XBradTC

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — The US Army’s Training and Doctrine Command laid out its "Big 8" initiatives Wednesday during the Association of the US Army's Global Force Symposium.

The goal of the Big 8 is to stay ahead of global threats and maintain overmatch against present and future adversaries.

Listed, not necessarily in order of priority are:

• The Future Vertical Lift effort.

• Active protection.

• Cross-domain fires.

• Combat vehicles.

• Robotics and autonomous systems

• Expeditionary mission command

• Cyber electromagnetic

• Soldier/team performance and overmatch.

Moving these efforts from initiatives to fielded capability will prove challenging.

via www.defensenews.com

One of the major procurement successes of the post Vietnam era was the "Big 5" initiative, where the Army focused virtually all its procurement budget on the M1 tank, the M2/M3 Bradley, the UH-60 Blackhawk, the AH-64 Apache, and the MIM-104 Patriot.

Will the Big 8 focus work? I don't know. If they can manage to tightly focus each program, and avoid gold plating and programmatic bloat, there's a fair chance at least most will proceed.

Unfortunately, the Army hasn't had a lot of success managing major programs in a timely manner in the last 30 years.

The M136 Rocket Launcher (popularly known as the AT4) is a single shot disposable 84mm rocket launcher firing a High Explosive Anti Tank warhead. The rocket burns completely while still inside the tube, and then coasts the rest of the way to the target. It has an effective firing range of up to 300 meters against a point target such as a tank. It has a relatively high muzzle velocity compared to its predecessor, the M72 Light Antitank Weapon, and that results in a much flatter trajectory, and much better accuracy. Its much larger warhead also gives much better penetration versus armor. 

It's also quite a bit of fun to shoot. Normally, live rounds, since they're expensive, aren't fired very often. A training device exists. Basically an empty AT4 tube, it has a special single shot 9mm gun in the base of the weapon, firing a special 9mm tracer round that mimics the ballistics of the actual full up round. That isn't nearly as much fun to shoot, but hey, it's better than nothing. 

On the other hand, if someone lets you fire the real thing, against a real tank, heck yeah!

So, I saw that little press release from Raytheon:

What do you do with an old missile? Replace it with one that’s faster, stronger, cheaper to deploy and much more accurate.

Better yet: Replace it with two.

Raytheon is developing a long-range missile that will allow the Army to field twice as many missiles on its existing launch vehicles. Thin and sleek, it will fire two missiles from a single weapons pod, slashing the cost. The new missile also flies further, packs more punch and has a better guidance system than the current weapon.

“We’re looking to replace a design originally from the 1980s," said Greg Haynes, a Raytheon manager leading the company’s campaign for a new long-range weapon. “Missile technology has come a long way.”

The ability to fit two Long-Range Precision Fires missiles in an existing launcher is a significant leap over existing tactical missiles.

So far, the Army hasn’t selected a contractor for the program yet.

But the Raytheon entry is interesting. The Army Tactical Missile System itself leveraged the existing M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System launcher vehicles and the assorted support, infrastructure, command and control and logistics to make the ATACMS easier to field.

Improvements in rocket motors and guidance technology now means Raytheon should be able to produce a missile of about half the size, but with the same capability, and again, the force structure already exists to support it.

While the LRPF program is currently focused on a missile that can strike stationary, fixed targets, I’d be interested in seeing what could be done by integrating active seeker to attack high value mobile targets.

For instance, with either an IIR or radar anti-ship seeker, an Army (or Marine Corps) artillery unit could hold enemy shipping at risk out to a range of 300 miles, a not at all insignificant distance.

Even more interesting would be if the seeker head of the AGM-88E AARGM was adapted, turning the LRPF into a very long range Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) weapon.  With its long range and relatively short time of flight, it could be formidable in that role.

One of the challenges future air campaigns will face is the threat of Russian built S-300 and S-400 air defense missile system. And one of the real challenges in targeting these two types is that they are highly mobile. It only takes a few minutes to pack up and move, and only a few minutes to set up and be ready to fire. The lag time involved after friendly Electronic Support  Measures locate a battery and until a strike can be mounted means that more often than not, the battery has already moved. The very rapid response time possible with a system like LRPF, particularly if equipped with a terminal seeker, would make it very capable of suppressing such systems, and allowing follow on strikes to destroy them.

Yeah, if you’re going to conduct an attack, it’s probably best to use whatever cover and concealment available. Granted, a lot of Ukraine offers very little of either. Second, if you have little or no cover and concealment, you might want to use mortars and supporting fires to suppress the enemy. Maybe shoot some smoke? And of course, you damn well shouldn’t just stop in the middle of the field and let the enemy bring up its anti-armor systems.

A rapid mounted assault might have worked. Violence of execution often overcome shortcomings of planning in combined arms operations.

The US efforts in the Combined Bomber Offensive, by the Mighty 8th Air Force, was hampered throughout 1942 and much of 1943 by the diversion of resources to North Africa and the Mediterranean theaters, as well as pressing issues in the Pacific. But as the end of 1943 rolled around, the 8th became a mighty host, and by mid-1944 had gutted the Luftwaffe, and could roam across western Europe delivering destruction. 

Pearson Engineering has developed and tested an armoured vehicle-launched bridge (AVLB) for the General Dynamics Land Systems 8×8 Stryker M1132 Engineer Squad Vehicle (ESV).

The baseline Stryker M1132 ESV platform is retained with its roof-mounted remote weapon station (RWS) retracted, while a Pearson Engineering Jettison Fitting Kit is fitted to the front of the hull to support the Bridge Launch Mechanism (BLM).

Four hydraulic cylinders are used to articulate the BLM with hydraulic power being provided directly from the M1132 ESV platform. The BLM enables the crew of the M1132 ESV to launch or recover the one-piece bridge over the front of the vehicle in less than two minutes while remaining under full armour protection.

via www.janes.com

Interesting.
It's about half the length of a bridge from a traditional Armored Vehicle Laid Bridge, but those aren't currently available to a Stryker BCT. And in Europe, the 11m bridge will cross a lot of the obstacles present. Combined with a variety of other Front End Attachments (FEA) tailored for the Stryker, this has the possibility of giving some much needed Engineer support to the Stryker BCT.

Off the top of my head, I can only think of two production lines that were ever restarted- the U-2, and the C-2 Greyhound.

It's highly unlikely in these tight fiscal times the Congress would pony up the huge sums needed to restart F-22 production.

Pretty interesting.  I can’t tell what type of MLRS they are using. If you look closely toward the end, you can spot what appears to be people fleeing the impact area.

H/T to Esli for sending this along.

So, it appears the Russians have supplied a small number of their current main battle tank, the T-90, to supplement the Syrian Army’s fleet of T-72 tanks. And the FSA rebels, who have been using the TOW missile system for about two years now, have engaged one.

The WaPo calls it a glancing shot, and doubts whether it actually penetrated. For sure, impact was high on the turret, but the fact that a crew member did bail out makes me suspect it did in fact penetrate. While not an instantly catastrophic hit, the possibility of post impact fire damaging or destroying the tank can’t be discounted.

We’re used to seeing pictures and videos of the sleek grey hulled warships of the United States Navy prowling the seas of the world. But for all their impressive power, the ships of the Navy don’t go anywhere without oil. Indeed, as a historical note, early US operations in the South Pacific weren’t hampered so much by the terrible losses of Pearl Harbor, but by a shortage of oil in the forward theater. The lack of tankers to support operations in the Solomons and other areas shaped much of the tempo of battle.

Eventually, of course, the Service Force would grow to be a mighty host, with literally hundreds of ships dedicated to supporting the fleet at sea, and underway replenishment, an exotic concept at the start of the war, would be routine throughout the fleet by the end of the war, allowing ships to remain at sea for weeks, and even months.

Originally established as the Military Sea Transportation Service in 1949, MSTS was the primary provider of sealift for all the armed services. Ships of the MSTS were not commissioned ships of the US Navy, but instead, Navy owned ships operated by civilian crews. In 1970, the MSTS was renamed the Military Sealift Command. While providing sealift is still a prime mission of MSC, over the years, the replenishment ships of the Navy have shifted from being commissioned ships to civilian manned ships, and thus fall under MSC. Ships of the MSC don’t have the prefix USS, but rather USNS, or United States Naval Ship.

MSC has five major categories of ships.

1. Combat Logistics Force
2. Service and Command Force
3. Special Mission Ships
4. Prepositioning
5. Sealift

The Combat Logistics Force of 32 ships provides underway replenishment of dry cargo, ammunition, and fuel to the fleet worldwide.

The Service and Command Force is the home of the Navy’s tenders, fleet tugs, hospital ships, and similar service ships, as well as the fleet command ship, Mount Whitney. Interestingly, some S&C Force ships are commissioned in the USN, and bear the USS prefix. Commanded by US Navy officers, they have mixed crews of sailors and civilian mariners.

The Special Mission ships are something of the cats and dogs category. If they don’t fit elsewhere, this is where they end up. Ocean surveillance ships, range support ships, sub and special warfare support ships, and oceanographic survey ships are a few of the types found here.

The Prepositioning Force stages squadrons of ships loaded with pre-configured unit sets of equipment in various potential hot spots around the world, as well as ships preloaded with the logistics to support them, ammunition, spare parts, aviation spares and ammunition, and importantly, the ability to unload bulk  fuel over unimproved beaches.

Finally, the Sealift fleet provides the routine day to day sealift support of station tankers, dry cargo ships, and a reserve surge capability to move large amounts of military cargo as needed.