Shanahan: Super Hornet on track to meet readiness goals, but F-16s and F-22s still struggling

On the same subject

• 

  October 9, 2018 | International, Land

  Milley: We’re going to cut instructor-trainee ratios at Army basic training in half

  By: Meghann Myers So far, 2018 has seen an overhaul of basic combat training and a pilot programto extend infantry one-station unit training from 14 to 22 weeks. Next stop: Reducing the number of trainees assigned to each drill sergeant. Earlier this year, the Army sent drill sergeants back to advanced individual training, bringing uniformity to the whole of initial entry training for new soldiers who move onto a second training program following basic. But the ratio of trainers to trainees is still “way too high,” Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley told Army Times on Monday at the AUSA annual meeting in Washington, D.C. “And that's because we intentionally, over the last 17 years, we trimmed our institutional force ... in order to feed the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan and make sure that those deploying units had enough people,” he said. So that left the base with 20 trainees for every one drill sergeant at basic combat training, and 40-to-1 at AIT. “We want to essentially cut those ratios in half,” Milley said, while adding a platoon sergeant and officer platoon leader to each of those units. The Army is counting on a steady rise in end strength to 500,000 active component soldiers in the next four years. Those new additions are slated first to fill spots in operational units, but the training base is also hurting for more of the unprecedented number of noncommissioned officers who have been re-enlisting. Decreasing the ratio of drill sergeants to trainees comes at a time when basic training programs are extending, requiring yet more instructors. The Army wants to improve basic combat training “not just in the length, but in the quality and attention paid to each trainee,” Milley said. Infantry OSUT completed a pilot program to extend from 14 to 22 weeks this summer, Army Secretary Mark Esper told Army Times, and that plan will extend in the next year to armor, combat engineers and others. “If we step back and ask ourselves, why? Why extend it?” Esper said. “I think it's lessons learned from the field, the operational Army that says, ‘Look, we're getting solders who could use more time to develop their physical fitness.' Maybe spend more time talking about the military traditions and our history, that [they] would come to the service with a greater sense of discipline.” Some more tactical and technical expertise wouldn't hurt, he added. “We thought adding two months would be what it takes,” for OSUT, Esper said, making it the “Longest and most challenging infantry basic training the world. Depending on what we learn ... we would seek to apply those lessons to other MOSs.” https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/10/08/milley-were-going-to-cut-instructor-trainee-ratios-at-army-basic-training-in-half

• 

  August 2, 2022 | International, Aerospace

  US Special Operations Command chooses L3Harris' Sky Warden for Armed Overwatch effort

  AFSOC hopes its Armed Overwatch plane will be able to pressure violent extremist groups in austere places like Africa, where the airspace is largely permissive.

• 

  July 2, 2019 | International, Naval

  US Navy eyes new launchers on destroyers for hypersonic weapons

  By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — With bigger, faster missiles in development and bound for the fleet, the U.S. Navy's engineers are considering installing upgraded launchers on the stalwart Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. The head of Naval Sea Systems Command, Vice Adm. Thomas Moore, told an audience at a conference of naval engineers that the Arleigh Burkes — due to their vertical launch system and Aegis missile capabilities — were easier to keep relevant than other destroyers such as the Adams and Spruance classes. Still, with the service attempting to keep the ships longer, new launchers may be in order to pace the threat from Russia and China, which have been developing their own hypersonic weapons. “Vertical launch system has been a real game changer for us. We can shoot any number of things out of those launchers,” Moore said. “We'll probably change those out and upgrade them for prompt strike weapons down the road.” Putting hypersonic weapons on surface ships would greatly increase the effectiveness of their strike capabilities. The current main strike weapon, the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile, is a subsonic missile that is vulnerable to evermore advanced Russian and Chinese air defenses. Prompt strike, which refers to a Pentagon-wide effort to field hypersonic weapons to quickly strike anywhere in the world, are most likely coming first to submarines, said Thomas Callender, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Heritage Foundation. Because subs are stealthy and can sneak in close to land undetected more easily than a surface ship, they make the most sense. “They're looking at putting hypersonics on submarines first because where you can get access,” Callender said. “You can potentially then put them on surface ships as an added capability for them, but the submarines would be the priority for access and the ranges you can achieve.” The Navy is designing a new large surface combatant to replace the cruisers and ultimately the destroyers with larger missiles in mind. As a result, the ship may be fairly large, former Surface Warfare Director Rear Adm. Ron Boxall told Defense News last year. The benefit of larger vertical launch cells is that you can pack more missiles into each cell, if you are not using the cell for the larger hypersonic missiles, Boxall said. “We are going to need, we expect, space for longer-range missiles,” he said. They are going to be bigger. So the idea that you could make a bigger cell, even if you don't use it for one big missile, you could use it for multiple missiles — quad-pack, eight-pack, whatever.” The missiles that would go into a larger launcher are still very much under development. The Navy is teamed with the Army to develop a booster for a hypersonic missile, and the Army is leading a team with the Navy and Air Force to internally build a common glide body that is producible on a larger scale. Radar upgrades Naval Sea Systems Command is also examining installation of a scaled-down version of the air and missile defense radar AN/SPY-6, under development for the Flight III DDG. The scope of that project, however, remains to be determined. “We are looking at a scaled-back version of the air and missile defense radar to back-fit the Flight Is and Flight IIs, similar to how we are looking for a version of the [Enterprise Air Search Radar] developed for [the Ford-class aircraft carriers] to back-fit on some of the old Nimitz class,” Moore said. “I'm not sure how many ships it is going to go on, we're still doing the design work. It's a fairly significant change to the structure of the ship, AMDR versus Spy.” The purpose of the upgrade would be used to track the faster, more dynamic missiles under development by Russia and China. The array is a smaller version of the SPY-6 intended for the Flight III DDG, the first of which is now under construction at Huntington Ingalls Industries. The SPY-6 destined for DDG-125 will have 37 radar modular assemblies, or RMA, which are 2-foot-by-2-foot-by-2-foot boxes that use gallium nitride technology to direct radar energy on air targets. The Flight IIA version will have 24 RMAs in the array. A version of the radar planned for the FFG(X) future frigate is a nine-RMA configuration. The Navy wants to upgrade all of its DDGs to Aegis Baseline 9 or higher with a ballistic missile defense capability and extend the service lives to 45 years as part of an effort to grow the fleet. But the Navy is going to try to get 50 years out of its Flight IIA ships. The IIAs make up the bulk of the DDG fleet, with 46 total planned for the service — DDG-79 through DDG-124. DDG-127 will also be a Flight IIA. That upgraded SPY-6 will be far easier to maintain than the current SPY-1D. Raytheon claims the radar can be maintained by simply removing an RMA and switching it out with a new one, with the rest of the work performed offsite. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/06/30/navy-eyes-new-launchers-on-stalwart-destroyers-for-putting-hypersonics-afloat/