Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    U.S. Army News:

    Share
    avatar
    VladimirSahin
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 411
    Points : 429
    Join date : 2013-11-29
    Age : 26
    Location : Florida

    Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  VladimirSahin on Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:37 pm

    I'm not sure if they'll be able to install 30 mike mike caliber on it but if it does that'll definitely boost the power of a Stryker brigade combat team.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3909
    Points : 3940
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:48 pm

    VladimirSahin wrote:I'm not sure if they'll be able to install 30 mike mike caliber on it but if it does that'll definitely boost the power of a Stryker brigade combat team.

    That isn't exactly a problem, you could put a 105mm on that. The important part is what kind of trade-off we'll see for that one.
    avatar
    VladimirSahin
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 411
    Points : 429
    Join date : 2013-11-29
    Age : 26
    Location : Florida

    Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  VladimirSahin on Sat Oct 08, 2016 12:51 am

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    VladimirSahin wrote:I'm not sure if they'll be able to install 30 mike mike caliber on it but if it does that'll definitely boost the power of a Stryker brigade combat team.

    That isn't exactly a problem, you could put a 105mm on that. The important part is what kind of trade-off we'll see  for that one.

    Wrong wording choice I used, I meant if they would decide so. If they do I think it would be worth it.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15994
    Points : 16645
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 08, 2016 5:30 am

    At a time when the 30mm is being replaced as an IFV weapon in Russia by a 57mm gun I would think they would be looking at a least at a 35mm or 40mm gun... or a combination like the BMP-3 with a 100mm calibre and a light auto cannon to cover a range of targets...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9981
    Points : 10471
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  George1 on Sun Oct 16, 2016 2:40 am

    US Army’s New Long-Range Missile Battery Could Double as Anti-Ship Weapon

    Read more: https://sputniknews.com/military/201610151046351143-us-army-long-range-anti-ship/


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9981
    Points : 10471
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  George1 on Wed Oct 19, 2016 1:55 am

    The end of the history of the helicopter AH-64 Apache?

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2191449.html


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9981
    Points : 10471
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  George1 on Sat Oct 29, 2016 12:12 pm

    First Stryker armored vehicle with a 30 mm cannon

    According to US media reports, October 27, 2016 the US Army was officially handed over to General Dynamics Corporation manufactured the first prototype of the modernized machine the Stryker wheeled armored, equipped combat unit with a 30-mm automatic cannon. The transfer was made at the company General Dynamics Land Systems Maneuver Collaboration Center in Sterling Heights (Michigan).





    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2215179.html


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    Zhukov-Patton
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 14
    Points : 27
    Join date : 2015-03-30
    Location : USA

    US tank defenses

    Post  Zhukov-Patton on Mon Dec 12, 2016 7:02 am

    Saw this article today, I am curious as to what other people might think on the matter
    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-armys-radical-idea-save-its-tanks-enemy-missiles-18694
    avatar
    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1285
    Points : 1292
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  AlfaT8 on Mon Dec 12, 2016 7:11 pm

    Zhukov-Patton wrote:Saw this article today, I am curious as to what other people might think on the matter
    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-armys-radical-idea-save-its-tanks-enemy-missiles-18694

    Sounds dumb, i get the idea, have extra armor that can be moved to targeted areas of the tank to improved it's survival, problem is, will that same extra armor be usable later and if not you're still gonna need more armor when the adversary targets other parts of the tank, it would make more sense to just make sure that "extra" armor's added to the entire tank, in short this won't resolve any weight or size problem (unless some mad scientist made an actual working force field), IMO.

    What happened to that "Electromagnetic Reactive Armour" they were working on, to expensive? Suspect

    And their excuse for not simply using an APS sounds like crap, they just want something they can call their own, and then say they're better than everyone else, not sure whether this can be called a superiority complex.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5385
    Points : 5430
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  Militarov on Mon Dec 12, 2016 9:38 pm

    Zhukov-Patton wrote:Saw this article today, I am curious as to what other people might think on the matter
    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-armys-radical-idea-save-its-tanks-enemy-missiles-18694

    "One interesting wrinkle is that the Army proposal explicitly prohibits any solution that is an active protection system. That means the Army wants to avoid anything like Israel's Trophy gear, which shoots down incoming rockets with a shotgun blast of projectiles. The Army suggests one reason for this stipulation when it calls for moveable armor that “shall not pose harm to dismounted personnel.” - Right, meanwhile using SABOT is totally fine, it can just cut your head off if you are in front or on the side of the tank. Even saw it landing behind the tank.

    Idea itself about the "active-lego" armor is okay, however it wont become a thing for a while. That would require very complicated threat detection system, shitload of small components that would move armor modules etc... would end up being very complicated.


    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3975
    Points : 4032
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  JohninMK on Mon Dec 12, 2016 9:45 pm

    Militarov wrote:

    Idea itself about the "active-lego" armor is okay, however it wont become a thing for a while. That would require very complicated threat detection system, shitload of small components that would move armor modules etc... would end up being very complicated.

    Call me a cynic but that sounds perfect for the US MIC. Lots of R&D and way down the line, production, profits.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5385
    Points : 5430
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  Militarov on Mon Dec 12, 2016 10:18 pm

    JohninMK wrote:
    Militarov wrote:

    Idea itself about the "active-lego" armor is okay, however it wont become a thing for a while. That would require very complicated threat detection system, shitload of small components that would move armor modules etc... would end up being very complicated.

    Call me a cynic but that sounds perfect for the US MIC. Lots of R&D and way down the line, production, profits.

    Well, see how i look at it, money spent on R&D is never wasted. Even if you do not get the goal you intended you might use parts of that research for other things and projects, maybe even make civilian/industrial applications etc. However... this thing i am not sure about, mainly because as you said "down the line" will probably be "dooooooowwwn the line", in like 20 years.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15994
    Points : 16645
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  GarryB on Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:42 am

    I think you underestimate the ability to waste taxpayers money...

    I remember in the 1980s a US Army contract regarding head wounds.

    They gave a US university a contract for 1 million dollars to do a series of tests... they took 200 cats and shot them in the head and then tried to keep them alive with various life support machines.

    The findings were that brain injury often leads to a condition where the patient can only be kept alive with life support machines.

    Money well spent I say.

    Next they were going to spend 6 million dollars doing a follow up experiment with 200 dogs getting shot in the head...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5385
    Points : 5430
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  Militarov on Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:19 pm

    GarryB wrote:I think you underestimate the ability to waste taxpayers money...

    I remember in the 1980s a US Army contract regarding head wounds.

    They gave a US university a contract for 1 million dollars to do a series of tests... they took 200 cats and shot them in the head and then tried to keep them alive with various life support machines.

    The findings were that brain injury often leads to a condition where the patient can only be kept alive with life support machines.

    Money well spent I say.

    Next they were going to spend 6 million dollars doing a follow up experiment with 200 dogs getting shot in the head...

    Well, see. That testing (i never heard of that one tho i must say) probably led to many improvements in life support equipment threatment. I mean, if in WW2 armies did not invest so much in battlefield poison gases we wouldnt have good antidotes today either and alot of protective equipment that we use in industry today. I mean, there is always some good return, even in horrid investments.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15994
    Points : 16645
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  GarryB on Thu Dec 15, 2016 8:36 am

    Yeah.. that is what they say to get funding... they don't know what they might learn until the experiment is over. The problem is that the Universities don't care what they research, they just want something to research... that is what they do.

    I rather doubt anything they learned from either study furthered the science of keeping bodies alive.... that is fairly straightforward... the purpose was to determine recovery from traumatic brain injury and the answer was no.

    Those researchers might go on to cure cancer but in these experiments the actual value of the money spent was zero... that is why I read about the case... it was part of a study on waste within the military where the military had money it needed to spend or it would not get the same money next year, and the university just wanted a research fund... they didn't care about whether the results were useful or not. A list of cases regarding wasted spending within the army. I am sure it would dwarf the encyclopaedia Britannica in size... Of course why should any branch of government be any different...

    Actually I remember Bill Gunston talking in an article about the misuse of Top Secret status. He mentioned a missile prototype he and others were working on for the British MOD. Every test the thing flew up its ramp and then exploded. No Telemetry the whole thing was destroyed. After several exploded with no information about what was the problem the programme was quietly closed and everyone had to sign to not divulge anything... each test was eye wateringly expensive... there were no secrets to leak except how much taxpayers money was being wasted with no return.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9981
    Points : 10471
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  George1 on Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:45 pm

    BAE Systems Presents First AMPV Prototype to US Army

    The AMPV is based on designs for the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle and M109A7 Self-Propelled Howitzer.


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9981
    Points : 10471
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  George1 on Sun Jan 22, 2017 10:15 pm

    The US Army will replace the pistols Beretta M9 with Sig Sauer P320

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2389560.html


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3975
    Points : 4032
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  JohninMK on Wed Mar 29, 2017 10:54 am

    Anyone translate this into English?

    The US Army's Modular Active Protection System (MAPS) to protect tanks from missile fire has completed its initial integration stage, Northrop Grumman, one of the two main contractors on the program, announced in a news release.

    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The initial integration for the US Army's Modular Active Protection System (MAPS) soft-kill demonstrator was completed by Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and the US Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC).

    The MAPS system is designed to quickly plug-and-play new technologies including radars, infra-red sensors, jammers, decoys and hard-kill shooters, according to published reports.

    "Using Lockheed Martin's Open Architecture Processor and Northrop Grumman's sensor and countermeasure systems, the team completed initial integration in preparation for full system demonstrations on an M1 Abrams tank in 2017," the release stated.

    Lockheed Martin's Open Architecture Processor controls and processes information from multiple sensors and countermeasures, and drives information displays, the release added.
    avatar
    franco
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2184
    Points : 2222
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  franco on Wed Mar 29, 2017 12:15 pm

    JohninMK wrote:Anyone translate this into English?

    The US Army's Modular Active Protection System (MAPS) to protect tanks from missile fire has completed its initial integration stage, Northrop Grumman, one of the two main contractors on the program, announced in a news release.

    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The initial integration for the US Army's Modular Active Protection System (MAPS) soft-kill demonstrator was completed by Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and the US Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC).

    The MAPS system is designed to quickly plug-and-play new technologies including radars, infra-red sensors, jammers, decoys and hard-kill shooters, according to published reports.

    "Using Lockheed Martin's Open Architecture Processor and Northrop Grumman's sensor and countermeasure systems, the team completed initial integration in preparation for full system demonstrations on an M1 Abrams tank in 2017," the release stated.

    Lockheed Martin's Open Architecture Processor controls and processes information from multiple sensors and countermeasures, and drives information displays, the release added.

    "Combat in Iraq and Syria has shown how superior the Russian Protection Countermeasures Systems are to those in the West" or a close translation. Idioms are difficult to translate sometimes Smile
    avatar
    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2998
    Points : 3030
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  max steel on Tue Apr 25, 2017 3:04 pm

    US Army Exploring ‘Devastating’ New Weapon for Use In War with Russia





    Were the United States to go to war with Russia, both sides could draw on deadly weapons that the world has never seen on a battlefield. On the Russian side, there are new and smaller tactical nuclear weapons. To counter them, the U.S. Army is taking another look at a “devastating” weapon, one first tested by the Air Force and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in 2013, the Kinetic Energy Projectile, or KEP, a tungsten-based charge moving at three times the speed of sound that can destroy anything in its path.

    “Think of it as a big shotgun shell,” Maj. Gen. William Hix, the Army’s director of strategy, plans & policy, said a few weeks ago at the Booz Allen Hamilton Direct Energy Summit. But unlike a shotgun shell, Hix said, the KEP moves at incredible speeds of “Mach 3 to Mach 6.”

    Randy Simpson, a weapons programs manager at Lawrence Livermore National Lab, explains that kinetic energy projectiles are warheads that “take advantage of high terminal speeds to deliver much more energy onto a target than the chemical explosives they carry would deliver alone.”

    Said Hix: “The way that they [Lawrence Livermore] have designed it is quite devastating. I would not want to be around it. Not much can survive it. If you are in a main battle tank, if you’re a crew member, you might survive but the vehicle will be non-mission capable, and everything below that will level of protection will be dead. That’s what I am talking about.”


    The general emphasized that the exploration was in a conceptual phase and not yet any sort of actual program: “We’re looking at ways we might — key, might — use that capability in one of our existing launch platforms as part of the weapons suite that we have.”

    He said the main contender for a launcher would be the Army Tactical Missile System, made by Lockheed Martin.

    In October 2013, an Air Force test team strapped the projectile to a “sled” on the high-speed test track at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico. The goal: to get it moving faster than Mach 3 and see how it might actually work in the air. The test showed that the warhead design worked; it also provided data to help simulations and modeling.

    Why would the U.S. military, which has put untold billions of dollars into precision weapons over several decades, need such a blunt and terrifying weapon? To counter small Russian nuclear weapons.

    “The Russians … maintain their tactical nuclear stockpile in ways that we have not,” Hix said.

    Potomac Institute head Philip Karber, who helped write the Pentagon’s Russia New Generation Warfare Study , offered a bit more explanation when Defense One spoke to him in January. While the United States retains just a few of its once-large arsenal of tactical nukes, Karber estimates that Russia currently has anywhere from 2,000 to 5,000 of the weapons.

    “Look at what the Russians have been doing in low-fission, high-fusion, sub-kiloton tactical nuclear technology,” he said. “It appears that they are putting a big effort…in both miniaturising the warheads and using sub-kiloton low-yield warheads.”

    Why is that significant? By shrinking the warhead, you can shoot it out of a wider variety of guns, including, potentially, 152-millimeter tank cannons.

    They’ve announced that the follow-on tank to the Armata will have a 152-millimeter gun missile launcher. They’re talking about it having a nuclear capability. And you go, ‘You’re talking about building a nuclear tank, a tank that fires a nuke?’ Well, that’s the implication,” said Karber. Laughing

    Hix says that the use of tactical battlefield nuclear weapons, even very low-level ones, is not part of official Russian military doctrine, but it is a capability that they are increasingly eager to show off (and discuss) to intimidate neighbors and adversaries.

    “They certainly exercise the use of those weapons in many of their exercises, including the one that participated in the parking of 30,000 to 40,000 soldiers on the Ukrainian border right before [the 2014 invasion of] Crimea. That coercive intimidation is a part of their design,” he said.

    And while even Soviet generals may have shied away from using tactical nukes, Blix said, Putin’s military is “a lot more inclined philosophically to see the utility of them.”



    Is it similar to Railgun concept ? Firing projectiles ?

    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3975
    Points : 4032
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  JohninMK on Tue Apr 25, 2017 5:32 pm

    Sounds like a plea for money Max.

    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3975
    Points : 4032
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  JohninMK on Tue Apr 25, 2017 5:59 pm


    US Army orders additional AN/TPQ-53 counterfire radar systems
    Read news from Defence Blog at Flipboard.com | Subscribe to the newsletter from Defence Blog
    Apr 25, 2017

    Lockheed Martin has secured a $1.6bn contract to produce additional AN/TPQ-53 counterfire radar systems for the US Army.

    Using the Q-53 radar system, troops in combat will be able to detect, classify, track and identify the location of enemy indirect fire in either 360° or 90° modes.

    The radar system can be readily adapted to provide both air surveillance and counterfire target acquisition in one tactical sensor, Lockheed stated.

    Lockheed Martin Q-53 radar programme director Rick Herodes said: “What’s so special about the Q-53 radar system is the inherent flexibility of its software controlled active electronically scanned array (AESA).

    “Our engineers can adjust the Q-53’s software to address emerging threats. Having control in the software allows quick reaction to whatever comes next – so the first Q-53 radar system off the line could be quickly updated to be just as capable as the 170th Q-53 radar system.”

    The Q-53 radar demonstrated its multi-mission radar (MMR) capability by identifying and tracking aerial systems and transmitting that information to a command and control node.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15994
    Points : 16645
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 26, 2017 10:12 am

    To counter them, the U.S. Army is taking another look at a “devastating” weapon, one first tested by the Air Force and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in 2013, the Kinetic Energy Projectile, or KEP, a tungsten-based charge moving at three times the speed of sound that can destroy anything in its path.

    Wow... how could the Russians possible compete... maybe with their 125mm tungsten APFSDS rounds that move at 1.8km/s, which is about mach 5... or almost double the mach 3 (900m/s) speed of this weapon.

    Randy Simpson, a weapons programs manager at Lawrence Livermore National Lab, explains that kinetic energy projectiles are warheads that “take advantage of high terminal speeds to deliver much more energy onto a target than the chemical explosives they carry would deliver alone.”

    Wow... so what they have developed is a kinetic penetrator... amazing... where do they come up with these ideas...

    Randy Simpson, a weapons programs manager at Lawrence Livermore National Lab, explains that kinetic energy projectiles are warheads that “take advantage of high terminal speeds to deliver much more energy onto a target than the chemical explosives they carry would deliver alone.”

    Wow... a kinetic penetrator not quite powerful enough to penetrate an enemy tank... haven't they already got those in 120mm?

    “They’ve announced that the follow-on tank to the Armata will have a 152-millimeter gun missile launcher. They’re talking about it having a nuclear capability. And you go, ‘You’re talking about building a nuclear tank, a tank that fires a nuke?’ Well, that’s the implication,” said Karber.

    What a dick. A kinetic penetrator that can't even penetrate a current tank is hardly the weapon to invest in to use against nuclear weapon armed tanks. This guy is retarded.

    And while even Soviet generals may have shied away from using tactical nukes, Blix said, Putin’s military is “a lot more inclined philosophically to see the utility of them.”

    What a shit story.

    Americans want to spend money developing a new type of kinetic weapon but are desperate for funding and will make shit up like the Russians putting tactical nuclear weapons in their tanks to fire and US forces... how the fuck will a kinetic weapon that can't even reliably penetrate a current Russian tank hope to stop a nuclear shell hitting them... give them lots of money... it will all be over faster when it is all gone.

    Is it similar to Railgun concept ? Firing projectiles ?

    It is an ineffective EM gun...

    The 115mm gun of the T-62 fires a tungsten projectile at higher speeds and is already a mature and developed system.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3975
    Points : 4032
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  JohninMK Yesterday at 11:32 am

    Oh deary, deary me, don't say that this was another profit over function' MIC contract.

    Fragile, Vulnerable and Loud: US Army Chief Says $6 Billion Battlefield Communications Network Won’t Survive Combat.

    On Thursday, the US Army’s chief of staff told legislators that he isn’t confident that the service’s Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) can withstand the hardships of battle.

    A part of the Army’s 2003 Future Combat Systems (FCS) effort, the service attempted to save WIN-T in 2009 after FCS was canceled. The $6 billion program led by General Dynamics Corp was put in place to create secure communication on the battlefield for mobile mounted forces.

    During a May 25 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) told Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley that he had concerns about WIN-T’s effectiveness. He said, "I have seen credible reports that WIN-T has ineffective line-of-sight communications … It is too fragile to survive in a contested environment and has an electromagnetic signature so loud that it practically would call for enemy artillery on the top of its user’s heads," according to DOD Buzz.

    Cotton asked the chief if he had heard similar reports, and Milley replied that he shared his concerns and that he’s leading "a rigorous, thorough and painful review of the entire communications [and] electromagnetic capability of the US Army," including WIN-T.  "Frankly, my concern is these systems may or may not work in the conditions of combat that I envision in the future," he said. "t is fragile and it is vulnerable, so we are taking a very, very deep, hard, wide look."

    Milley said that the review should be complete in another four to six weeks, and that he had received correspondence from Congress asking to accelerate the program. "I am not going to accelerate it until I am convinced it will work in combat against the enemies of our country that may be coming in the future," Milley declared.

    Along with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Cotton said that the Army should make a decision about WIN-T’s future soon, as it has already cost $6 billion over the last decade, saying, "If the program is not working, it doesn’t seem that we should be accelerating more money into it until we can get it to work or find a replacement."  Mcain called the program a "debacle" and bemoaned what he called the Army’s "disastrous acquisition record over the last two decades," according to The Hill.

    The Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman added, "This program — I urge my colleagues, if they don't pay any attention to anything I say today — this program has cost the taxpayer over $6 billion, and has yet to meet the requirements of our war fighters. Six billion."

    The Army describes WIN-T as the service’s "tactical communications network backbone that enables mission command and secure reliable voice, video and data communications anytime, anywhere. Leveraging both satellite and line-of-sight capabilities for optimum efficiency, effectiveness and operational flexibility, the WIN-T network provides the data ‘pipe’ that other communication and mission command systems need to connect into in order to operate."


    https://sputniknews.com/military/201705271054032525-chiefs-doubts-wint-battlefield-capability/

    Sponsored content

    Re: U.S. Army News:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun May 28, 2017 9:26 pm