Some unrelated recent military procurment storiess since I am getting bored of Ukraine

[Condottiere 40K]

Long ranged air defence systems can be used aggressively to close down air space deep into other countries.

[conon394]

7 Things The Marines Have To Do To Make The F-35B Worth The Huge Cost

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/7-...rth-1560672069

At its core makes the same argument made here the A and C and the version should have been one aircraft and the B version a different aircraft. But makes the further argument that the USMC won in the sense that it got a better it could have expected Harrier replacement, while the USN and USAF lost because of it.

With that in mind the author recommends the USMC purse what I think you call a CVL plan. Mostly buy ASAP all the potential variation of the V-22 on the table: Long range search and rescue, refueling, and an AEWC version. Some sundry other things - but forgets adding Ski jumps to at least the America class. If you (the USN) are going to worry for real about a potential war with China a distributed CVL ability would handy.

[conon394]

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...h-chinas-25964

Looks BA was lucky to miss the F-35 fiasco. Now thy have plan to make the costs of stealth pointless for the US and Russia and China because a data/communication upgrade to the F-18 makes IR detection effective at providing a target solution. I had a better link but lost it. Essentially allowing planes to pool there IR detection allows the computation of actionable target for BVR missile play. Alone one plane can see a target but lacks the resolution to fire.

Given the plan here can hardly have been unknown or say not in development for years, the F-35 looks like a bigger fiasco than ever. The trade-offs involved in the F-35 now look like a wasted effort on a tech that is fast loosing ground, and delivering a platform that is sub optimal in all three+ roles its supposed to play.

Super Hornet block should doom the F-35. The B variant has to made to work since the US and all our allies with light CV's need it even though a dedicated non stelth 4.5 gen VSTO would have been better. The A and C versions should be killed or attenuated post haste. The Navy really needs not a F-35C but a new version of the F-14 - something with range and loiter time a tone of stand off BVR missiles. The Air Farce does need a new best in class general fighter, but it also needs dedicated ground support platforms for not first strikes/not contested air space and the F-35 is pointless in that role and seemily not very good at the first role either.

One thing also so IR detection is going to depend on data links, much like drones. Its been rather a long time since anyone fought a naval war with real exclusion zones and free fire targeting for BVR or Subs etc. I wonder how all those data links for drones and planes etc will really hold up in a peer conflict.

[RandomPerson2000]

Quite recently, dozens of Russian manufactured T-90 main battle tanks have been delivered to Iraq and Vietnam with the former even replacing the M1 Abrams in its 34th Brigade with T-90 tanks, the M1 Abrams were transferred over to its 34th Brigade.


Iraq
https://www.janes.com/article/77995/...ivered-to-iraq
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/2...-russian-ones/


Vietnam
https://www.janes.com/article/75494/...am-says-report
https://thediplomat.com/2017/07/what...nams-military/

[Love Mountain]

Quite recently, dozens of Russian manufactured T-90 main battle tanks have been delivered to Iraq and Vietnam with the former even replacing the M1 Abrams in its 34th Brigade with T-90 tanks, the M1 Abrams were transferred over to its 34th Brigade.


Iraq
https://www.janes.com/article/77995/...ivered-to-iraq
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/2...-russian-ones/


Vietnam
https://www.janes.com/article/75494/...am-says-report
https://thediplomat.com/2017/07/what...nams-military/

I'm not sure whether the T-90MS is too expensive for countries to buy, or whether those countries really do want Quantity>Quality, but the T-90S is a pretty sub-standard vehicle going into 2020s. I suppose you could upgrade the chassis domestically or with Russia later on down the road, but imo, it's much better to invest into a larger contract of T-90MS than bother with having an inferior vehicle. There are advantages to going with Russia over US as your primary supplier, but the primary issue is always going to be training. Equipment is meaningless without proper training and Arab armies have always had massive structural issues with their organization.

In other Russia-related news. Helicopter carriers that were going to replace the Mistrals, are not in the immediate future of the Russian navy.

https://lenta.ru/news/2018/08/20/helicopter/

This is in Russian, but the important part is this. The minister of industry and trade, Dennis Manturov said, "Questions, related to the construction of carriers for VMF(abbreviation for the Russian Navy) Russia; in real time, are in a stage of discussion. Questions in terms of construction of the helicopter carrier, I can tell you precisely that the helicopter carriers, in the pure sense of the term, will not be built."Manturov also commented that the inventory of VMF Russia has to have ships that can carry helicopters. Discussions are ongoing, including possible carrier cruisers, ships that need a helicopter wing, as well as "desant" ships, where helicopters will be used as a tool for landing troops. "Desant" is a Russian term a bit similar to US Marines. It's obnviously used to refer to the Russian VDV or parachuters, but it has a more general meaning as well.

Anyway, the fact is, that Mistrals were actually a type of "Desant" ships that Manturov is talking about, as the article clarifies as well. I.e. these are ships primarily designed to transport a sizable combined arms force, a platform of power projection. So Manturov is not really saying anything substantial here. However, what is clear is that the Russian shipbuilding industry is clearly incapable of building Mistral type ships at this very moment. This makes sense, Russians have had trouble with building Admiral Gorshkov class frigates.

https://thediplomat.com/2018/07/russ...s-more-delays/

In yet another sign that Russia’s ambitious naval rearmament program is facing difficulties, the head of the United Shipbuilding Corporation, Alexei Rakhmanov, announced that the delivery of the second Admiral Gorshkov-class (Project 22350) guided missile frigate, Admiral Kasatonov, will be delayed by around eight months.

If the Russian shipbuilding industry cannot even fulfill basic orders for smaller sized surface combat vessels, how can they expect to fill bigger orders? Indeed, that does seem to be the main challenge for the Russian navy, the largest naval surface combatant they are going to receive is likely going to be a "Super Gorshkov" type frigate/destroyer which will be between 6-8 thousand tons displacement. For reference, a regular Gorshkov is roughly 5,000 tons. So what does this spell out for the future of the Russian Navy? Well, it's clear that the technical know-how and the R&D is there for Russia. They have the technologies and the human capital to design new systems and products. However, the engineering muscle is lacking. The ability to materialize all of these plans has continually challenge the Russian Navy. Incompetence or corruption or both is a cancer that needs to be cut out if the Russian Navy wants to succeed. In fact, in the previous State Armament program, the Russian Navy was allocated 4.7 trillion rubles which it couldn't spent because of the issues with the shipbuilding industry. As a result, their funding was significantly reduced for the current State Armament Program. The Ukrainian conflict also significantly hurt Russia as it cut off their access to a variety of propulsion experts and factories.

EDIT: Let's not forget that there was a purge of the Baltic Fleet just a couple years ago as well.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ern-ships.html

[conon394]

@Sukiyama Good post

Keeping and or restoring large scale military ship building is expensive. I got to think the USN is ordering more of the useless LCS deathtraps is to keep yards working. I'm not sure what Russia could have done different.

The Mistral is an interesting example of weird Navy thinking. First we have the cult of no armor. So fine I guess... But in the Mistral we a ship expected to operate near shore when anybody and his brother can have Chinese missiles cheap, or the good stuff from Russia. The mistral has no armor and its self defense weaponry as built was terrifying small.

2 Simbad launchers for Mistral missiles. That's just 2 x 2 very short range air defense missiles with a ~6km range.
No CIWS gun. No other missiles...

A saturation attack on a Mistral is more or less 2 missiles. Who designed that somebody who never planned to be on in a fight.

for comparison the America class has:

2 Phalanx CIWS
2 x 8 ESSM , range ~50km
2 x 21 Rolling Airframe Missiles, range ~9km

At least somebody seemed to ask what happens are optimistic plan for escorts breaks down somehow. Given issues with field of fire for CIWS and its self contained bolt on nature any ship w/o 2 or 3 is asking for sailors to die by design. At least in the USN I would think a Sea ram and 2 Phalanx systems should be standard. Its beyond belief that the main USN warship of the now and future - the Arlighe Burkes are not so equipped.

[Love Mountain]

Russia could have decide to not invade Ukraine, but as with any decision, there are pretty hard geopolitical trade-offs with any what-if scenario. Russia most likely planned on a custom air defense solution for their ships. As for the French, well they don't really have anything capable that takes up a small footprint domestically, I don't think so at least. I don't really like the AA solution they have on their Horizon frigates either. Their CIWS consists of having a naval gun shoot projectiles out of the sky. What's their hit percentage for what is essentially a last-ditch defense?

To be fair though, I'm sure that a lot of very smart people have made the system competent. There's a lot of math and physics involved in those calculation, still from a layman's perspective, it seems that French Horizon destroyers are overly reliant on Aster missiles. I'm sure it's a very good missile, but the secondary layers of their AA defense seem weak to me.

[Love Mountain]

Vostok 2018 Wargames

These are going to be the largest wargames since 1981 apparently. This is significant due to several things.

1. Russia is half the size of the old Soviet Union, with a significantly smaller population. Thus, these games are quite significant relative to the size of the Russian Federation.
2. This may signal closer Chinese-Russian co-operation, and we may see Russia and China integrate themselves militarily in areas where they are in mutual agreement, such as the Pacific, where Russia and China share mutual challenges.
3. This will demonstrate the capability of the Russian military to mobilize and sustain large-scale operations, in numbers that are capable of overrunning Europe.

Russia has also been more and more willing to discuss potential sales of the S-400. This is concerning as the capabilities of the weapon may endanger Western interests in hot zones like the Middle East. It is entirely possible, maybe even likely, that we will find ourselves yet another conflict in the Middle East. As militaries there become more and more competent, we may find ourselves unable to bomb others with impunity. This eliminates the option for unilateral action.

[conon394]

US army eyes a new prototype rife - kinda interesting. 5 barrels, case less ammo, 6mm, significant increase in muzzle velocity and range. The ammo supply looks a bit lego-like I'n not sure if the click together (you have to read about it) system would be workable in a military gun.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...one-time-33932
https://www.wearethemighty.com/gear-...-top-questions

The army last self directed try at really new rifle was an overweight hog of a gun and grenade launcher that sounded cool in demo but to people ho were never likely to haul it around. I like the ideal of looking outside the typical in house or same old defense contractor box. I kinda hope it holds up in testing. The US Army has so far stood pat on it existing mix of the M-16 and variants along with the M249. While the USMC seems to have opted for a general all them are getting the new M27. An evolutionary improvement of the same mix the army has for now - practical but not looking to do too much or bring a whole new type of weapon.

[Condottiere 40K]

The Army's Dream Gun: A Rifle That Can Fire Up to 5 Rounds at One Time - I don't think so, I think the ideal is one shot one kill. As light and small as possible ammunition, that if necessary can punch through most body armour at close quarters.

Despite the virtual attractiveness of an attached grenade launcher, the preference seems to be for an experienced grenadier with a specialized weapon platform.

[conon394]

Despite the virtual attractiveness of an attached grenade launcher, the preference seems to be for an experienced grenadier with a specialized weapon platform.

True, but at least at the Marine squad level, it not just a one of change. The M320 for the return of Grenadier is a significantly different weapon than the old M203. Given it weighs more and has a some various new ammo available that is dissimilar in performance from the standard M203 rounds (rocked assisted guided for example) a single expert Grenadier seems to make sense. Especially when in this case (the USMC) the M27, means you dropped the SAW operator (although I red one M27 per squad will be configured to have extended effective range). Interestingly they are sticking with also keeping the Gustav at the squad level. They may be loosing armor and artillery, but at least the Forever War has produced a more heavily armed squad. Although I can't find much out if dedicated Grenadiers will carry only a lighter carbine than the squad standard weapon.

In comparison the Army seems to have backed out of using XM25 CDTE with a designated Grenadier

https://www.stripes.com/news/army-s-...xFpNuU.twitter

The weight issue seems a bit of distraction, and claims about a few odd issues (with a prototype) seem in inflated given the Pentagon seems not to care how many tests supposedly combat ready production F-35 fails. The problem seems to be that it was too heavy and the trooper could not also carry carbine. Fine why not a light SMG than? That would do for the you can't use in room clearing argument... You can't use a Gustav for that either but somebody is lugging them around in the squad. In any case the field issues were less than the those of the M-16 back in the day.

The Army's Dream Gun: A Rifle That Can Fire Up to 5 Rounds at One Time - I don't think so, I think the ideal is one shot one kill. As light and small as possible ammunition, that if necessary can punch through most body armour at close quarters.

One shot one kill as rule is more for snipers, no? In situations were aimed fire is used it is a good strategy, but for suppressing fire or where you don't have the time or ability to aim more rounds can be a good thing. On the gun in question the case less ammo allows for a larger bullet and less weight.

[Condottiere 40K]

1. The Army has an institutional disinclination in adopting new rifles; also, what they have is good enough, and they need the funds for their other transformational projects.

2. Adopting a new rifle may actually be trying to treat the symptoms, rather than finding an integrational approach to ground combat.

3. I think a more likely approach is an evolution of the carbine to a more compact form.

4. In my opinion, the company has to become more autonomous and larger, with one more manoeuvre unit and a reinforced "heavy" weapons platoon, from where each platoon's heavy weapons section is drawn, weapon teams assigned as required to fulfill a task.

5. The loadouts are different for total war and counter insurgency, and you want to be able to despatch a creditable force to dissuade the Russians about the wisdom of rolling over any of the Baltic republics.

6. At the squad level, logistically, you're going to get drone mules to haul supplies, and a lot more reconnaissance drones to scout ahead.

7. Spray and pray is more effective psychologically once you get close in, and than you will want a smaller gun.

8. I think I would develop a longer ranged and accurate heavy machine gun, that lies beyond the expected range of smallarms that an insurgency may acquire.

[swabian]

1. The Army has an institutional disinclination in adopting new rifles; also, what they have is good enough, and they need the funds for their other transformational projects.

2. Adopting a new rifle may actually be trying to treat the symptoms, rather than finding an integrational approach to ground combat.

3. I think a more likely approach is an evolution of the carbine to a more compact form.

4. In my opinion, the company has to become more autonomous and larger, with one more manoeuvre unit and a reinforced "heavy" weapons platoon, from where each platoon's heavy weapons section is drawn, weapon teams assigned as required to fulfill a task.

5. The loadouts are different for total war and counter insurgency, and you want to be able to despatch a creditable force to dissuade the Russians about the wisdom of rolling over any of the Baltic republics.

6. At the squad level, logistically, you're going to get drone mules to haul supplies, and a lot more reconnaissance drones to scout ahead.

7. Spray and pray is more effective psychologically once you get close in, and than you will want a smaller gun.

8. I think I would develop a longer ranged and accurate heavy machine gun, that lies beyond the expected range of smallarms that an insurgency may acquire.

You're a war veteran?

[Love Mountain]

You're a war veteran?

US armed forces are surprisingly very open when it comes to sharing what they think they need. You don't necessarily have to be a soldier. There's a lot of official publications as well as first hand accounts.

[swabian]

You people watch too many bad movies, it seems.

[mrmouth]

[QUOTE=conon394;15491022]7 Things The Marines Have To Do To Make The F-35B Worth The Huge Cost

Did you see the recent article about the Army interested? It makes you wonder what they know. F-16s performed valliantly in CAS roles in the recent past with just the cannon and maybe a bomb or two. The ability to loiter via the potential VTOL capability, while soaking in BF intelligence, has Army brass totally reconsidering things as new test data comes in. A significantly more survivable CAS platform, based on current and future threat. Significantly less sexy/iconic than the A10 which is always going to be a check against it at least in the eyes of the public. And you'd potentially have to commit 4 F35s for every 2 A10s, not taking into account the survivability differences in a modern AA atmosphere.

Again, this all goes back to the standoff and advanced sensors nature of future warfare that the US military began to focus on with the OODA loop concept.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/forget-10-warthog-army-wants-f-35-34197

[conon394]

Again, this all goes back to the standoff and advanced sensors nature of future warfare that the US military began to focus on with the OODA loop concept.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/forget-10-warthog-army-wants-f-35-34197

Looks like a fluff piece to defend the F-35. Recall its supposed to replace the both the F-16 and A-10.

"like the A-10s 30mm gun, the F-35 has its own 25mm cannon mounted on its left wing which could attack ground forces"

Nobody should be able to type that without it being sarcasm... The F-35 caries 180 rounds for its 25mm cannon. The A-10's 30mm cannon has some 1200-1300 rounds. The A-10 provides gun based ground support - the F-35 has a gun as a sop to congress likely just because John McCain could remember what happened to F-4s in Nam w/o guns. I mean 180 rounds compare the F-15/F-16/ ~900/~500 rounds. If its going to be all supper stealth and detecting w/o getting blown away its load it small, less than half of an F-16 or an a-10. Not stealthy sure it gets a bomb load 6% over its replacements - but that is sort of silly given all that spending on stealth. In that case a F-15 strike eagle can do the job better anyway.

Bigger problem with the link is that is assumes the F-35 will bring all of its networked data, situational awareness, Distributed Aperture System, etc to ground support. Problem is they don't work, the pilots who fly the planes now pilots have to turn off have the sensors to avoid getting false or double targets, or sundry other bugs. And that is w/o anyone trying to jam the electronics or spoof the sensors.

https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2...-deficiencies/

Pentagon has become all to enamored with techno-wiz bang solution network that and that and uber helmets etc. But its creating massive single point failures and data driven info model of war that has never been tested against a peer foe. Great the F-35 can swoop in briefly deliver some very expensive precision weapons. Great. But what about a long war with the need for high levels of availability? Stealth aircraft simply cannot do that as deployed now the F-22 struggles to make 60%+ availability. But again to that stealthy neither the F-35 nor the F-22 can carry a significant load of munitions. Even less if as the link suggests they be ready to face an air engagement. At what BVR range (it better be for the F-35) than you will need at least 2 BVR missiles on target so that leaves the F-35 if was also on ground support with only 2 missiles (1 effective shot). Compare the 3u35 with some 12 BVR missiles over half longer range than the AIM-120 (most people forget the US/NATO has no long range BVR missile anymore only a medium/longish range one).

The F-35 is an illusion. If it providing air superiority vs peer aircraft it must be stealthy given its poor dog fighting abilities (as in looses to the f-16). Given that in now means it carries only 4 AIM-120 missiles. vs say the approaching Su-35s with 12 missiles and range advantage. Its only option is shoot its missile one per target and hope that the missile even lives up to maybe keeping their 50% track record shooting down helicopters and the third rate planes of poorly trained air forces - and then run away. No ground support there. To provide the ground support comparable to a F-16 (but never as good as an F-15) and loiter time it must be non stealthy and just prey that no enemy first class aircraft show up. Otherwise it could be stealth and provide feeble ground support with little loiter time, or provide feeble CAP.

The simple fact is it should be halted. Period. The existing models A/C combined to the air force for whatever they can make of them. If we (the US) can run a whole war off budget - Iraq, than we can write down the cost. People need to fired en mass for the fiasco. Then the B version has to funded for a while since everyone of our allies who needs a VSTOL as does the US unless we want to make a lot of lat tops useless. The F-35 B will l it think in some time make a decent upgrade to the Harrier. Going forward reopen the F-22 line. Yes it will be expensive but its a proven 5th gen fighter. Add in any useful insights from the F-35. The navy simply needs to buildt a new CV based fighter for real. One with long legs certainly and not so much worry about stealth. Yes that would be expensive, but if there is any lessened leaned from the F-35 that trying to do 3 (4 maybe 6 ) missions with he same plane does not save money and does not produce a top of the heap aircraft or any job.

[conon394]

Again, this all goes back to the standoff and advanced sensors nature of future warfare that the US military began to focus on with the OODA loop concept.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/forget-10-warthog-army-wants-f-35-34197

Looks like a fluff piece to defend the F-35. Recall its supposed to replace the both the F-16 and A-10.

"like the A-10s 30mm gun, the F-35 has its own 25mm cannon mounted on its left wing which could attack ground forces"

Nobody should be able to type that without it being sarcasm... The F-35 caries 180 rounds for its 25mm cannon. The A-10's 30mm cannon has some 1200-1300 rounds. The A-10 provides gun based ground support the F--35 has a gun as a sop to congress that is likely just there because John McCain could remember what happened to F-4s in Nam w/o guns. I mean 180 rounds compare the F-15/F-16/ ~900/~500 rounds. If its going to be all supper stealth and detecting w/o getting blown away its load it small less than half of an F-16 or an a-10 (and that mean no air to air). Not stealthy sure it gets a bomb load 6% over its replacements - but that sort silly given all that spending on stealth - lets send out uber pricey F-35 on a mission the f-16 could have done and might even survive an encounter with a peer fighter.

Larger problem with the link is that is assumes the F-35 will bring all of its networked data, situational awareness, Distributed Aperture System, etc to Ground support. Problem is they don't work, to fly their planes now pilots have to turn off have the sensors to avoid getting false or double targets, or sundry other bugs. And that is w/o anyone trying to jam the electronics or spoof the sensors.

https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2...-deficiencies/


The F-35 is techo-illusion just look at e the link. Aside from the fact is can provide no credible gun support. It cannot do all its techno-wonder uber-stealth stuff with any significant payload. Sure it can maybe can carry just a tab bit more bombs and related ground attack missiles as the F-16 or the A-10, but with all its external hard points used in other as vulnerable as a F-16. At that is a marginal increase in bomb load over the F-16/A-10 (~6-10%) but a sitting duck in a air to air fight. It certainly lacks the gun capacity of either.


How is going to rise to change enemy air in this army loitering ideal of providing ground support. The only possible way the F-35 could maybe challenge an SU-35 (with its 12 BVT missiles) would be to to have its current full load of AIM-120 missiles that would be 4 (out ranged by Russia, China even Iran – since the US does not make a long range BVR missile anymore – goodby Phoenix). So shoot one and scoot - good by air support unless the F-22 is around. Just remember Raython will tell you the AMI-120 is 90% effective (in tests) in the real world including helicopter kills the US is lucky to make 50% with BVR against 3^rd rate enemies. But if it has even 2 BVR missiles in stealth storage it has only two more ground support munitions to use... so it cant be hiding or hovering over the battle field waiting to do whatever. So maybe other F-35s are hiding and the rest are sitting duck ground support aircraft that really are doing the job a F-16 or F-15 or A-10 can do better and while the inferior F-3s hover around to do the job an F-22 can do better.


The program is an epic failure. The only thing the F-35 does better compared to the planes it replaces id in the role of the F-35 B. The US and its NATO and other allies have to much invested in a decent 4^th gen aircraft to replace the Harrier. The F-35 B can do that. All production of the F-35 A/C should be stopped and the planes used as trainers or parts for a F-35B only program. Which has to continue. Otherwise the US needs t to simply revive the F-22 + plus whatever positives out of the F-35, and built the Nave real long range fighter with the capacity to defend CV and project air power. Every general who testified the F_35 would have comparable performance in close engagements should be sacked or have his pension halted. Everyone who claimed that concurrent production before testing was done should be made redundant.

The F-35 and LCS should definitively prove Swiss army knife designs are not less expensive than dedicated platforms and when built at bloated prices simply cannot deliver comparable performance.

[conon394]

Well the the USN can't build a decent ship lately and its crews are so exhausted they are ruining into cargo ships but hey Russia shows the things could be worse.

https://www.rferl.org/a/one-person-m.../29572701.html

Its bad enough that the Kuznetsov had to sail with tug to be safe, but when your own dry dock sinks and collapses on you... I'd want danger pay to sail on that ship.

[Love Mountain]

This is to be expected when a country has great power aspirations but lacks the resources. Russia will get there eventually even if they have to suffer through a lot of embarrassment in the meantime. For all of the fun the worlds makes of Russia's miliatry and support network, the only players who can compare are China, US, and India, all of which have significantly more human and capital resources.

Russian subs are still a generation behind in noise levels and defensive measures. Which makes sense. The subs are still very dangerous missile standoff platforms, but the point is that Russia spent the last twenty or so years investing heavily into last-gen technology. Last-gen for the west that is. Neverthelss, they'll be catching up and serial production will include more and more modern technology with each production run. Russia has also shown willingness to invest in new designs and platforms as they shy away from investing too heavily into one design. That's both a setback and a boon. Provided the Russian economy continues to grow, they'll eventually reach rough parity across the board in all aspects of military technology. That's a cause for concern.