Entwicklungen und News in der Luftfahrt, Teil 2 Einstellungen

[Dave76]

Air Force's FY-18 request would boost weapon production, add two F-35s

The Air Force's $132 billion fiscal year 2018 base budget seeks a slight boost to F-35 procurement, adds funding for studies and planning for new fighter and unmanned platforms and “maximizes” production capacity for key munitions.

According to a budget overview released May 23, the Air Force wants to buy 46 F-35A aircraft in FY-18, a slight increase from its FY-17 plan to buy 44. The Air Force also appears to be mounting a major shift in its weapons procurement, particularly for the Small Diameter Bomb and the Joint Direct Attack Munition. SDB quantities jump from the 460 projected in the FY-17 request to 7,312 in the FY-18 request, and JDAM quantities increase from 7,377 in last year's budget to more than 27,000 in FY-18.

“Demand for munitions continues to rise, while operational expenditures have outpaced production of critical munitions,” the service says in its overview. “Since operations countering ISIS began in August 2014, the Air Force has expended over 50,000 weapons, drawing down the current inventory levels. The FY-18 budget request maximizes production capacity on many weapons.”

The request also reflects an updated cost estimate for the Presidential Aircraft Replacement program, led by prime contractor Boeing. The service had expected to need $625.6 million for PAR in FY-18, but its updated request calls for $434 million.

“There's no content change on PAR,” Carolyn Gleason, the Air Force's civilian budget deputy, said during a May 23 media briefing. “It reflects the current acquisition strategy . . . and the new requirements baseline. It's informed by Boeing's risk-reduction activities so it's basically a change in a cost estimate and reflects the same content.”

For unmanned aircraft systems, the budget proposes adding 16 MQ-9 Reapers to the service's inventory and requests procurement funds for one new EC-X, the platform that will host the EC-130H Compass Call. It also includes plans to start an analysis of alternatives for a next-generation ISR strike aircraft.

Additionally, the budget indicates the Air Force now plans to keep Lockheed Martin's U-2 Dragon Lady in service indefinitely, after previously slating it for retirement in FY-19.

Air Force Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget Maj. Gen. James Martin told reporters more funding would keep the U-2 flying for the foreseeable future alongside the upgraded RQ-4 Global Hawk, built by Northrop Grumman, to meet the growing demand for ISR.

For legacy fighter platforms, the budget would continue a number of ongoing upgrade efforts, including a new Advanced Electronically Scanned Array Radar for the F-16. It also would fund a service-life extension program for the F-15's fuselage longerons.

The Air Force is requesting $3.3 billion for space procurement. That funding reflects a change to FY-18 procurement plans for the next-generation GPS constellation, pushing near-term buys into later years to better support the service's competitive launch acquisition strategy. The service had planned to buy two satellites in FY-18, but its request does not call for any GPS III space vehicles that year.

The overview also notes the start of a new space program, the Evolved Strategic Satellite Communications System. The document does not include details on the system's mission, but an Air Force spokeswoman confirmed to Inside Defense it refers to a protected satellite communications effort.

Overall, the budget requests a $5 billion increase in research and development funding -- from about $20 billion in FY-17 to $25 billion in FY-18. Included in that increase is a shift of about $2.3 billion in civilian pay from operations and maintenance accounts to research and development.

The overview book notes that the research and development request “begins an increase in the Air Force's commitment to fielding a future penetrating counterair capability,” though it does not provide specific funding levels. The service is in the midst of an AOA to better define those options.

An Air Force spokeswoman explained May 23 the PCA work is included as part of a broader Next-Generation Air Dominance effort, which ramps from $21 million in the FY-17 budget to $295 million in FY-18, according to the overview book.

“That funds the studies and analysis to really look at how we get after future threats,” Martin said.

The Air Force also aims to boost research and development funding for key nuclear modernization efforts. The Long-Range Strike Bomber's funding jumps from $2.1 billion projected for FY-18 in the FY-17 budget request to more than $2.9 billion in this year's request. The Long-Range Standoff Weapon's account would increase to $451 million in FY-18 -- $30 million more than the service projected in FY-17.

https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/air-fo...n-add-two-f-35s

[xena]

.

Der Beitrag wurde von xena bearbeitet: 17. Sep 2019, 13:51

[Dave76]

DoN $180B Budget Request Emphasizes Readiness; Reduces Spending on Ships, Aircraft


THE PENTAGON – The Department of the Navy’s $180-billion budget request sets out to improve overall readiness of the Navy and the Marine Corps while making only modest asks for new aircraft and ships.

[...]

The service is also making a modest aviation buy, requesting about $1 billion, or 7 percent, less than the FY 2017 enacted budget.

The $15.2-billion budget pays for four F-35C carrier variant Joint Strike Fighters – two less than planned – and 20 F-35B of the Marine Corps’ short-takeoff and vertical-landing variant, for a total of $3.7 billion in JSF expenditure. Rounding out tactical aviation, the Navy is set to buy 14 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.

Luther said the reduction in the F-35C totals routed more money to personnel, equipment, logistics and more for the F-35C to keep its initial operational capability declaration on track.

“We had to make hard choices. We maintained the readiness accounts and we had to balance somewhere,” Luther said.
“We tried to hold the line the best we could in our procurement accounts… but reducing two F-35s allowed us to maintain the IOC in ’18 for the F-35C.”

The Navy is also spending $1.4 billion for six P-8A Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft, $636.3 million for three MQ-4C Triton unmanned surveillance aircraft and $809.5 million for five E-2D Advanced Hawkeye carrier-based aerial radar aircraft.

The Navy also elected not to continue purchasing any additional MQ-8C Fire Scout rotary-wing UAVs due to a program restructure that capped the total needed at 60 airframes.

“We truncated the buy of the Fire Scout because we have sufficient inventory on hand to address that,” Luther said.

Outside of the F-35, the Marines’ largest aviation expenditure was 22 AH-1Z Zulu attack helicopters – five fewer than anticipated in the 2017 budget.

The Navy will also start procurement of the first six CMV-22B Osprey the service intends to use to replace its current crop of C-2A Greyhound Carrier Onboard Delivery aircraft.

[...]

The budget also pays for a personnel expansion and a 2-percent pay increase for sailors and Marines. The Navy will spend $29 billion and will grow by 4,000 sailors to a total of 327,000 personnel.

The Marines will spend $13.3 billion on its active duty personnel — $500 million more than 2017 – and maintain an end - strength of 185,000.

The Navy has set aside $222 million for the carrier-based MQ-25A Stingray unmanned aerial refueling tanker program.

[...]

https://news.usni.org/2017/05/23/don-180b-b...-ships-aircraft

[Seneca]

Pentagon: ICBM-Abwehr erfolgreich getestet:

A ground-fired interceptor launched from an Air Force base in California struck and destroyed an intercontinental ballistic missile-like target in space Tuesday, in the first test of the United States' ability to intercept the long-range ballistic missiles that North Korea aims to develop.

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/pentagon-ic...22#.WS3oLGjyhPY

Der Beitrag wurde von Seneca bearbeitet: 30. May 2017, 22:49

[400plus]

Heron TP darf wie geplant geleast werden, das OLG Duesseldorf hat die Klage von General Atomics zurueckgewiesen: Wiegold

[Drehkreuz]

Integration von IRIS-T SL in Patriot wird laut Hartpunkt von Raytheon im Auftrag des BMVg untersucht:
https://www.hartpunkt.de/2017/05/31/integra...system-geplant/

[Dave76]

Raytheon ready to flight-test an extended-range powered and data-linked JSOW to attack moving ships

PATUXENT RIVER NAS, Md. – Smart munitions experts at the Raytheon Co. are making plans to flight-test a powered and extended-range version of the data-linked AGM-154C-1 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) to attack moving maritime targets like enemy surface warships.

Officials of the U.S. Naval Air Systems Command at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Md., announced an $8.9 million contract Tuesday to the Raytheon Missile Systems segment in Tucson, Ariz., to flight-test extended range capability for the Joint Standoff Weapon AGM-154C-1 all-up-round.

The AGM-154C-1 JSOW adds a Link-16 weapon data link and moving maritime target capability to the AGM-154C JSOW, which has an infrared seeker for terminal guidance, instead of the Global Positioning System (GPS) guidance system of other JSOW variants.

Adding a weapon data link and updated seeker software algorithms to the JSOW provides new capability to enable the munition to attack moving and relocatable targets.

Extending the range of the AGM-154C-1 involves adding a Hamilton-Sundstrand TJ-150 turbojet engine to the ordinarily unpowered JSOW to extend the smart munition's range from 70 to 300 nautical miles.

[...]

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/...nded-range.html

[Warhammer]

Ist eine JSOW nicht relativ ungeeignet dafür, da sie recht hoch, langsam und ohne zu manövrieren anfliegt?

Vor allem wo man jetzt LRASM in der Pipeline hat.

[Dave76]

Die navalisierte und verbesserte AGM-154C-1 (Block III JSOW mit Link 16 und Bekämpfungsmöglichkeit beweglicher Ziele) ist ja schon seit einem Jahr im operationellen Dienst der Navy (IOC im Juni 2016), bei der jetzigen Variante handelt es sich um die ER-Version der C-1. Die JSOW ist ja als günstige Präzisionsabstandswaffe konzipiert, so soll diese neue, reichweitengesteigerte Version lediglich 350,000$ kosten im Vergleich dazu wird die LRASM voraussichtlich mehr als das doppelte kosten. Man darf auch nicht vergessen, dass die JSOW Stealthcharakteristiken aufweist, d.h. eine deutlich reduzierte Radar- und Infrarotsignatur hat.

[Warhammer]

Die Signaturreduzierung hat LRASM doch auch. Aber es sollte der JSOW natürlich trotzdem helfen am Ziel anzukommen.

Der Preis ist ein Argument, aber am Ende des Tages sollte sich für praktisch jedes militärische Überwasserziel, dass sich halbwegs wehren kann auch ein paar LRASM lohnen.

Für alles andere kann man eh günstige LGBs nehmen.

[Dave76]

Die Signaturreduzierung hat LRASM doch auch. Aber es sollte der JSOW natürlich trotzdem helfen am Ziel anzukommen.

Ich habe die Signaturreduzierung nicht als Vorteil der JSOW gegenüber der LRASM erwähnt (das kann die LRASM eh besser), sondern um deine Behauptung, die JSOW sei dazu ungeeignet, zu entkräften.

Der Preis ist ein Argument, aber am Ende des Tages sollte sich für praktisch jedes militärische Überwasserziel, dass sich halbwegs wehren kann auch ein paar LRASM lohnen.

Die F-35C der Navy kann allerdings zwei JSOW intern tragen, die größere LRASM kann nur extern getragen werden.

Für alles andere kann man eh günstige LGBs nehmen.

Reichweite, unstealthy.

[Warhammer]

Das mit den Waffenschächten hatte ich nicht im Blick. Das ist ein wichtiger Punkt.

Ich habe mich halt nur gefragt, ob zwischen LRASM und klassischen LGBs (oder auch JDAMs mit Datenlink wie schon demonstriert) noch Platz ist für JSOW-ER mit Suchkopf. Kostet ja alles auch Geld. Wobei JSOW-ER mit abbildendem IR Suchkopf natürlich auch für andere Ziele interessant ist.

[Merowinger]

Das wird der JSM schon ähnlich und könnte diese in Frage stellen.

Der Beitrag wurde von Merowinger bearbeitet: 4. Jun 2017, 15:28

[Dave76]

Das wird der JSM schon ähnlich und könnte diese in Frage stellen.

Könntest du dich bitte präziser ausdrücken. Was kann die JSM ähnlich und wen könnte sie in Frage stellen?

Raytheon wird ja zusammen mit Kongsberg die JSM im Rahmen der zweiten Stufe (von Schiffen abgefeuerte LFK) des Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) Programms der Navy anbieten, wo sie mit der LRASM von LM konkurrieren wird. Die erste Stufe des OASuW (air-launched) hat ja die LRASM schon für sich entschieden. Raytheon hatte an der ersten Stufe des Programms noch mit der JSOW-ER teilgenommen.

[xena]

.

Der Beitrag wurde von xena bearbeitet: 17. Sep 2019, 13:51

[Warhammer]

Wobei NSM/JSM für kleinere Einheiten wie die LCS oder die ominösen future frigates aufgrund der Größe und des Gewichts eigentlich Vorteile haben sollte. Die LRASM sind ganz schöne Brummer und zumindest die LCS haben ja keine VLS in die sie sie reinschmeißen können.

[xena]

.

Der Beitrag wurde von xena bearbeitet: 17. Sep 2019, 13:51

[Dave76]

Die JASSM-LR, die LRASM ist ja eigentlich genau eine solche, nur mit Radarsuckopf, ist im Grunde ein konventioneller Ersatz für die konventionelle Cruise Missile und sollte als solche primär von größeren Flugzeugen getragen werden.

Die LRASM soll primär die Harpoon ersetzen und auch die Angriffsmöglichkeiten amerikanischer Anti-Schiffswaffen deutlich erweitern, um auch gegen moderne Luftverteidigungssysteme bestehen zu können. Sie basiert zwar auf der JASSM-ER, verfügt aber zusätzlich über den schon erwähnten, passiven Radarsuchkopf noch über einen Radarhöhenmesser sowie über einen verbesserten Datenlink. Die LRASM soll nicht primär von 'größeren Flugzeugen' getragen werden, die B-1B war lediglich die erste Integrationsplattform,
die F/A-18E/F Super Hornet folgt gerade, dann wird die Integration auf die F-35C folgen.

Die LRASM dürfte auch einen größeren Gefechtskopf haben als die JSOW.

'Dürfte'? Sie hat! 1000lb gegenüber 500lb der JSOW.

Die AShM-JSOW wird dann wohl nur für die F-35 entwickelt, denn alle anderen können die LRASM tragen, die dazu mehr Zerstörungskraft hat.

Blödsinn, die AShM-JSOW ist schon längst als AGM-154-C-1 an der Super Hornet im Dienst, ebenso wird auch die F-35C die LRASM tragen können. Lies doch bitte endlich mal die anderen Beiträge genau, bevor du dich äußerst:

Die navalisierte und verbesserte AGM-154C-1 (Block III JSOW mit Link 16 und Bekämpfungsmöglichkeit beweglicher Ziele) ist ja schon seit einem Jahr im operationellen Dienst der Navy (IOC im Juni 2016), bei der jetzigen Variante handelt es sich um die ER-Version der C-1.

Im ursprünglichen Artikel geht es um die Entwicklung und Flugerprobung der reichweitengesteigerten JSOW-ER, das habe ich doch schon erklärt.

[400plus]

Damit ich nicht den Überblick verliere:
Ersatz Harpoon, flugzeuggestützt: LRASM
Ersatz Harpoon, schiffgestützt: LRASM oder JSM (=vergrößerte Version der NSM?), VLS-tauglich (nur VLS-tauglich, oder auch in Startkanistern vorgesehen?)
Dazu noch AShM-JSOW, bald in der ER-Version, für die Flugzeuge.

JSM wird von der USN nicht für die Flugzeuge beschafft, allerdings von Australien und Norwegen.

Stimmt das so weit?

[Praetorian]

LRASM wurde in begrenztem Umfang als Zwischenlösung für den luftgestützten Einsatz beschafft, da Harpoon nicht mehr als bedrohungsgerecht angesehen wird. Die Beschaffung lief als Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) Increment 1. Eine querschnittliche Beschaffung soll im Rahmen OASuW Increment 2 erfolgen, hier dann luft-, schiffs- und unterwassergestützt.
Für Increment 2 ist LRASM wieder ein möglicher Kandidat, genauso wie JSM und eine weiterentwickelte Tomahawk - für Increment 2 können durchaus mehrere Waffensysteme beschafft werden, so würde Tomahawk beispielsweise nicht in einer luftgestützten Variante zur Verfügung stehen. Dafür gibt es dann eine entsprechende Ausschreibung.

JSM ist eine stark veränderte Variante des NSM und so dimensioniert, dass die sowohl in den Waffenschacht des JSF passt als auch (mit Booster) in die Zellen der VLS Mk41/Mk56.


(von links NSM vermutlich luftgestützt da ohne Booster, JSM mit VLS-Booster, Penguin Mk2)

[Dave76]

Marine Airpower’s Future: Networking F-35s, V-22s, & MUX Drones

CAPITOL HILL: The Marine Corps’ top pilot sketched a vision of fast-paced and networked air operations, spearheaded by F-35 fighters, V-22 tiltrotors, and the future MUX drones, all linked to each other and the rest of the force by Link-16 and MADL.

Marine F-35s have already practiced spotting targets for Marine artillery rockets and Navy missile defenses, Lt. Gen. Jon Davis told reporters. Now imagine those F-35s linked to swarms of MUX drones — cheaper and more expendable than manned fighters — that provide even more sensor data, more firepower, more jamming and even resupply. Imagine V-22 Osprey tiltrotors, escorted by F-35s and MUX, carrying fuel, munitions and spare parts to hardscrabble forward airbases, where the fighters and drones can land to refuel, rearm, and return to the fight without flying back to the fleet.

The goal is to sustain a relentless tempo of strikes in the teeth of high-tech defenses — even while the Navy ships that support Marine operations hang back out of range of land-based cruise missiles. The challenge of so-called Anti-Access/Area Denial threats and the opportunities of new technology have triggered an upsurge of tactical innovation, especially among young Marines.

[...]

Yuma’s Weapons & Tactics Instructors (WTIs) are at the forefront of exploring new ways to use the new plane, such as having an F-35 spot ground targets and transmit targeting data to Guided MLRS artillery rockets. The launcher itself had been flown in on a C-130 transport, Davis added, simulating a “rocket artillery raid” — the kind of rapid deployment of heavy firepower to a forward base that is central to future Marine Corps concepts of operations.

For this initial experiment, the F-35 pilots had to manually relay target data to the artillery unit on the ground, Davis said, but “the next WTI class will probably look for automatic target handoff to the GMLRS battery.”

To pass data from F-35s to other forces, Davis said, “Link-16’s one way we do that right now, (but) we’d like to have higher fidelity, higher bandwidth data,” for example by using (the) Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) built into F-35s. MADL was originally meant as a way for F-35s to communicate with each other, undetected by the enemy, but the military is now experimenting with MADL links to other systems. In a test last fall, for example, an F-35 passed target data via MADL to a Navy Aegis air and missile defense system. The Aegis wasn’t on an actual ship but rather a test installation at White Sands Missile Range, the so-called Desert Ship.

In the White Sands test, Davis explained, there was an incoming cruise missile that the “ship” couldn’t see with its own radars because it was hidden behind a mountain range. Flying much higher than a ship’s radar mast and therefore enjoying a much wider field of view, the F-35 saw the missile and transmitted target data via MADL. The ship fired a SM-6 interceptor missile and shot the threat down. What Davis may know and be keeping to himself is just how much greater is range and sensitivity of the F-35’s sensors. But he did offer a few hints.

“The sensors in the F-35, the radar, are really, really strong. It’s exceptional, there’s nothing like it in the world,” Davis enthused. “It’s the smartest kid in class.” In one F-35 flight out of Yuma, he said, “they asked us to look at a missile launch from Vandenberg and we tracked it all the way to space with the F-35.”

“It’s a King Kong killing machine,” Davis said. “It sees stuff and it’s able to kill stuff, very, very effectively. It sees through the weather, air to air targets, air to ground targets.…. Now we’re trying to push the information from that airplane, offboard that” to the rest of the force.

The next big step in F-35 experimentation will be deploying on big-deck amphibious ships, starting with squadron VMFA-121 this summer. Davis suggested using the deployment as a test for the “lightning carrier” concept. The idea is to pack an amphib with all the F-35Bs it can carry and use it as a kind of mini-Nimitz, rather than the current model in which it’s mainly a helicopter carrier with some Harriers aboard.

“As soon as that ship gets there, if they wanted to put all 16 airplanes they have aboard the ship, they could go. And if I were them, I would,” Davis said. “We, as a nation, should experiment with this capability.”


MUX & V-22

The usually unarmed V-22 transport is increasingly the workhorse of the Marine Corps — and, with the new CMV-22 variant, the Navy as well. Its range and speed increased the Marines’ reach sixfold over the geriatric CH-46 helicopter, so no wonder they set the benchmark for the new Marine Unmanned eXpeditionary (MUX) drone.

“V-22…totally changed how we project power from a seabase and how people look at a MEU (Marine Expeditionary Unit): 450-mile radius vice a 75-mile radius,” Davis said. So for MUX, the Marines want “range specs at least as good as V-22; air speed at least as good as V-22; and air refuelable (like V-22); can land vertically on board a ship (like V-22).”

One of MUX’s major missions will be escorting V-22s into combat zones, something jet fighters are too fast to do while attack helicopters are too slow. But that’s just one of a wide array of roles Davis envisions for a multi-mission MUX.

It “not only does death and destruction from on high, (flies) long range to escort V-22s and be a mission partner in manned/unmanned teaming for F-35s, but also has a cargo requirement as well,” he said. “We think it will carry an air to air radar, so it will give us airborne early warning. It will give us electronic warfare, it will give us air-to-air fires, air-to-ground fires, (and) airborne resupply at range.” He later mentioned Intelligence, Surveillance, & Reconnaissance (ISR) and communications relay missions as well.

“It’s actually pretty exciting,” Davis said. “There are a couple of people that are building prototypes”: Northrop Grumman, Bell, Boeing, and Karem Aerospace. “I think the first airplane to fly, the first model, will fly in the fourth quarter of ’17.”

When you combine all these aircraft — the V-22 and MUX, which take off and land vertically like a helicopter, and the F-35B, which is a short takeoff/vertical landing “jump jet” — you get some “really interesting” options to operate independently of both conventional concrete airfields and 1,000-foot-long supercarriers. “The naval service is trying to power project from a seabase,” Davis said. “But what if I’m operating from a long way away? Now what happens to my surge sortie rate?”

Traditionally, supercarriers and big-deck amphibs alike operate relatively close to land, cutting down on the distance their aircraft have to travel to and from targets. Increasingly long-range anti-ship missiles, however, are forcing the fleet to seek refuge further and further offshore. Increasing the distance aircraft have to travel increases the time required for each sortie and therefore reduces the sortie rate, cutting the number of troops and bombs that can delivered to targets each day. But what if you had a pit stop between the ship and the target?

“Combine shipboard platforms with a land base, (an ad hoc) little strip out there,” Davis said. “With our F-35s and (MUX), a VTOL UAV, I can actually get out there at range, expend my ordnance, drop in, get rearmed and reloaded and back airborne again.” The aircraft would only return to the ship for maintenance too complex for the austere land bases to handle.

While Davis focused on F-35 and MUX operating out of these Expeditionary Advance Bases (EAB), other thinkers and publications make clear the EABs would depend on the V-22s to function. Only the tiltrotors have the combination of range, speed, and carrying capacity to bring in operationally significant quantities of ammunition and fuel. What’s more, the V-22s are being upgraded to provide in-flight refueling to F-35s and other aircraft.

Other Marine Corps aircraft would certainly play their own roles. Really heavy gear would have to be delivered to forward bases by CH-53 helicopter, which is slower but huskier than the V-22. Smaller helicopters — AH-1 gunships, UH-1 transports, Navy H-60s — would run shorter-range missions, including protecting the fleet from submarines and fast attack boats. But the crucial synergy is the V-22’s long-range cargo capacity, the F-35’s sensors, and the MUX’s versatility.

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/06/marine-...22s-mux-drones/

[Warhammer]

Ja ne is klar. Man fährt nicht so nahe an die Küste ran, weil da ja Seeziel-FKs lauern könnten, aber man betreibt dann im Inland vorgeschobene und luftversorgte Basen für F-35Bs und UAVs. Die MLRS oder SRBM Feuerschläge, um die man dann praktisch bettelt sind ja nicht so schlimm, wie die Seeziel-FKs für den amphibischen Schiffsverband vor der Küste...

Der Beitrag wurde von Warhammer bearbeitet: 9. Jun 2017, 20:31

[schießmuskel]

Das ist der reinste Selbstbeweihräucherungsartikel über die super Fähigkeiten der neuen Spielzeuge und völlig realitätsferne Einsatzszenarien. Man nimmt an, dass der Gegener fähig genug ist wirksam eine Flotte mit landgestützen Seeziel FK zu bekämpfen, aber parallel hat er kein wirksames IADS um die anfliegenden, behäbigen und langsamen Transporter zu bekämpfen die dann tief im Feindesland eine Basis errichten damit dann von dort aus Einsätze geflogen werden.

Wenn das Argument lautet, dass das IADS von den F35 und Growlern zerstört wird und so der Weg für die Errichtung der Basis freigekämpft wird, kann man auch sagen, dass die F35er und Growler die Seeziel FK Stellungen und C4ISR Einrichtungen in Küstennähe zerstören. Dann können die Träger küstennah operieren und wir können uns den ganzen Unsinn mit der vorgeschoenen Basis sparen die dann eh von MLRS und SRBM platt gemacht wird.

Der Beitrag wurde von schießmuskel bearbeitet: 9. Jun 2017, 21:36

[xena]

.

Der Beitrag wurde von xena bearbeitet: 17. Sep 2019, 13:52

[Dave76]

Ja ne is klar. Man fährt nicht so nahe an die Küste ran, weil da ja Seeziel-FKs lauern könnten, aber man betreibt dann im Inland vorgeschobene und luftversorgte Basen für F-35Bs und UAVs. Die MLRS oder SRBM Feuerschläge, um die man dann praktisch bettelt sind ja nicht so schlimm, wie die Seeziel-FKs für den amphibischen Schiffsverband vor der Küste...

Ja, es ist eine riskante und aggressive Strategie (passt ja zu den Marines, die ja noch nie ein Kind von Traurigkeit waren). Die Grundidee dahinter ist, dass ein Schiff, oder ein Schiffsverband (ARG), ein verlockenderes und einfacheres Ziel darstellt, als eine größere Anzahl kleinerer verteilter Landbasen. Und bei einem Treffer auf ein LHA oder LHD wären gleich grosse Verluste und das wahrscheinliche Missionsende die Folge, wohingegen der Verlust einer dieser 'Expeditionary Advance Bases' verschmerzbar wäre. Das Ganze beruht auf einem Operationskonzept, welches hier nochmal im Detail und durchaus kritisch beleuchtet wird:

A Bridgehead Too Far? CSBA’s Aggressive, Risky Strategy For Marines

WASHINGTON: Marines are famously aggressive, but a new battle plan from a leading thinktank makes Iwo Jima look low-risk. The Center for Strategic & Budgetary Assessments’ proposed concept of operations is imaginative, exciting and more than a little scary:
In a future war, rather than stay far out at sea until long-range strikes whittle down massed Russian or Chinese missile batteries, the Marine Corps should push ahead into the teeth of the defenses and establish outposts within enemy missile range. Trusting in camouflage, dispersal, and short-range missile defenses to survive, these Expeditionary Advance Bases would refuel raiding F-35B fighters and launch land-based missiles to take the adversary’s Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) zone down from the inside.

CSBA’s idea is in line with the military’s increasing desire to blitzkrieg through weak points in A2/AD defenses, rather than laboriously bombard them from long range while our allies are overrun. (The Army calls this Multi-Domain Battle). But it’s far more aggressive and risky than any other such concept I’ve seen, because it calls for setting up static outposts inside the danger zone, rather than infiltrating mobile forces that stay constantly on the move. As Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley, never one to mince words, puts it: “On the future battlefield, if you stay in one place longer than two or three hours, you will be dead.”

So how does a stationary Expeditionary Advance Base survive not for hours but days?

“The idea is not to make it invincible, (but) to make the EAB a hard enough kill for a pretty low-value target,” said Bryan Clark, former senior aide to the Chief of Naval Operators and co-author of the study. By CSBA’s calculations, if the Marines spread out, dug in, and deployed new missile defenses like the Hyper Velocity Projectile (HVP) and the Army’s new Indirect Fire Protection Capability (IFPC), it would take an enemy 28 shots to guarantee a kill on any particular target.

What’s more, each advance base would have multiple targets, each dug in far enough apart a single warhead wouldn’t get them all: a refueling area for F-35Bs, a HIMARS missile launcher, an IPFC missile defense launcher, a howitzer battery firing HPVs, radars, a command post, bunkers for the Marines, etc. At some point, Clark argues, the Chinese or Russians would decide it wasn’t worth firing hundreds of missiles to wipe out a single reinforced company of a few hundred Marines, not when there were multiple such outposts to worry about on land plus Navy warships at sea.

The alternative to advanced land bases isn’t zero casualties, added CSBA co-author Jesse Sloman, a former Marine himself. It’s keeping the Marines aboard ship, where one lucky missile can kill hundreds.

The 300-Mile Problem

Some 80 nations now have anti-ship missiles, as do well-armed irregulars like Lebanese Hezbollah and the other Iranian-supplied group, Yemeni Houthis. While some of these weapons can strike targets over 1,000 miles away, these are rare, so Clark and Sloman advise that US fleets stay a still-impressive 300 nautical miles from hostile shores. Planes are faster, smaller targets than warships, so anti-aircraft missiles generally have less range, about 200 nm.

A 200- to 300-mile threat wrecks traditional amphibious tactics, in which warships to approach the beach before launching amphibious vehicles, which have limited seaworthiness. Even the Marines’ vaunted 40-knot Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, cancelled for excessive complexity and cost, couldn’t cross such distances. The standard Marine Corps helicopters can’t cross such distances either — the AH-1Z gunship can only go 125 miles, for example — though the MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor can make 400 nautical miles and the F-35B jump jet 425.

So Clark and Sloman propose keeping the big ships (more or less) safely out at sea while deploying the Marines by long-range air and landing craft. The Osprey is particularly attractive, but its limited payload means it’s only able to land Marines, light equipment, and fuel bladders for forward-based F-35Bs. Clark and Sloman want to resume production of light-weight Internally Transportable Vehicles narrow enough to fit inside the Osprey. [UPDATE: The Marine Corps pointed out they are buying 144 Polaris MRZR-D light offroad trucks — 18 per infantry regiment — which can fit inside the MV-22 as well].

Even so, heavy equipment such as missile launchers will have to come on so-called surface connectors. There’s the lumbering LCU, which looks like a World War II relic; the speedy but fragile LCAC hovercraft; and, in future, the bizarre paddle-wheeled Ultra Heavy-lift Amphibious Connector (UHAC). Clark and Sloman also suggest modifying the catamaran Expeditionary Fast Transport (formerly the Joint High Speed Vessel or JHSV) with a ramp to offload amphibious armored fighting vehicles just off the beach. The combat vehicles themselves should be optimized for land operations, like the current Amphibious Combat Vehicle program, rather than trying for high-water speed, like the cancelled EFV.

Supporting all these long-distance operations will require more firepower from the fleet, both missiles and fighters. They want to upgrade amphibs with both offensive and defensive missiles fired from Vertical Launch System (VLS) tubes, space for which was carefully left in the current San Antonio-class LPD design. The Navy is examining upgunning amphibs as part of its Distributed Lethality concept to put offensive weapons on ships currently designed for only self-defense.

Clark and Sloman also want way more Joint Strike Fighters. Currently, a three-ship Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) has two smaller amphibs and one big deck LHA or LHD which can carry just six fighters. That’s not enough to escort all the V-22s, to protect multiple Expeditionary Advanced Bases, or to take advantage of the forward refueling points the EABs provide. (Attack helicopters lack the necessary range, they say, though they would protect the fleet from fast attack boats). So the CSBA scholars want to increase the ARG’s F-35B contingent from six to 10-20, depending on the mission.

That larger air contingent, in turn, requires a larger ARG. Clark and Sloman suggest adding a fourth ship, a small-deck L(X)R, to help carry helicopters so the big-deck LHA/LHD can focus on jet fighters, which only it can handle. They prefer LHAs without welldecks to devote maximum space to aviation, and in the long term, they’d like to replace the LHA with a light aircraft carrier (CVL) able to handle conventional take-off and landing aircraft like the E-2D Hawkeye scout and the EA-18 Growler jammer. All told, their plan would add nine L(X)Rs to the Navy’s shipbuilding plan and replace four planned LHAs with more expensive CVLs, at a total estimated cost of $21 billion over 30 years.

“You need to go to this four-ship ARG,” said Clark. “That’s inexorable, we really couldn’t come up with another way” to execute the concept of operations on a global scale. That said, the cost of the Navy’s 30-year plan would only increase by 3.5 percent.

The Marines would also need to buy more F-35Bs, HIMARS missile launchers, and anti-ship-capable ATACMS missiles, as well as Army-only systems like IFPC. But nothing in the concept would require some radical breakthrough technology, Clark and Sloman argued. It’s all in the realm of the achievable — it’s just risky.

General Turner’s Take

At the report’s official rollout this evening, the director of the Marine Corps’ Capabilities Development Directorate praised the CSBA concept — with a couple of reservations.

“This is a well thought out and well-supported study,” said Brig. Gen. Roger Turner. “Leaders in the Marine Corps and the Navy support the general conclusions.”

The fundamental point of agreement: Long-range missile threats require the fleet to operate very differently. “There’s broad recognition in the (Navy) Department that the current paradigm, of a naval force that’s optimized for power projection capability in a benign environment, is kind of a relic,” Turner said. “That’s no longer a viable concept and that’s going to have to change.” Rather than counting on the Navy to rule the waves and get the Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) ashore, he said, “we’re going to have to help the Navy in the sea control fight, so the MAGTF’s going to have to start to fight much earlier.”

Nevertheless, Turner was skeptical of CSBA’s suggestion that, to muster sufficient airpower for long-range war, the Navy should move to big-deck amphibs, or even light aircraft carriers, without well decks from which to launch landing craft and amphibious vehicles. While the Marines could form an aircraft-heavy task force if great power war was imminent, he said, during day-to-day operations the Amphibious Ready Group must be equipped for everything from disaster relief to hostage rescue. While dozens of amphibs might make up a wartime fleet, offering plenty of opportunity for each to specialize, in peacetime high demand for amphibs means individual ships often operate alone, so each ship needs the full range of capabilities — including a well deck.

While the great power war scenarios that drove the CSBA study are the most important mission, Turner emphasized, they’re not the only one. “We have commitments across the range of military operations,” he said. “We don’t have the luxury of being able to completely purpose-build the Marine Corps or the Navy for a single threat scenario.”

On the other hand, Turner was far more comfortable than me with the study’s proposal for Expeditionary Advance Bases inside enemy missile range. Remember, he told me when I raised the risks, that the Marine Corps never operates alone.

“All of these operations need to be viewed in context of what the joint force capability brings,” Turner said. “Certainly there are enemy capabilities out there that are pretty difficult to deal with, but we’re pretty confident in our own joint capabilities.” Satellites, drones, bombers, cruise missiles, and cyber attacks should be able to detect, defeat, and destroy enough Anti-Access/Area Denial systems that the Marines can penetrate the A2/AD zone. “We’re not ready to cede those threat rings and say…we can’t operate inside those,” Turner said.

That said, operating inside the danger zone does require careful preparation. “We have to make sure that once we do put forces ashore that they’re going to have the requisite force protection,” Turner said. In particular, he said, “we’re going to need to invest in air defense.”

“It does represent a paradigm shift for us,” Turner said, “and we are going to make investments to change the composition of the force to make it more survivable.”

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/11/a-bridg...gy-for-marines/

Und die Studie in Gänze: http://csbaonline.org/research/publication...f-precision-wea

[Warhammer]

Den Artikel hab ich auch schon mal gelesen und er zeigt in meinen Augen einen bösen Irrweg.

Die Idee, dass man solche kleinen Basen, in denen immerhin F-35 starten und landen und aus denen heraus man Feuerschläge mit HIMARS durchführt, irgendwie nennenswert lange versteckt halten könnte ist in meinen Augen Wunschdenken. Und sobald man aufgeklärt ist folgt der Gruß durch eine Batterie Smerch/Tornado/Grad/Msta-S/etc.. Da hilft auch kein Raketenabwehrsystem.

Und keine dieser Basen wird unwichtig genug sein, dass ein halbwegs kompetenter Gegner nicht ein paar Batterieschläge darauf "verschwendet".

Der Army Chief of Staff hat sich da schon ganz richtig zu Wort gemeldet. Was sich zu lange nicht bewegt ist extrem gefährdet.

[schießmuskel]

Der Army Chief of Staff hat sich da schon ganz richtig zu Wort gemeldet. Was sich zu lange nicht bewegt ist extrem gefährdet.

Eben und ein Schiffsverband bewegt sich ständig und ist damit praktisch für konventionelle Ari/MRLS nicht zu treffen. Das kann man dann nur mit Lenkwaffen, welche wiederum von der alles sehenden Gods view F35 und ihrer überlegenen Avionik Suite erfasst und bekämpft werden. Also völlig abwegig mit verwundbaren Transportern mehrere Einflüge ins Feindgebiet zu starten um dann dort statsiche Basen zu errichten. Wenn auf so einer Basis eine Staffel F35 plus eine Handvoll Ospreys bewirtet werden plus Munition, Treibstoff Ersatzteile etc. reden wir hier von einem Ziel was gute 3 Milliraden Wert ist nur an Material, die gut 200 unbezahlbaren Mann lass ich mal aussen vor.
Auch die Gefahr von anderen Faktoren ist gegeben, wie sie einem Verband auf See nicht begegnen können. Einzelne Infiltratoren, feindlich gesonnene Zivilisten, Mörser Beschuss, Scharfschützen. oder man müsste dann um diesen Gefahren zu begegnen einen mehrere Kilometer breiten Sicherungsring um die Basis legen, wodurch das ganze dann völlig aufgebläht und personal intensiv wird.

[Dave76]

Airbus calls on France to join European future fighter effort

A week before the Paris air show, the head of Airbus Defence & Space's military aircraft division has called on France to participate in the development of a new airborne weapon system proposed by Germany and Spain to succeed the Eurofighter Typhoon.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/...e-fight-438111/

[xena]

.

Der Beitrag wurde von xena bearbeitet: 17. Sep 2019, 13:52

[Edding321]

Scheint so, als habe man sich bei der Navy für den Kauf und den Beginn zur Umrüstung auf Block III entschieden.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a...-boeings-f-1-8/

Macht vor allem vor dem Hintergrund Sinn, dass die F 35C nicht schnell genug zu laufen können und die Ausmusterung der Super Hornet wohl auch noch lange nicht ansteht und damit up to Date gehalten werden müssen. Wäre zukünftig ein interessanter Mix aus Bewerten und Neuem auf den Trägern der US Navy, nahezu vernünftig. Muss halt "nur" finanziert werden können.