Military and Aviation News Thread (NO DISCUSSION)

Laser guided Zuni 127mm rocket.

e4PqubDjizA

sTQ_rgdhzxo

UNUodOiMpyI

i8fC7bxDYnA

bLTqTMSAOjA

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Raytheon_delivers_first_Standard_Missile_6_from_new_Alabama_missile_integration_facility_999.html

Raytheon delivers first Standard Missile-6 from new Alabama missile integration facility

by Staff Writers

Huntsville AL (SPX) Mar 04, 2013

 

SM-6 delivers a proven over-the-horizon air defense capability by leveraging the time-tested advantages of the Standard Missile's airframe and propulsion.

 

Raytheon has delivered the first Standard Missile-6 all-up-round to the U.S. Navy from its new integration and testing facility in Huntsville, Ala. SM-6 defends naval vessels against fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles and cruise missiles.

"SM-6 is a game-changing, transformational fleet defense missile, and we're on track to reach initial operating capability this year," said Dr. Taylor W. Lawrence, president of Raytheon Missile Systems.

"Our state-of-the-art production facility in Huntsville will play a significant role in delivering this asset to the U.S. Navy on time and on budget for years to come."

Raytheon opened the doors of its new $75 million, 70,000 square-foot, all-up-round production facility at Redstone Arsenal in November 2012. The facility features advanced tools and the latest processes for missile production, enabling Raytheon to streamline processes, reduce costs and add increased value for the warfighter.

"The SM-6's capabilities signal a new era in fleet defense for our U.S. Navy warfighters," said Wes Kremer, vice president of Air and Missile Defense Systems for Raytheon Missile Systems.

"The Huntsville team is fully committed to delivering this missile to our country's sailors with the kind of mission assurance they've come to rely on."

During a September 2012 test, SM-6 destroyed a cruise missile target using a remote cue from Raytheon's JLENS. The test was a significant step toward further extending a ship's defended footprint.

SM-6 delivers a proven over-the-horizon air defense capability by leveraging the time-tested advantages of the Standard Missile's airframe and propulsion.

+ The SM-6 uses both active and semi-active guidance modes and advanced fuzing techniques.

+ It incorporates the advanced signal processing and guidance control capabilities from Raytheon's Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile.

+ SM-6 has been selected to fulfill the U.S. Navy's sea-based terminal role, which provides defense against ballistic missiles in their terminal phase of flight.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18630622

Yea, it's sort of up there with Cobra Commander's Weather control machine from G.I. Joe, but sometimes truth is stranger than fiction lol.

Lightning laser weapon developed by US Army

 

The weapon is capable of emitting 'huge' power, researchers said

Continue reading the main story Related Stories

 

• US regains supercomputer crown
  
• Smart fabric for soldier uniform
  
• Self-steering bullet researched
  

US Army scientists are developing a weapon which can fire a laser-guided lightning bolt at a target.

The Laser-Induced Plasma Channel (LIPC) is designed to hit targets that conduct electricity better than the air or ground that surrounds them.

The weapon went through extensive testing in January.

George Fischer, lead scientist on the project, said: "We never got tired of the lightning bolts zapping our simulated [targets]."

Details of the weapon were released on the US Army's website.

Mr Fischer explained how the usually unpredictable lightning bolts can be controlled.

"If a laser puts out a pulse with modest energy, but the time is incredibly tiny, the power can be huge," Mr Fischer said.

"During the duration of the laser pulse, it can be putting out more power than a large city needs, but the pulse only lasts for two-trillionths of a second."

50 billion watts

This means, Mr Fischer said, the air could be manipulated to "act like a lens".

"We use an ultra-short-pulse laser of modest energy to make a laser beam so intense that it focuses on itself in air and stays focused in a filament," he said.

Fifty billion watts of optical power are used. By comparison, a typical filament lightbulb uses 100 watts of power.

"If a laser beam is intense enough, its electro-magnetic field is strong enough to rip electrons off of air molecules, creating plasma," Mr Fischer said.

"This plasma is located along the path of the laser beam, so we can direct it wherever we want by moving a mirror."

The team said it faced a challenge in making the technology rugged enough to survive in harsh battle conditions.

Oh, science Fiction has long been overtaken :)

I actually read news about the SM-6 today and another tidbit on a undervalued program. CEC. CEC stands for Cooperative engagement capability and is aimed at a level of unprecedented sensor integration. This will "just" fuse all sensor information of the fleet into one sensor with the aperture of all the combined sensors (in case of RADAR). Now this is being done in astronomy for a long time. It's called radio interferometry. It's basically to combine the data from all sensors into one giant antenna the same aperture as the combined basis (ie, the distance between antennae). Now, I can tell you that the math for standard interferometry is ugly. This has an added twist. Platforms are always moving. And at different speeds at that. If they manage to pull it off, we'll see an exponential increase in the USN capabilities in terms of detection range and capabilities. Pretty darn impressive. I'll leave you to figure out how this system integrated with the SM-6 makes for the best missile shield, ever.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cec-coooperative-enagagement-for-fleet-defense-updated-03120/

Also, for stealth detractors, Russia chose a new strategic bomber design. It'll be a bomber focused on LO features. Among the different designs presented, several supersonic and one hypersonic design were scraped.

So, Russia is building a B-2 hey?

Yea, cooperative target engagement using space based synthetic aperature radars based on arrayed sensor systems networked together. The video below explains some of that in the sense that only the most probable unit to intercept the threat is selected and the missiles fired at the optimum time to engage at maximum ranges, even if over the horizon from the firing unit using the satellites to provide target track data in real time.

forgot this video that helps illustrate the point as well using Aegis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms6dXiIDofE&list=FLUbMa9kEYoLP3_Zlc2nzVPA&index=221

It turns out the Chinese "indigenous" attack helicopter WZ-10 is based on Kamov design:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/heli-expo-chinese-wz-10-attack-helicopter-based-on-kamov-design-383147/

Ahhh. Good old LM videos. It's funny to watch those videos where everything goes smoothly and then compare it to a real life result like, the Millennium Challenge.

Chinese doctrine is actually to use Low tech ballistic missiles en masse to force the spending of Anti missile, missiles and then finish the job with proper tech missiles. They acquired over 80 small stealth missile boats Each having 4 long range anti-ship missiles. That's 320 missiles right there. A Chinese military expert argued that missile destroyers and frigates cannot be reloaded while at Sea. If they are to be found without missiles, no matter how good their detection systems are, it's useless. Now, the US navy has 90 AEGIS destroyers so that's not an issue considering the current Chinese Navy. The Japanese Navy however can get a nasty surprise. Well, can and can't since the Japanese navy is one of the best trained navies in the World.

Some sources on tech vs asymmetric warfare:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wartech/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB207/index.htm

Well, for me since both sides in Millenium Challenge were U.S. forces in the game, it just shows to me that there's flexibility in doctrine and thinking in the U.S. system, and that lessons were hopefully learned as well as creating doctrine for U.S. forces to be capable of fighting asymetrically with advanced weaponry.

Also having all the self assessment, lessons learned, critical reviews of U.S. forces helps them to learn to adapt to new strategies and challenges, I think that's what makes them so capable and quickly able to adapt to the situation when the shooting starts.

Yea, the Lockheed videos are flashy, and it shows everything going smoothly, but just the same, when things go hot they don't always go so smoothly for the enemy force either. I think the S.Koreans, Taiwan and Japan as well as the U.S. have a pretty good handle on the conventional ballistic missile threat from China/N.Korea for example. Getting an accurate number of all sides systems and their ability to handle the threat publicly would be difficult, but although China has many missiles, they don't have all that many missile launchers to launch them from. U.S. intelligence would probably help in targeting and knocking some of the less mobile sites and larger missile systems out, allowing the joint Japanese, U.S. layered missile defence systems to be able to handle what does come in. Certainly a nightmare scenario, but something the U.S. has been prepared for decades.

No one seems to show in such a scenario that the U.S. would probably do a lot of ASAT against Chinese assets in space, if not directly (it's messy and dangerous for friendly assets) then by more passive means by jamming, as well as massive comms jamming from Japanese and U.S. land naval, air, and space assets. No GPS for Chinese missiles, degraded comms, confusion abounds.

Thanks for the links, I see you included the millenium challenge details, always an interesting read. :D

No one seems to show in such a scenario that the U.S. would probably do a lot of ASAT against Chinese assets in space, if not directly (it's messy and dangerous for friendly assets) then by more passive means by jamming, as well as massive comms jamming from Japanese and U.S. land naval, air, and space assets. No GPS for Chinese missiles, degraded comms, confusion abounds.

What if we just had a small, stealthy, cubesat-sized satellite following just behind each critical Chinese satellite, ready to deorbit it or damage it enough to put it out of service it in case of war? It keeps space from getting polluted with giant clouds of space debris. I guess you couldn't really hide its IR signature though, at least, not easily.

Is that just a stupid idea, or might it be viable? I don't see why its not technically possible, but how easy would be for one of these to stay hidden?

A very good idea Speed, and viable given the technology already demonstrated, I would not be surprised if what you mentioned was being practiced. The U.S. has set up it's satellite network in anticipation of a global thermonuclear war, so there's some interesting tactics that have been used in the past. If you'd like to read up on that, I'd recommend the rather dated book by Arco: "An Illustrated Guide to Space Warfare" You can get it used really cheap here: http://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-Space-Warfare-Guide-Hobbs/dp/0134507843

For instance, being able to thrust into a different orbit after achieving initial orbit, and making it difficult to find the satellite once it has been observed from the ground. Being set up in another orbit and looking like space junk, or otherwise non operating, only to be activated and boosted into correct orbit after origional satellites have been destroyed. Basically, it can get really complicated up there. :)

However,

Check out this report about China's micro sat.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1235/1

The problem is that some of the new Chinese satellites are so small that we've had to move assets into positions where we could get a better handle of exactly what they are. But we have our own systems as well, and a lot more of them.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Small-Is-Beautiful-US-Military-Explores-Use-of-Microsatellites-06720/

Well, the only problem at placing another shadow satellite that I can see is the gravitational pull it'd have. It'd be tricky to achieve a balance. Maybe one on each side ^^.

Still, a US War with China would see GPS to no one. China could easily detonate a couple of nukes very high in the sky to just use all that radiation energy to disrupt and push satellites out of orbit. What the Chinese doctrine states is that many low tech missiles using inertial guidance for instance, could force the depletion of the missile stocks on the opposing navy. From that point onward, the opposing side would have to rely on point defence weapons like the Phalanx to avoid being hit. And that would be the proverbial "it". From their point of view.

Obviously things never go as planned but there was a defence analyst who took chinese claims as a serious fault in the Western navy's move to missile based platforms since you need to replenish missile stocks rather quickly. Now with the introduction of LASER defence in liew of Phalanx should provide more mid range capabilities vs incoming threats. Airborne LASER platforms such as the Boeing AL-1 should also help.

Again, America has 90 Burke class destroyers with 90+ vls. Japan has 6 Burke like destroyers with 96 VLS. if China focuses their 80 stealth ships against Japan, it's materially impossible for the Japanese navy to be able to destroy all incoming missiles. If you run out of missiles, an AEGIS system, good as it is, will loose it's main anti cruise missile ability.

Of course, the Chinese would have to find the japanese navy first and the JMSDF is one of the best trained in the world.

did some math some time ago and it's interesting in that, if you look at the list of all the main Chinese LSTs and transport crafts, you'll find out that the Chinese can carry roughly one mechanised division at once. Interesting bit of info I thought.

EDIT: Speaking of space assets, the best weapon available to any earth nation, would be a magnetic monorail carrying a cart laden with rocks or XIXth century cannon balls. After accelerating to 50 Km/s, release them in the earth's general direction. Any nation caught in that hail of stones would be minced meat.

The only problem with detonating nukes in space is that they found out that once in the vacuum of space that warheads don't have nearly the punch they have when used within the atmosphere, especially against EMP hardened military satellites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_nuclear_explosion

The potential as an anti-satellite weapon became apparent in August 1958 during Hardtack Teak. The EMP observed at the Apia Observatory at Samoa was four times more powerful than any created by solar storms, while in July 1962 the Starfish Prime test damaged electronics in Honolulu and New Zealand (approximately 1,300 kilometers away), fused 300 street lights on Oahu (Hawaii), set off about 100 burglar alarms, and caused the failure of a microwave repeating station on Kauai, which cut off the sturdy telephone system from the other Hawaiian islands. The radius for an effective satellite kill for the various prompt radiations produced by such a nuclear weapon in space was determined to be roughly 80 km.

The worst effects of a Soviet high-altitude test occurred on 22 October 1962, in ‘Operation K’ (ABM System A proof tests) when a 300 kt missile-warhead detonated near Dzhezkazgan at 290-km altitude. The EMP fused 570 km of overhead telephone line with a measured current of 2,500 A, started a fire that burned down the Karaganda power plant, and shut down 1,000-km of shallow-buried power cables between Aqmola and Almaty.

In the grand vastness of space 80km isn't very much of a destructive range when you consider it was a 3.8 Megaton weapon detonation. And if the Chinese are going to resort to Nuclear space detonations which will cause the ground based damage as described in the link above, I think all bets will be off. I was thinking a more conventional scenario without the use of nukes from all sides.

The launch vehicle would have to be sufficiently powerful enough to get the nuclear payload within a few miles of the offending satellite, so at the moment the Chinese using nuclear weapons could not completely destroy the U.S. military satellite networks, as they don't have that many DN-2 missiles, and are in the testing stage at the moment, but they might be testing another one here soon.

http://missilethreat.com/beijing-to-trigger-arms-race-by-testing-anti-satellite-missiles/

This is facinating stuff in my opinion, but it's also one of the most closely guarded secrets of the worlds military powers and hence is shouded by lack in info, denial of existance, or just false info.

Regarding the rocks from space scenario, I give you "Rods from God" or "Thor" which were U.S. designs on a tungsten rod satellite system that does exactly what you describe, only costing more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment

Project Thor

Project Thor is an idea for a weapons system that launches kinetic projectiles from Earth orbit to damage targets on the ground. Jerry Pournelle originated the concept while working in operations research at Boeing in the 1950s before becoming a science-fiction writer.[1][2]

The most described system is "an orbiting tungsten telephone pole with small fins and a computer in the back for guidance". The weapon can be down-scaled, an orbiting "crowbar" rather than a pole.[citation needed] The system described in the 2003 United States Air Force (USAF) report was that of 20-foot-long (6.1 m), 1-foot-diameter (0.30 m) tungsten rods, that are satellite controlled, and have global strike capability, with impact speeds of Mach 10.[3][4][5]

The time between deorbiting and impact would only be a few minutes, and depending on the orbits and positions in the orbits, the system would have a world-wide range.[citation needed] There is no requirement to deploy missiles, aircraft or other vehicles. Although the SALT II (1979) prohibited the deployment of orbital weapons of mass destruction, it did not prohibit the deployment of conventional weapons. The system is prohibited by neither the Outer Space Treaty nor the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.[4][6]

The idea is that the weapon would inflict damage because it moves at orbital velocities, at least 9 kilometers per second. Smaller weapons can deliver measured amounts of energy as small as a 225 kg conventional bomb.[citation needed] Some systems are quoted as having the yield of a small tactical nuclear bomb.[5] These designs are envisioned as a bunker buster.[4][7]

In the case of the system mentioned in the 2003 USAF report above, a 6.1m x 0.3m tungsten cylinder impacting at Mach 10 has a kinetic energy equivalent to approximately 11.5 tons of TNT (or 7.2 tons of dynamite). The mass of such a cylinder is itself over 8 tons, so it is clear that the practical applications of such a system are limited to those situations where its other characteristics provide a decisive advantage - a conventional bomb/warhead of similar weight to the tungsten rod, delivered by conventional means, provides similar destructive capability and is a far more practical method.

The highly elongated shape and high density are to enhance sectional density and therefore minimize kinetic energy loss due to air friction and maximize penetration of hard or buried targets. The larger device is expected to be quite good at penetrating deeply buried bunkers and other command and control targets.[8] The smaller "crowbar" size might be employed for anti-armor, anti-aircraft, anti-satellite and possibly anti-personnel use.[citation needed]

The weapon would be very hard to defend against. It has a very high closing velocity and a small radar cross-section. Launch is difficult to detect. Any infra-red launch signature occurs in orbit, at no fixed position. The infra-red launch signature also has a small magnitude compared to a ballistic missile launch. One drawback of the system is that the weapon's sensors would almost certainly be blind during atmospheric reentry due to the plasma sheath that would develop ahead of it, so a mobile target could be difficult to hit if it performed any unexpected maneuvering.[citation needed] The system would also have to cope with atmospheric heating from re-entry, which could melt the weapon.[9]

While the larger version might be individually launched, the smaller versions would be launched from "pods" or "carriers" that contained several missiles.[citation needed]

The phrase "Rods from God" is also used to describe the same concept.[10] A USAF report called them "hypervelocity rod bundles".[11]

The only problem with detonating nukes in space is that they found out that once in the vacuum of space that warheads don't have nearly the punch they have when used within the atmosphere, especially against EMP hardened military satellites.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_nuclear_explosion

 

In the grand vastness of space 80km isn't very much of a destructive range when you consider it was a 3.8 Megaton weapon detonation. And if the Chinese are going to resort to Nuclear space detonations which will cause the ground based damage as described in the link above, I think all bets will be off. I was thinking a more conventional scenario without the use of nukes from all sides.

Well, the math is not that hard to plot an intercept. Heck, even solid warheads if you placed them just right would do the trick. It wouldn't take much to take satellites out of orbit... If you can reach them :D

The launch vehicle would have to be sufficiently powerful enough to get the nuclear payload within a few miles of the offending satellite, so at the moment the Chinese using nuclear weapons could not completely destroy the U.S. military satellite networks, as they don't have that many DN-2 missiles, and are in the testing stage at the moment, but they might be testing another one here soon.

 

http://missilethreat.com/beijing-to-trigger-arms-race-by-testing-anti-satellite-missiles/

 

This is facinating stuff in my opinion, but it's also one of the most closely guarded secrets of the worlds military powers and hence is shouded by lack in info, denial of existance, or just false info.

Yeah. Usually the info that should be public knowledge like, weapons that can kill us all, usually isn't.

Regarding the rocks from space scenario, I give you "Rods from God" or "Thor" which were U.S. designs on a tungsten rod satellite system that does exactly what you describe, only costing more.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment

Yeah, the thing about the moon is that supposedly there is enough material there to build a nuclear powerplant. that way, you could provide the power needed to fuel such a system. And a cart of rocks can send way more projectiles. And they have more time to gain speed. You'll probably just have to bury the whole system to prevent systematic destruction from meteors...

Still, as soon as anyone tries to get a base on the moon, I believe a lot of threats will ensue. He who controls such asset, truly controls the World.

Your right about that, they would have to reach the satellite, know when it was coming over and the 2007 ASAT test from China was a kinetic kill, but the main thing to remember is that China can only launch ASAT's from 4 possible locations. If an all out war breaks out, I would expect the

Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center (JSLC)

Xichang Satellite Launch Center (XSLC)

Taiyuan Satellite Launch Center (TSLC)

Wenchang Satellite Launch Center (WSLC)

To come under heavy attack to deny them access to space, as well as their control centers for managing their space assets.

He who controls such asset, truly controls the World

It's all about having the high ground in warfare.

Your right about that, they would have to reach the satellite, know when it was coming over and the 2007 ASAT test from China was a kinetic kill, but the main thing to remember is that China can only launch ASAT's from 4 possible locations. If an all out war breaks out, I would expect the

 

Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center (JSLC)

Xichang Satellite Launch Center (XSLC)

Taiyuan Satellite Launch Center (TSLC)

Wenchang Satellite Launch Center (WSLC)

 

To come under heavy attack to deny them access to space, as well as their control centers for managing their space assets.

 

 

It's all about having the high ground in warfare.

Well, theoretically a MiG-25 flying high, high could launch ASAT munition without the need for a heavy rocket. At 30Km height, most of the work is done. Afterwards, is just to allow the emptiness of space to provide a safe journey. Also, using kinetic kills usually means you'll need a lower weight for the launcher to hold further reducing the need for Major launch centers. It's all a matter of weight. How much energy does a SCUD launching platform holds? How much energy would you need to send a 10Kg object into space? There are just so many ifs... still, nice idea for a computer game. Space billiards. Try to hit GPS Orbits at their 20K Km height with one shot ^^

The Mig-25 ASAT idea is an interesting one, do you remember the F-15's doing that in the early to mid 80's? My question is have the Chinese demonstrated such a capability, as far as I can tell it seems they are limited to the heavy launch vehicles to conduct ASAT missions. And not all launch vehicles are suitable for such missions because in one article I saw, the nuclear tipped DF-5's had such slow acceleration they weren't suitable for the ASAT role, forcing China to create a new missile for the job. Not that it will stay that way, but currently compared to Russian and U.S. capabilities they are still a small time player, but catching up.

Something else: I read in Air Interrnational March 2013 p. 13 that the Su-34 has been used in Combat missions over Dagestan and Ingushetia. Any news / confirmation on that?

DAGR is supercool: http://defense-update.com/20130228_dagr-jltv.html

Scorpion helmet to be evaluated on F-22 : http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-to-evaluate-scorpion-helmet-display-on-f-22-raptor-383307/

^finally,the Rapier has some decent upgrade

Regarding using a HMCS in conjunction with the A-10C I found this article:

Moody A-10 pilots first to field target system downrange

Reduced Flying Hours Forces USAF To Ground 17 Combat Air Squadrons

The U.S. Air Force will begin grounding combat air squadrons Tuesday in response to forced spending cuts that have eliminated more than 44,000 flying hours through September, according to internal documents obtained by Defense News.

 

The Air Force’s budget for flying hours was reduced by $591 million for the remainder of fiscal 2013, making it impossible to keep all squadrons ready for combat, according to a memo signed by Maj. Gen. Charles Lyon, director of operations for Air Combat Command. The across-the board spending cuts, called sequestration, took effect March 1 when Congress failed to agree on a deficit-reduction plan.

 

Seventeen combat-coded squadrons will stand down effective Tuesday or upon their return from deployments, according to the documents. The Air Force will distribute 241,496 flying hours that are funded to squadrons that will be kept combat ready or at a reduced readiness level called “basic mission capable” for part or all of the remaining months in fiscal 2013, the documents said.

 

The grounding includes F-22s from the 1st Fighter Wing’s 94th Fighter Squadron at Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Va. The squadron is returning from a deployment to the Pacific where airmen participated in a high-profile exercise in South Korea.

 

Other squadrons to stand down when they return to the U.S. include F-16s from the 4th Fighter Squadron at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, which is returning from a deployment in the Pacific; B-1B Lancers from the 34th and 37th Bomb Squadrons at Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D.; and A-10s from the 354th Fighter Squadron, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz.

 

The other grounded units include B-52s from the 2nd and 5th Bomb Wings, F-15Es from the 336th, 492nd, 494th and 391s Fighter Squadrons; F-16s from the 77th Fighter Squadron, 555th Fighter Squadron, 18th Aggressor Squadron and the Thunderbirds; and A-10s from the 81st Fighter Squadron, which will close as a result of the fiscal 2013 National Defense Authorization Act.

 

Grounded associate units — Air National Guard and Reserve units that share assets with the active-duty force — include the 158th, 169th, 187th, 442nd and 917th squadrons.

 

Any flying hours not used by the grounded squadrons will be reallocated to meet Air Combat Command requirements. Additionally, all combat aircraft will stand down the last seven operation and maintenance days in September, the memo said.

 

Air Force officials did not respond to a request for comment Monday night.

 

Air Force leaders had warned that mandatory budget cuts would lead to a reduction of flying hours by 18 percent, with readiness dropping to “sub-optimal levels,” according to information provided to Congress. The drop in flying hours would mean that it could take up to six months to repair the damage to readiness, the Air Force warned lawmakers in a February presentation.

 

Air Combat Command officials announced a stand down and reallocation of flying hours for the rest of the fiscal year due to mandatory budget cuts. The limitation of flying hours means squadrons will stand down or maintain readiness at the reduced “basic mission capable” level, while others will remain at full “combat mission ready.”

 

The affected aircraft and units, by airframe:

 

F-22

94th Fighter Squadron — Grounded April 9

 

27th Fighter Squadron — Basic mission capable through September

 

3rd Fighter Wing — Two squadrons combat mission ready through September

 

15th Wing — One squadron combat mission ready through September

 

49th Wing — One squadron combat mission ready through September

 

F-15 C/D

67th Fighter Squadron — Basic mission capable through September

 

44th Fighter Squadron — Basic mission capable through July, then Combat mission ready through September

 

48th Fighter Wing — One squadron combat mission ready through September

 

F-15E

336th Fighter Squadron — Grounded April 9

 

335th Fighter Squadron — Combat mission ready through September

 

48th Fighter Wing — Two squadrons stand down April 9

 

391st Fighter Squadron — Stands down April 9

 

F-16 C/D

8th Fighter Wing — Two squadrons combat mission ready through September

 

77th Fighter Squadron — Stands down April 9

 

55th Fighter Squadron — Combat mission ready through September

 

79th Fighter Squadron — Basic mission capable through July, then combat mission ready through September

 

555th Fighter Squadron — Stands down April 9

 

510th Fighter Squadron — Combat mission ready through September

 

13th Fighter Squadron — Combat mission ready through September

 

14th Fighter Squadron — Basic mission capable through September

 

51st Wing — One squadron combat mission ready through September

 

57th Wing — One squadron (Thunderbirds) stands down April 9

 

158th Fighter Wing — One squadron stands down April 9

 

169th Fighter Wing — One squadron stands down April 9

 

187th Fighter Wing — One squadron stands down April 9

 

354th Fighter Wing — One squadron stands down April 9

 

4th Fighter Squadron — Basic mission capable until redeployment

 

421st Fighter Squadron — Basic mission capable through September

 

A-10C

75th Fighter Squadron — Basic mission capable through July, then combat mission ready through September

 

51st Wing — One squadron combat mission ready through September

 

52nd Fighter Wing — Closing

 

442nd Fighter Wing — One squadron stands down April 9

 

917th Wing — One squadron stands down April 9

 

HH-60G

18th Wing — One squadron combat mission ready through September

 

48th Fighter Wing — One squadron combat mission ready through September

 

B-1B

7th Bomb Wing — One squadron combat mission ready through September

 

2nd Bomb Wing — Two squadrons stand down April 9

 

B-2

509th Bomb Wing — Two squadrons combat mission ready through September

 

B-52

2nd Bomb Wing — One squadron stand down April 9

 

5th Bomb Wing — Two combat squadrons combat mission ready through September

 

E-3B/C/G

2nd Bomb Wing — Basic mission capable through September

 

18th Wing — One squadron basic mission capable through September

 

552nd Air Control Wing — One squadron basic mission capable through September

 

SE-4B

55th Wing — One squadron combat mission ready through September

 

EC-130H

55 Electronic Combat Group — One squadron combat mission ready through September

 

OC-135B

55th Wing — One squadron combat mission ready through September

 

RC-135S

55th Wing — One squadron combat mission ready through September

 

RC-135U

55th Wing — One squadron combat mission ready through September

 

RC-135V/W

55th Wing — One squadron basic mission capable through September

 

TC-135W

55th Wing (training) — One squadron basic mission capable through September

 

WC-135C/W

55th Wing. — One squadron combat mission ready through September

Source

Budget cut?Or it's just another "public info" the US goverment want us to believe?

Budget cut?Or it's just another "public info" the US goverment want us to believe?

So what is your theory about this?