed AN/TPY-2 radar in Hawaii as well as the deployable Sea-Based X-Band radar. Additionally, Aegis ships with their radars are mobile and can be repositioned as needed to address threats in the near term, he added.

Yet, over the summer, the Hawaiian radar gained traction in Congress via funding support in the House Appropriations Committee’s defense subcommittee’s version of the FY21 defense spending bill and the Senate Armed Services Committee’s version of the defense policy bill.

The House subcommittee injected $133 million to pursue the homeland defense radar in Hawaii, and the SASC added in $162 million to continue HDR-H development. The SASC also included language that essentially reminded the Pentagon that HDR-H was a response to a mandate in the FY18 National Defense Authorization Act to improve coverage for the threat of ballistic missiles in Hawaii.

The HDR-H was also listed as an unfunded requirement for FY21 by Indo-Pacific Command.

The SASC also directed the MDA to provide an updated plan that accounts for delays related to finding a site in Hawaii, noting it expects the Pentagon to fund the program in subsequent budget requests.

During a presentation at the virtually held Space and Missile Defense Symposium on Aug. 4, Hill showed a slide listing focus areas for the agency in FY21. The presentation included the currently unfunded radar, third from the top of the list.

“The potential for getting a radar onto Hawaii as part of another major sensor allows us to have that launch-all-the-way-to-intercept view out in a very large ocean area in the Pacific,” Hill said.

The HDR-H is categorized as a focus area for the MDA “because if the [Defense] Department decides to move forward with HDR-H, then the HDR-H will be deployed as part of the U.S. homeland defense architecture against long-range threats,” Mark Wright, MDA spokesman, told Defense News in an Aug. 6 statement.

The missile defense architecture “must evolve with advancements of the threat,” he added. “Space sensors do not replace but complement ground-based radars by providing track custody during radar coverage gaps. Having both terrestrial radar and space sensors provides dual phenomenology to accurately track and discriminate the threat as it continues to become more complex.”
__----------------------------

Make of this what you will.

Snekposter · Aug 8, 2020

Just gonna say that the Marines are like Orks. Absolutely devoid of anything resembling higher thought processes and exist only to drink, fight, and muck about (sometimes all at once!), but if you want something to explode or make other things explode, they'll get it done... somehow. They'll just be as clueless as to how they did it as you are.

NerdShamer · Aug 8, 2020

Snekposter said:
Just gonna say that the Marines are like Orks. Absolutely devoid of anything resembling higher thought processes and exist only to drink, fight, and muck about (sometimes all at once!), but if you want something to explode or make other things explode, they'll get it done... somehow. They'll just be as clueless as to how they did it as you are.

Well, the main point of being an Marine is essentially being a rifleman.

And torturing each other in boot camp.

Snekposter · Aug 9, 2020

No no. I'm not talking about just the infantry. Everyone from the aviators to computer techs are idiot-savants that are clueless as all hell about things that don't make things explode. Of course, the simpler, and probably more truthful answer is that the Marines just got it done because they're perpetually broke and couldn't exactly beg extra money from Congress to build a dedicated computer system for them, and nobody wants to admit that it can be done that easily if you consider "red tape" to be the sort of thing fancy people put on expensive gifts.

BONE_Buddy · Aug 9, 2020

I got Space news, Asian Military Developments, Closure, and a new geo-political insight.

https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/space/2020/08/07/spacex-and-ula-win-massive-national-security-launch-contracts/

SpaceX and ULA win massive national security launch contracts

{ The contracts will support more than 30 heavy lift launches planned between fiscal 2022 through 2027. (SpaceX) }

SpaceX and United Launch Alliance have won massive five-year National Security Space Launch contracts from the U.S. Space Force and National Reconnaissance Office, the Space and Missile Systems Center announced Aug. 7.

The contracts will support more than 30 heavy lift launches planned between fiscal 2022 through 2027, with task orders to be made from fiscal 2020 through 2024. 60 percent of launch services orders will go to ULA, with SpaceX taking up the remaining 40 percent. The two Firm-Fixed-Price, Indefinite Delivery Requirement contracts included funding for the first year of launches: $337 for ULA and $316 for SpaceX.

“This is a groundbreaking day, culminating years of strategic planning and effort by the Department of the Air Force, NRO and our launch service industry partners,” said William Roper, assistant secretary of the U.S. Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in a statement. “Maintaining a competitive launch market, servicing both government and commercial customers, is how we encourage continued innovation on assured access to space. Today’s awards mark a new epoch of space launch that will finally transition the Department off Russian RD-180 engines.”

Following a Congressional mandate, the Department of Defense began the NSSL competition in 2019 to end U.S. reliance on the Russian propulsion systems used for the Atlas V and Delta IV rockets. A four-way competition ensued, with Blue Origin, Northrop Grumman and ULA designing new rockets for the military and SpaceX submitting their already certified Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets. The Space and Missile Systems Center claimed that a report issued in April by think tank RAND supported its decision to award contracts to only two launch providers, arguing that the market could only support two.

“This landmark award begins the dawn of a new decade in U.S. launch innovation, while promoting competition, maintaining a healthy industrial base, and reinforcing our global competitive advantage,” stated Lt. Gen. John Thompson, commander of SMC and program executive officer for space. “This acquisition will maintain our unprecedented mission success record, transition National Security Space payloads to new launch vehicles, assure access for current and future space architectures and cultivate innovative mission assurance practices.”

With the announcement, SMC announced the first three missions to be assigned under the new contracts: USSF-51 and USSF-106 for ULA, and USSF-67 for SpaceX. All three will take place in fiscal 2022.

______
Consider this the death of Northrop Grumman's OmegA rocket. Blue Origin will continue to exist as a vanity project with little actual capabilities.

ULA remains the dominate US NatSec space launcher, though those days are looking numbered.

SpaceX continues to look like it will come to dominate all sectors of the space launch business.

Speaking of SpaceX:

https://defence-blog.com/news/u-s-space-force-delivered-fourth-gps-iii-satellite-to-cape-canaveral.html

U.S. Space Force delivered fourth GPS III satellite to Cape Canaveral

On 6 August, the U.S. Space Force has announced that it has shipped fourth Lockheed Martin-built GPS III Space Vehicle (GPS III SV04) to Cape Canaveral.

The U.S. Space Force Space and Missile Systems Center successfully delivered the fourth Global Positioning System (GPS) III satellite to Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, July 14.

GPS III Space Vehicle (SV) 04 was safely transported from the Lockheed Martin facility in Waterton, Colorado to Space Coast Regional Airport in Titusville, Florida. The satellite was carried aboard a C-17 Globemaster III originating from Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington.

The delivery of GPS III SV04 starts the clock for final testing and checkout prior to launch. The satellite will be processed at the Astrotech Space Operations facility in Florida to ensure the full functionality of the satellite, prepare the satellite for propellant loading, and encapsulate the satellite in its protective fairing. At the completion of these activities, the satellite will be horizontally integrated with the SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle.

“The shipment of the fourth GPS III satellite was successfully conducted just two weeks after the launch of our GPS III-SV03 satellite. This operation is a remarkable achievement and testament to the hard work of the entire GPS team members from all across the country,” said Col. Edward Byrne, SMC’s Medium Earth Orbit Space Systems Division chief. “The delivery of SV04 marks the start of our third GPS III launch campaign on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket and brings us another step closer in advancing the GPS constellation with more capable satellites.”

GPS III SV04 is slated to launch in September 2020. Once on-orbit, it will join the operational constellation of 31 GPS satellites, delivering enhanced resiliency, better accuracy, and advanced anti-jam capabilities. GPS delivers the gold standard in positioning, navigation, and timing services supporting vital U.S. and allied operations worldwide, and underpins critical financial institutions, transportation services, and agricultural industries.
________________________________________
Upgrades to GPS infrastructure so as to prevent GPS spoofing and Jamming.

Now to the East Asian Tech front:

http://alert5.com/2020/08/08/japan-unveils-plan-to-develop-mage-island-into-fclp-for-cvw-5-and-jsdf-f-35bs/

Japan unveils plan to develop Mage Island into FCLP for CVW 5 and JSDF F-35Bs

The Japanese government has unveiled its plan on how to develop Mage Island, off Kagoshima Prefecture, into a Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) facility for Carrier Air Wing 5 (CVW 5) of the U.S. Navy and Japanese F-35Bs.

512px-131027_Mage_Island_Nishinoomote_Kagoshima_pref_Japan01ss.jpg

Tokyo will pay $151 million to the owner of the island and an environment impact assessment will be carried out this fall.

There will be two runways, a hangar, and a fuel facility at the base. The main runway is about 8,00 feet long, and the secondary is about 6,000 feet long. About 150 to 200 Self Defense Force personnel are to be stationed there. Construction will take 4 years.

The base will be resupplied by JGSDF MV-22s.

Currently, U.S. Navy pilots practise simulated aircraft carrier landings at the FCLP at Iwo Jima, which is 1,400km from their base in MCAS Iwakuni.

The new FCLP at Mage will be cut the distance down to 400km.

_____________________
Because the article doesn't provide a map, I have deigned to give you one:

Mage Island is Mageshima.

Now for Korea:

https://defence-blog.com/news/south-korea-unveils-new-fighter-jet-radar-designed-for-air-dominance.html

South Korea unveils new fighter jet radar designed for air dominance

A prototype of the Active Electronically Scanning Array (AESA) radar locally developed in South Korea for the country’s upcoming future fighter jet was unveiled at a joint ceremony held by Agency for Defense Development, Hanwha Systems, and Defense Acquisition Program Administration.

A new radar is the core gadget for Korea’s indigenous KF-X fighter jets, which provides detection and tracking of multiple air, ground, naval targets by radiating beams from its airborne platforms.

AESA radar can detect and track hundreds of ground targets, and this capability can be applied to hunting down North Korea’s transporter erector launchers (TEL).

The new radar is expected to perform better than a fire control radar of the recent version of the F-16 fighter jets.

_
I don't speak moon runes. So if someone who knows the language, and sees something interesting in those images, feel free to translate.

As for my actual opinions on the subject? Good for them, but let's see if they actually put them on any of their planes.

As for the KF-X fighter itself? It has been vapor ware for as long as the Japanese F-3 Fighter. We'll see.

BONE_Buddy · Aug 9, 2020

Sailor, Marines' Remains and Sunken AAV Recovered Off San Clemente Island - USNI News

Navy salvage teams on Friday recovered the bodies of the seven Marines and sailor missing after their amphibious assault vehicle sank during training July 30 off Southern California, the Marine Corps announced late Friday. Crews also recovered the AAV after a week-long underwater search and...

news.usni.org

Sailor, Marines’ Remains and Sunken AAV Recovered Off San Clemente Island

Navy salvage teams on Friday recovered the bodies of the seven Marines and sailor missing after their amphibious assault vehicle sank during training July 30 off Southern California, the Marine Corps announced late Friday.

Crews also recovered the AAV after a week-long underwater search and salvage operation off San Clemente Island, the I Marine Expeditionary Force officials said in a statement.

“Our hearts and thoughts of the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit are with the families of our recovered Marines and sailor,” Col. Christopher Bronzi, the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit commander, said in the statement. “We hope the successful recovery of our fallen warriors brings some measure of comfort.”

The bodies of the fallen Marines and sailor will be transferred to Dover Air Force Base, Del., for preparation by mortuary affairs teams for burial. “Marine and Navy pallbearers will place the remains aboard an aircraft bound for Dover AFB in a solemn transfer. From Dover AFB, their remains will then be released to their families in accordance with their wishes,” I MEF officials said in the statement.

“The transfer of remains will not be open to the public, and we ask that the privacy of the families be respected as they make final arrangements for their loved ones,” they added.

The vehicle’s recovery is expected to aid in the Marine Corps’ investigation into what happened to cause the 26-ton vehicle to sink as the AAV was returning to amphibious transport dock USS Somerset (LPD-25) after several days training at San Clemente Island.

Seven Marines, including the vehicle’s crew, survived after they were rescued before the AAV sunk in 385-foot deep water.

Eight other Marines and a sailor assigned to Bravo Company, Battalion Landing Team 1st Battalion, 4th Marines, died after the AAV sunk after reportedly taking on water more than a mile off the coast. The unit is the ground combat element for the 15th MEU, a Camp Pendleton, Calif.-based unit training ahead of a scheduled deployment with the USS Makin Island Amphibious Ready Group.

Pfc. Bryan J. Baltierra, 19, of Corona, Calif., a rifleman.
Lance Cpl. Marco A. Barranco, 21, of Montebello, Calif., a rifleman.
Pfc. Evan A. Bath, 19, of Oak Creek, Wisc., a rifleman.
U.S. Navy Hospitalman Christopher Gnem, 22, of Stockton, Calif., a hospital corpsman.
Pfc. Jack Ryan Ostrovsky, 21, of Bend, Ore., a rifleman.
Cpl. Wesley A. Rodd, 23, of Harris, Texas, a rifleman.
Lance Cpl. Chase D. Sweetwood, 19, of Portland, Ore., a rifleman.
Cpl. Cesar A. Villanueva, 21, of Riverside, Calif., a rifleman.

One of those Marines – Lance Cpl. Guillermo S. Perez, 19, of New Braunfels, Texas – was pronounced dead at the scene. Perez’s remains were transferred Aug. 5 to Dover AFB, according to I MEF.

The Navy’s Undersea Rescue Command teams operating its Sibitzky Remotely Operated Vehicle from the deck of the Military Sealift Command-chartered merchant vessel HOS Dominator located the AAV. Additional diving and salvage teams arrived Thursday to recover the fallen service members and the amtrac, according to I MEF.

The 15 MEU was training with the Makin Island Amphibious Ready Group ahead of an anticipated deployment later this year.

The Marine Corps ordered a pause to all waterborne AAV operations until the service gets a better grasp of what caused the vehicle to sink.

______________________________
At least the families will have a body to bury.

BONE_Buddy · Aug 9, 2020

Here's a Thunk-piece. Make of it what you will:
Fast Deployments Deter Better Than Bases: Stimson
The data show the deployment of an amphibious ready group was effective, as was the movement of an aircraft carrier strike group. Deploying ground forces and land-based air forces in significant numbers also were effective attention-getters.

Last week, the Senate and House voted to prohibit any reduction in America’s permanent troop deployment to Europe in a rare display of bipartisan unity, only to see President Trump ignore them days later when he announced troop withdrawals from Germany. Senate Republicans had stood up to the president, joining Democratic colleagues to deny Trump a campaign pledge to reduce US forces overseas. Regrettably, this rare bipartisan act is wrong-headed. Why? New research shows that permanent troop deployments have little impact on America’s ability to deter aggression overseas, while carrying significant costs of their own.

Pentagon leaders have consistently resisted the president’s entreaties to reduce permanent overseas troop deployments, be it in South Korea, Japan, or – most recently – Germany, worrying it will embolden China, North Korea or Russia. Maintaining permanent forces abroad, typically with their families, is remarkably expensive. And Russian aggression in Ukraine and Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea should make military policymakers question their conventional wisdom.

The Stimson Center recently completed an analysis of more than 100 events since the end of the Cold War, when the US used the armed forces to coerce another country without resorting to actual war. For example: US leaders have sent aircraft carriers into the Persian Gulf to convince Iran to change its behavior, and held frequent military exercises with South Korea to demonstrate US resolve to the North. One key finding of the Stimson research is that, during a crisis, moving new forces into the region does significantly increase the chance that an adversary will back down. But the number of troops, aircraft, and ships already in the region prior to a crisis had no impact on the outcome.

The statistics show that permanent deployments are seen by our adversaries as part of the woodwork – factors that can be discounted when judging America’s seriousness. What caught the attention of the decision-makers the U.S. was trying to coerce was the demonstration of resolve when additional American forces are put at risk. Moreover, it was the fact of moving forces — not the types of forces moved –that mattered. The data show that the deployment of an amphibious ready group was effective, as was the movement of an aircraft carrier strike group. Deploying ground forces and land-based air forces in significant numbers also were effective attention-getters. Unlike other forms of escalation – such as economic sanctions, which may be interpreted as signs of weakness — adding firepower is what got the attention of potential adversaries.

For example, the permanent US presence in South Korea and Japan did not seem to deter North Korea from provocative actions during the latter years of the Obama Administration. The temporary movement of US strategic bombers and advanced fighters to South Korea – and their flights just outside North Korea’s airspace – did seem to get Kim Jong-un’s attention. Similarly, the temporary deployment of US ground and land-based air forces to Eastern Europe in recent years seems to have put Russia’s threats to move beyond Ukraine on hold, at least temporarily, whereas the 30,000 troops based primarily in Germany did not seem to have been noticed.

{ B-52 flies low near North Korea Jan. 2016 }

Permanent troop deployments overseas do serve many purposes. They seem to reassure allies about our security commitment, and that has value. U.S. commanders become more familiar with potential battlespaces and operating with allied forces. But these purposes can be served by frequent temporary deployments for joint exercises. And the additional money that President Trump would like allies to spend to support our permanent presence could be better spent building out the infrastructure to facilitate the rapid movement of forces into the theater when it’s most likely to matter. Improving airfields, ports and transport lines would be helpful, for example, as would enlarging logistical hubs for pre-deployed tanks and other heavy equipment.

In the end, this finding is an argument for a more nimble US military, along with the intelligence and surveillance resources necessary to keep a close eye on the military readiness of potential adversaries. It may be that when considering how best to protect America’s friends abroad, it is useful to consider the mantra of the great boxer, Mohammed Ali. Don’t stay rooted in one place. Instead: “Float like a butterfly; sting like a bee.”

Barry Blechman is co-founder of the Stimson Center. The study referenced in this article, Military Coercion and US Foreign Policy, co-edited by Melanie Sisson, James Siebens, and Blechman, was published in May by Routledge.
____________
A very interesting take on the subject.

NerdShamer · Aug 9, 2020

BONE_Buddy said:
Here's a Thunk-piece. Make of it what you will:
Fast Deployments Deter Better Than Bases: Stimson
The data show the deployment of an amphibious ready group was effective, as was the movement of an aircraft carrier strike group. Deploying ground forces and land-based air forces in significant numbers also were effective attention-getters.
View attachment 1506731

Last week, the Senate and House voted to prohibit any reduction in America’s permanent troop deployment to Europe in a rare display of bipartisan unity, only to see President Trump ignore them days later when he announced troop withdrawals from Germany. Senate Republicans had stood up to the president, joining Democratic colleagues to deny Trump a campaign pledge to reduce US forces overseas. Regrettably, this rare bipartisan act is wrong-headed. Why? New research shows that permanent troop deployments have little impact on America’s ability to deter aggression overseas, while carrying significant costs of their own.

Pentagon leaders have consistently resisted the president’s entreaties to reduce permanent overseas troop deployments, be it in South Korea, Japan, or – most recently – Germany, worrying it will embolden China, North Korea or Russia. Maintaining permanent forces abroad, typically with their families, is remarkably expensive. And Russian aggression in Ukraine and Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea should make military policymakers question their conventional wisdom.

The Stimson Center recently completed an analysis of more than 100 events since the end of the Cold War, when the US used the armed forces to coerce another country without resorting to actual war. For example: US leaders have sent aircraft carriers into the Persian Gulf to convince Iran to change its behavior, and held frequent military exercises with South Korea to demonstrate US resolve to the North. One key finding of the Stimson research is that, during a crisis, moving new forces into the region does significantly increase the chance that an adversary will back down. But the number of troops, aircraft, and ships already in the region prior to a crisis had no impact on the outcome.

The statistics show that permanent deployments are seen by our adversaries as part of the woodwork – factors that can be discounted when judging America’s seriousness. What caught the attention of the decision-makers the U.S. was trying to coerce was the demonstration of resolve when additional American forces are put at risk. Moreover, it was the fact of moving forces — not the types of forces moved –that mattered. The data show that the deployment of an amphibious ready group was effective, as was the movement of an aircraft carrier strike group. Deploying ground forces and land-based air forces in significant numbers also were effective attention-getters. Unlike other forms of escalation – such as economic sanctions, which may be interpreted as signs of weakness — adding firepower is what got the attention of potential adversaries.

For example, the permanent US presence in South Korea and Japan did not seem to deter North Korea from provocative actions during the latter years of the Obama Administration. The temporary movement of US strategic bombers and advanced fighters to South Korea – and their flights just outside North Korea’s airspace – did seem to get Kim Jong-un’s attention. Similarly, the temporary deployment of US ground and land-based air forces to Eastern Europe in recent years seems to have put Russia’s threats to move beyond Ukraine on hold, at least temporarily, whereas the 30,000 troops based primarily in Germany did not seem to have been noticed.
View attachment 1506732
{ B-52 flies low near North Korea Jan. 2016 }

Permanent troop deployments overseas do serve many purposes. They seem to reassure allies about our security commitment, and that has value. U.S. commanders become more familiar with potential battlespaces and operating with allied forces. But these purposes can be served by frequent temporary deployments for joint exercises. And the additional money that President Trump would like allies to spend to support our permanent presence could be better spent building out the infrastructure to facilitate the rapid movement of forces into the theater when it’s most likely to matter. Improving airfields, ports and transport lines would be helpful, for example, as would enlarging logistical hubs for pre-deployed tanks and other heavy equipment.

In the end, this finding is an argument for a more nimble US military, along with the intelligence and surveillance resources necessary to keep a close eye on the military readiness of potential adversaries. It may be that when considering how best to protect America’s friends abroad, it is useful to consider the mantra of the great boxer, Mohammed Ali. Don’t stay rooted in one place. Instead: “Float like a butterfly; sting like a bee.”

Barry Blechman is co-founder of the Stimson Center. The study referenced in this article, Military Coercion and US Foreign Policy, co-edited by Melanie Sisson, James Siebens, and Blechman, was published in May by Routledge.
____________
A very interesting take on the subject.

This works by your enemy getting geared up to take on what's already there. But as soon as he sees enough reinforcements to outmatch him, he's forced to back down and reconsider his options. Almost how you're getting ready to kill everyone in a gas station and you see the Highway Patrol just cruising by on the road for no apparent reason.

usernames can change now! · Aug 9, 2020

The problem with coercing Iran by putting a CV in the Gulf is that you're essentially baiting Iran into shooting it. They're quite capable of sinking a carrier in the Gulf, it's a confined area in range of every missile Iran has. Iran hasn't been stupid enough to try shooting a carrier yet, but if they did they would do serious damage.

And then get sent back to the stone age by America's other dozen or so flattops.

BONE_Buddy · Aug 9, 2020

Kiwi FBI Liason said:
The problem with coercing Iran by putting a CV in the Gulf is that you're essentially baiting Iran into shooting it. They're quite capable of sinking a carrier in the Gulf, it's a confined area in range of every missile Iran has. Iran hasn't been stupid enough to try shooting a carrier yet, but if they did they would do serious damage.

And then get sent back to the stone age by America's other dozen or so flattops.

Right, which is why most of the war plans with Iran start with having the Carriers outside the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. If you ever see tensions get really hot and instead of showboating in the Gulfs, we have Carriers lingering around the Arabian Sea, then you need to start worrying.

As for what to cycle in to intimidate Iran, I prefer the idea of cycling in a few Wings of F-15E/EXs, A section of F-35As, and Anti-Air Defenses to the Saudis & Friends bases. Enough to declaw the worst of the Iranian Offensive capabilities. After that, Bring the Carriers in closer. We don't need to invade Iran per say, we just need to be able to disrupt government forces enough for the locals to rebel.

If the civil population doesn't rebel, then the resultant blockade will render the Iranians incapable of doing jack shit until they cry uncle.

_
Either way, you are right, having Carriers within a 100 miles of an enemy coast is pretty risky, at least until the Anti-Ship Missiles are destroyed or disabled.

Snekposter · Aug 10, 2020

The US also doesn't need to go to full blown war with Iran. Don't forget there's plenty of offshore oil platforms that could be targeted by amphibious raiding teams, and presumably, their machinery destroyed in a way that minimizes ecological danger. There's also plenty of oil processing facilities on the shore that would be vulnerable to an air strike. Given Iran's oil export economy, shut down the oil, and they can't buy friendship or support. Not the first time we've gone after Iranian oil, either. Two deaths, one destroyed Cobra heli, and some expended munitions as casualties on the US end, but Iran had half its fleet and two oil platforms put out of action. Anyone seriously think Iran will do much better next time?

BONE_Buddy · Aug 10, 2020

Hey guys, I just thought I would let you all know that I am going to be on hiatus for about a week. I will be back, to the disappointment of some I am sure. See you gentlemen then!

INVCTS · Aug 11, 2020

I'm sure this source is way to mainstream to be reporting new stuff, but as a relative neophyte to this topic they did a good job explaining explaining stuff so my stupid ass could understand.

usernames can change now! · Aug 11, 2020

I miss ADATS.

NerdShamer · Aug 11, 2020

INVCTS said:
I'm sure this source is way to mainstream to be reporting new stuff, but as a relative neophyte to this topic they did a good job explaining explaining stuff so my stupid ass could understand.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Xiv_Bo9WGkQ

Lol'd at the flying humvee.

But this is the perennial problem with developing new military hardware: Something old and reliable gets upgraded to the point that it gets replaced by an stopgap. The stopgap turns out to have it set of flaws and the new guy has problems getting approved.

CrippleThreat · Aug 16, 2020

Death from above: China touts airfield destroyer

Death from above: China touts airfield destroyer - Asia Times

archived 16 Aug 2020 23:35:40 UTC

archive.vn

Airborne munitions dispenser dropped by an aircraft can release hundreds of submunitions that can devastate an area.

China claims it now has a weapon that can destroy an entire airfield in one shot — a weapon that dispenses several munitions, and, that can fly to the destination after being dropped. Credit: China Military Online.

During the 1982 Falklands War between Argentina and Britain, Vulcan bomber 607, which would take seventeen separate in-flight refuellings in radio silence to get it to its target and back, dropped its “iron bombs” in a daring raid on Port Stanley airfield, rendering the runways unusable.

The attack not only disabled the landing strip, preventing Argentina from landing front-line fighters, the 8,000-mile, 16-hour return journey also set a world record for the longest-ever bombing mission.

An incredible military accomplishment of the day, no less, and one that proved critical in the conflict.
Fast forward to the technology of 2020, and China is now touting a new weapon that it claims can destroy an entire airfield in one go.

Not a runway, mind you, but the entire airfield. If the report is credible, this is yet another terrifying weapon that will keep Pentagon planners up at night.

According to The Global Times, China has revealed a type of domestically developed airborne munitions dispenser, a hybrid weapon that lies between an air-to-ground missile and a guided bomb droppable by an aircraft from a safe distance, that can release hundreds of submunitions that cover a large area.
This kind of weapon can effectively paralyze an airfield in one shot, leaving enemy warplanes grounded or destroyed, experts claimed.

Formally classified as a guided glide dispenser bomb, this highly accurate, modularized weapon weighs 500 kilograms, Global Times reported.

While it looks like a missile, it has a square cross-section to hold more submunitions. This design can also reduce the weapon’s radar cross-section, enhancing the weapon’s stealth capability, making it more difficult to intercept, according to a report by China Central Television (CCTV).

When dropped, the dispenser can open its wings, which can provide extra lift force and controllability and allow it to have a range of more than 60 kilometers, the CCTV report said, noting that this means the aircraft carrying it can safely drop the weapon without entering the enemy’s air defense zone.

Each dispenser can carry 240 submunitions of six types, which when released will cover more than 6,000 square meters, CCTV quoted a senior engineer at the weapon’s manufacturer, China North Industries Group Corp (NORINCO), as saying.

When attacking groups of tanks and armored vehicles, the dispenser can use anti-tank submunitions that can penetrate tanks’ armor from the top, or it can equip regional lockdown submunitions when attacking large facilities like airfields, CCTV reported.

A typical munitions dispenser like this can disable an airfield for an extended period with only one shot, because the sheer number of submunitions means the whole runway will be destroyed.

It is also possible that some of the submunitions will be mines, which will make attempts to repair the runway very risky, a Chinese military expert told the Global Times on condition of anonymity.

This will provide crucial battle opportunities, because it means the enemy would not be able to make any warplane sorties, and the user of the dispenser can seize air superiority and gain tactical and even strategic advantages, the expert said.

-----
Why do I get the feeling that this big, new innovation is already outdated?

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.

Slava Ukraini

Not dead yet.

Loaded Like A Boxcar Moving Like A Racecar

Not dead yet.

Not dead yet.

Operation: Desert Snek

Friendship Windmill

Operation: Desert Snek

Not dead yet.

Not dead yet.

Not dead yet.

Friendship Windmill

Slava Ukraini

Not dead yet.

Operation: Desert Snek

Not dead yet.

Slava Ukraini

Friendship Windmill

At least my third leg is still working.

Attachments