Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Military / Re: Nuclear Weapons NEWS ONLY
« Last post by kaiserd on Today at 02:46:46 am »
Morale in the ICBM forces hit an all time low under Obama.  It started it's slide back under HW.  And before anybody starts warming up a knee, that's common knowledge, and not something that is going to change without some serious effort.  That's not an excuse, as some would have you think, for getting rid of the ICBM fleet.  It just means somebody needs to do something REAL to improve the morale, and training, in that area.

News only?
Still very few informations about what could be the futur fighter
Aerospace / Re: XF-85 Goblin
« Last post by Granit on Yesterday at 10:02:07 pm »

The analogue of the American "Goblin", developed by Pokorzhevsky (USSR)...
The Bar / Warship Projects (1900 - 1950) Blog
« Last post by Graham1973 on Yesterday at 07:15:20 pm »
I just stumbled across this website dealing with what looks to be Battlecruiser and Battleship projects in the 1900 - 1950 timeframe. The artwork is by forum member TZoli and the subjects cover the pre-Washington Treaty designs, US proposals for the North Dakota Class, including some designs that look like a US version of the British Nelson Class and one oddity (Design F) that mixes a gun armament with seaplane bombers! Other highlights include a history of the Austro-Hungarian battleship/battlecruiser designs, and a picture of the proposed AA ship conversion of the unfinished USS Kentucky (BB-66) from 1948.


WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force is in the process of laying out a fighter jet road map that will help decide the makeup of its future tactical aircraft fleet. The plan won’t be finalized until later this year, but Dave Deptula, a retired Air Force lieutenant general and current dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, shared with Defense News his thoughts about where the service should go.

One of the big questions regarding the fighter road map is the fate of fourth-generation fighters. What should the Air Force be considering as it makes those decisions?

For far too long, the budgets that have been issued to the Air Force have been what has driven its force size, not strategy. So the national security strategy is what needs to drive our military’s force structure, to include the Air Force. If you look to the new national security strategy … one begins to see a picture where what one needs to be able to do is to fight and win major regional contingencies at the high end of the conflict spectrum, as well as to still be engaged in kind of the proverbial conflicts that have been continuing but that occur inside a permissive airspace.
Military / Re: Nuclear Weapons NEWS ONLY
« Last post by RyanC on Yesterday at 02:57:05 pm »

Whoops didn't notice this is news only
The Bar / Re: Global Military Spending - NEWS ONLY
« Last post by bobbymike on Yesterday at 02:04:24 pm »

The Senate Armed Services Committee’s version of the 2019 defense budget would increase research and development spending by about $1.2 billion over the White House’s request, pumping cash into some of the Pentagon’s most critical modernization programs as lawmakers prod the Pentagon to move faster — and smarter — to head off modernization pushes by China and Russia.

Senate staffers on Friday portrayed the new lines of funding as a way of challenging the Pentagon and White House to better define how it plans to shift to an age of great power competition with China and Russia, while stepping away from the focus on fighting insurgents in the deserts and mountains of the Middle East. 

There was some frustration on the Senate side over the timing of the release of the budget and the Pentagon’s new National Security Strategy, which weren’t tied together in the way that most strategists would like.

“The request and the strategy were not exactly not aligned,” one Senate staffer said on Friday. “This wasn’t a clearly sequential ‘strategy informs budget’ type of process.” For the lawmakers who marked up the budget, “the strategy raises a lot of questions, and the implications of the strategy are quite significant in terms of what it means to reorient the force toward great power competition…that the budget won’t be fully able to capture.”
Sorry, FJ!

The video is new. The weapon was at MAKS 2015 and was linked to the Su-57 at the time.
Military / Re: Future soldier technology (modified thread)
« Last post by bobbymike on Yesterday at 02:02:50 pm »

TAMPA, Fla. — Special Operations Command is planning to release solicitations next year for machine guns that are expected to give warfighters expanded capability, a SOCOM official said May 24.

One is a lightweight medium machine gun that must provide commandos with a 2,000-meter engagement capability, be of comparable weight to the current M240B weapon and offer advanced barrel, suppressor and thermal mitigation technologies, said Lt. Col. Mark Owens, program manager for ammunition and weapons at program executive office SOF warrior.

“We’re not looking for the same barrel technology in this body of weapons that we have seen in the last 50 years of machine guns,” he said during a panel discussion at the National Defense Industrial Association’s annual Special Operations Forces Industry Conference in Tampa, Florida. “We’re looking for a barrel that has higher endurance, higher operational ability, greater availability for sustained fires."
Military / Re: Nuclear Weapons NEWS ONLY
« Last post by bobbymike on Yesterday at 01:56:51 pm »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10