Royal-Cravates

Welcome to Croatian military forum: Royal-Cravates

Croatian military forum


    US Navy - pregled tehnike, nove tehnologije i buducnost

    Share
    avatar
    Admin
    Admin

    Posts : 420
    Join date : 04.03.2016
    Age : 37
    Location : Zagreb

    US Navy - pregled tehnike, nove tehnologije i buducnost

    Postaj by Admin on pon lis 03, 2016 10:26 pm

















































    Zadnja promjena: Admin; pon lis 31, 2016 11:31 pm; ukupno mijenjano 2 put/a.
    avatar
    Admin
    Admin

    Posts : 420
    Join date : 04.03.2016
    Age : 37
    Location : Zagreb

    Re: US Navy - pregled tehnike, nove tehnologije i buducnost

    Postaj by Admin on pon lis 03, 2016 10:29 pm

    Odgovor na torpeda velike razorne moci ...

    Američki nosači zrakoplova uvode nove sustava obrane protiv torpeda
    ... iliti Anti-torpeda za američke ratne brodove

    Original: US aircraft carriers are deploying a new anti-torpedo defense system

    Američka ratna mornarica (US Navy) postupno instaliran na svojim nosačima zrakoplova obrambenog sustava SSTD (Surface brod torpeda obrane) koji može otkriti, cilj i uništiti neprijateljske torpeda. Trenutno, američka mornarica SSTD testira na pet nosača zrakoplova.


    Foto: USS Nimitz (CVN-68) / Public Domain

    Nosači zrakoplova su ključno vojno sredstvo koje omogućuje Washington projicirati svoju vojnu moć bilo gdje u svijetu.

    Najveća prijetnja za nosače zrakoplova, napad podmornice su tihi (npr. Ruska Kilo klase) naoružani torpedima. Samo torpeda su de facto jedini konvencionalnog oružja koje može potonuti nosača zrakoplova. Razne antiship raketa ispaljena iz brodova, podmornica i zrakoplova, zrakoplova nosioca štrajku od borbe, ali vjerojatno ne potonuti.

    "Torpeda su često podcijenjeni prijetnju na površinu brodova", komentirao je opasnost od torpeda za uho Vijesti pomorski analitičar Norman Friedmana. "Uobičajene akustične protumjere predstavljaju primamljiva mamac približava torpeda. Nažalost, ruski torpeda na protumjere obično ne reagira. "

    Na primjer, ruska torpeda tipa 53 pokupi šum vrteći pozivi vode. Tada je torpedni čamac približava uz S-oblika putu u srednjem brazde. Tip 53 torpeda mogu se naći na primjer na dizel-električnog udara podmornice Kilo klase. Raspon Najnovija verzija tipa  53-65 je 22 km.

    "Svatko tko kupuje ruski Kilo klase podmornica - gotovo svi s kojima Sjedinjene Države mogu doći u sukob. - Koristeći torpeda koji su imuni na SAD protumjere" Rekao je Friedman. Kilo klase podmornica vlastitim kao Kina ili Iran.

    Američka mornarica je sada na pet nosača zrakoplova testirani obrambenog sustava SSTD sposoban za aktivno uništavanje neprijateljskih torpeda. Mornarica očekuje do početnu operativnu sposobnost IOC (Initial Operation Capability) sustava SSTD u 2019 i punu operativnu sposobnost (FOC punom pogonu sposobnosti) u godini 2022nd


    Foto: Dijagram funkcionira SSTD. / US Navy

    2035 SSTD dobiti sve američke nosače i postupno također US Navy brodova za borbu protiv opskrbe CLF (Combat logistiku Force). Oko 42 brodova CLF podjela pruža opskrbu (gorivo, streljivo, hranu) u američkim ratnim brodovima diljem svijeta.

    SSTD je "sustav sustava" i uključuje mnoštvo tehnologija i praksi u borbi protiv neprijateljskih torpeda. Osnovni alat za otkrivanje torpeda tegliti akustički senzor koji omogućuje odrediti položaj približavaju torpeda.

    U torpeda položaja podaci su prikazani na zaslonima računala na zapovjedni most. Nakon otkrića torpeda možete pokušati koristiti najnoviju generaciju vuči mamaca protitorpédovch SLQ-25 vodena vila.  

    Elektro-akustične torpedo jedrilica "vodena vila" se koristi za akustički vođena torpeda. SLQ-25 snima signale blížicícho sa torpedima, a nakon vrednovanja zvučnog vala generatora Izlaz signala podvodni zvučnik, vodeći (u teoriji) odvratiti od torpiljarke.


    Foto: Test ispaljivanja antiitorpeda (2013). / US Navy

    No, nedavno je zapovjednik nosača zrakoplova mogli koristiti aktivnu ATTDS sustava (Anti-Torpedo sustav obrane). ATTDS sastoji se od sustava upozorenja torpedo TWS (Torpedo upozorenja sustava) i antitorpéd MAČKA (Anti-Torpedo protumjere) kalibra 171 mm.

    "ATTDS koriste sustav upozorenja torpedo detektira, klasificira, pjesme i smješta se približavaju torpeda te je u mogućnosti koristiti antitorpéd uništiti približava torpeda", objašnjava on tehnologija ima Collen O'Rourke, glasnogovornik Marinskog sjedišta NAVSEA (Naval Sea Systems Command).

    O SSTD postoje samo sporadični informacije. Trenutno, na primjer, treća generacija SSTD testirani na opskrbu broda USNS BRITTIN (T-AKR-305). Više informacija (s obzirom na osjetljivost vojne tehnologije), posebice glede učinkovitosti sustava nisu dostupni.

    Jedan od najvećih izazova je osigurati testiranje pod realnim uvjetima. To znači, između ostalog, dobiti najnovije informacije inteligenciju na neprijatelja torpeda i na njihovu bazu za stvaranje odgovarajuće svrhe obuke.

    Svake godine, američka ratna mornarica za razvoj i testiranje SSTD potroši oko 50 milijuna $.

    Izvor: Poslovni Insider


    The aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) transits the Pacific Ocean with ships assigned to Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2010 combined task force.


    The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) leads the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Bunker Hill (CG 52) and the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Halsey (DDG 97) during a passing exercise with Indian navy ships during Exercise Malabar 2012. US Navy Photo


    The Navy’s experimental Countermeasure Anti-Torpedo launches from the fantail of USS George HW Bush (CVN-77) in May, 2013. US Navy Photo

    http://www.businessinsider.com/us-aircraft-carriers-torpedo-defense-system-2016-9
    http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=74665


    Read the original article on Scout Warrior. Copyright 2016. Follow Scout Warrior on Twitter.
    avatar
    Roman_Stefic

    Posts : 144
    Join date : 04.03.2016
    Age : 45
    Location : Zagreb

    Re: US Navy - pregled tehnike, nove tehnologije i buducnost

    Postaj by Roman_Stefic on uto lis 18, 2016 12:05 am

    Konačno ušao u službu novi najveći i najnapredniji razarač američke mornarice – USS Zumwalt!


    Kapetan broda zove se, vjerovali ili ne, James Kirk



    Konačno ušao u službu novi najveći i najnapredniji razarač američke mornarice – USS Zumwalt!


    Foto: Wikimedia CC / Youtube / Američka Mornarica



    Američka mornarica u subotu je primila u službu novi, ''nevidljivi'' futuristički ratni brod USS Zumwalt koji cjelokupna mornarica naziva tehnološki najnaprednijim ratnim brodom flote, piše Fox News.

    Brod je dugačak 185 metara, istisnine 15 000 tona te najjeftinija verzija stoji impresivnih 4.4 milijarde dolara. Njegov oblik i izgled umanjuje vidljivost na neprijateljskim radarima.

    "Ovaj je brod pravi primjer šire inicijative kojom bi se poboljšala operativna stabilnost te američka strateška prednost", izjavio je Ray Mabus, tajnik američke mornarice u izjavi za medije. "Naša mornarica i marinci prisutni su diljem svijeta, osiguravaju zemlje, svojom pojavom ohrabruju saveznike te odvraćaju neprijatelje od mogućih napada.

    Pisali smo o njemu 2014. godine – USS Zumwalt – budućnost ratne mornarice

    Ovom visokoautomatiziranom razaraču potrebna je posada od samo 147 ljudi, a Associated Press piše da će u novom razaraču biti vrlo širok spektar oružja, kao što su krstareće i protupodmorničke rakete. Mornarica je ponosna na njegov integrirani elektroenergetski sustav koji može proizvesti oko 78 megawatta snage te se tako u tom sektoru približava nosačima zrakoplova na nuklearni pogon. Prema pisanju američke mornarice, novi elektroenergetski sustav Zumwalta toliko je snažan da bi mogao ispostaviti struju manjem gradu.



    Brod je dobio ime po admiralu Elmu R. Zumwaltu ml. koji je služio u američkoj mornarici više od tri desetljeća, a preminuo je 2000. godine.




    "Ovaj razarač, kao i ostali u floti, itekako projicira snagu diljem svijeta", izjavio je Mabus te dodao da su razarači klase Zumwalt mnogo veći od današnjih razarača te imaju znatno veći prostor za uzlijetanje i slijetanje zrakoplova kao što su JSF avioni (F-35), MV-22 Osprey, bespilotni sustavi te sustavi vertikalnog lansiranja.

    Nakon krštenja u Baltimoreu u državi Maryland, brod će isploviti te se usidriti u San Diegu, u Kaliforniji. Njegov izgled nije jedina futuristička stvar; kapetan se zove baš kao i kapetan iz filmova znanstvene fantastike – James Kirk.

    F-84G_Thunderjet

    Posts : 10
    Join date : 12.09.2016

    Re: US Navy - pregled tehnike, nove tehnologije i buducnost

    Postaj by F-84G_Thunderjet on pet pro 02, 2016 10:12 pm


    Photo of an amphibious assault during exercise Trident Juncture 2015 (TJ15), involving HMS Bulwark and 2 Wild Cat helicopters from HMS Ocean.
    Running from October through November last year, TJ15 was held in, over and on the seas around Portugal, Spain and Italy. It was one of a series of long-planned exercises to ensure that NATO Allies are ready to deal with any emerging crisis and to work effectively with partners to respond. Over 36,000 personnel from 30 nations took part – including NATO Allies as well as seven partner nations.

    Photo by WO ARTIGUES (HQ MARCOM)

    avatar
    Admin
    Admin

    Posts : 420
    Join date : 04.03.2016
    Age : 37
    Location : Zagreb

    Re: US Navy - pregled tehnike, nove tehnologije i buducnost

    Postaj by Admin on sri sij 25, 2017 2:38 pm

    Odlicna tema zasto treba postovati turboprop ... https://warisboring.com/stop-disrespecting-the-turboprop-c00acd3fff3a#.d53616our


    "Stop Disrespecting the Turboprop
    Planes with these engines are perfectly fine for modern air forces
    "


    by MICHAEL PIETRUCHA

    The minds behind the Air Force’s plan for a new light attack aircraft, the OA-X, always envisioned a turboprop engine powering the plane.
    If that statement didn’t suddenly cause your blood pressure to spike, you probably aren’t the intended audience for this piece. Surprisingly, this simple and obvious reference to a powerplant is the subject of much angst inside the Air Force and out.

    The choice was “emblematic of a service that has lost touch,” according to one particularly egregious article. Somehow, the turboprop has found itself prematurely assigned to the technological dustbin, widely viewed as a “less advanced” form of propulsion and one that is unsuitable for a modern air force.

    The emotional response to the turboprop is just that — an unthinking reaction based on a lack of critical thought. If anybody has lost touch, it is those who evaluate their needs within a worldview that assumes that newer is always better and that proven designs have no value.The turboprop is exactly the powerplant those responsible for the OA-X concept — including the author — wanted for the aircraft outlined in the plan, for the environment we expected it to fight in.

    The requirement
    When we at the Air Force’s Air Combat Command first conceived of the OA-X in the mid-2000s, we based it conceptually on two Vietnam-Era aircraft. These were the A-1 Skyraider and the OV-10A Bronco — both propeller-engine aircraft.
    We started with these aircraft because of their attributes. The A-1 had good loiter time, a heavy weapons load and the ability to take punishment. The engineers who crafted the OV-10 designed it with short, austere runways in mind and it also had good endurance.


    Afghan Air Force A-29s. U.S. Air Force photo

    What we wanted for our new design was a modern equivalent that wrapped them both together into an aircraft that matched the precision engagement capabilities of modern fighter and attack with the long loiter time and rough field capabilities of the Vietnam War-era aircraft. And we wanted it to be fast, cheap and suitable for the Air Force and foreign partners.
    Those desired attributes led us to a powerplant discussion, unwittingly following the same developmental path that led to the A-10 Warthog — a process that had started some 40 years earlier.
    The A-1 had a massive Wright R-3350 Duplex-Cyclone radial combustion engine that generated 2,700 horsepower. The OV-10 featured a pair of Garret T76 turboprops, each putting out 715 horsepower.
    During their U.S. military service, both aircraft operated extensively in “low and slow” environments and they were damned good at it. Historical references from Vietnam were replete with comments about the utility of propeller-engine aircraft.
    When we were building the OA-X concept, the Colombian Air Force had just started to prove that the Embraer EMB-314 Super Tucano was a superlative combat machine in an irregular environment. A single Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A turboprop — the same motor in the U.S. Navy’s and Air Force’s Beechcraft T-6 Texan II trainers — powered the plane.
    Developing up to 1,600 horsepower, the modern, computer-controlled turboprop gave the Super Tucano a better power-to-weight ratio at combat load than either the A-1 or OV-10A. Indeed, crunching the numbers on the modern light attack birds — including Beechcraft’s armed T-6 variant, the AT-6C — revealed that the wing loading and power-to-weight ratio were uncannily close to a P-47D Thunderbolt II of World War II fame.
    There was clearly potential there.


    Modern turbine engine types. NASA art

    The basics

    In my dimly remembered time as a cadet, I vaguely recall classes on aerodynamic propulsion — not necessarily the most dynamic educational subject ever, but not useless either. It may have been in an AS100 survey class during my freshman year, or it may have been from a test I had to pass in Civil Air Patrol.
    Nevertheless, it covered the basics of air vehicle propulsion — reciprocating engines, turboprops, turbojets, turbofans and rockets. The basics were enough to give a flavor of the propulsion systems — which moved aircraft around and which occupied different propulsion niches.

    Which one was better? Well, none of them actually.
    It all depended on the aerodynamic environment that you were operating in at the time. Modern propulsion systems are mostly variations on a turbine engine.
    Turbojets? Great for fighter aircraft where thrust trumps all other considerations, like in the mighty F-4 Phantom II fighter jet — particularly down low.
    Turbofans? They had better efficiency than the turbojets, but tended towards greater diameter. The larger the diameter of the fan, the more efficient.
    Rockets were great for a kick in the pants during takeoff and necessary if you wanted to fly where there was no air. Ramjets were for the speed demons who flew the SR-71 spy plane at speeds above Mach 3.
    And turboprops? A propeller turned by a small jet turbine and really efficient if you didn’t need to scream through the “bozosphere” at the speed of heat.


    A GE90 turbofan. General Electric photo


    All jet engines need air, so they can heat it up and expel it, creating thrust. A turbojet gulps air through the intake and all of the air goes right into the hot turbine section.
    Turbofans put a fan on the front of a turbojet, which adds thrust via air that is accelerated by the fan, but which does not flow through the combustion chamber. Instead, the system kicks it out the back as thrust.
    Turbofans have a bypass ratio that refers to the amount of air that bypasses the turbine’s “hot section” compared to the air that goes through it. The bypass ratio of the powerful low-bypass Pratt & Whitney F100 on an F-15E Strike Eagle fighter bomber is 0.63 to 1 — or for every cubic foot that flows through the turbine, a little more than half a cubic foot bypasses it.
    The giant GE90 turbofan on the Boeing 777 airliner is among the most fuel-efficient turbine engines ever and is the world’s largest turbofan. It gets this fuel efficiency via a very high bypass ratio and large size — an option not suitable for a small aircraft.
    The GE90 has a bypass ratio of 9 to 1, meaning that for every cubic foot of air that is sucked into the turbine section, nine times more pass through the bypass section behind the massive fan. Putting this in context, the reason for the turboprop’s efficiency becomes clearer.
    A turboprop is essentially a high-bypass fan — with a ratio as high as 100 to 1 — that has no duct to channel the airflow. A turboprop typically gets only about 10 percent of its thrust from the jet turbine, with the remainder coming from the propeller. And a high bypass ratio means low fuel consumption per pound of thrust.

    Northrop’s 1968 A-X design concept. U.S. Air Force art
    The original specifications for the A-X — the Air Force project that produced the A-10 — involved turboprop propulsion, based on a Lycoming T55 turbine. The authors of the 1968 concept formulation package noted that at slow airspeeds — up to 460 miles per hour — the turboprop had a significant thrust advantage over the turbojet and turbofan and this was greatest with slow speeds.
    These attributes would enable short takeoffs and good low-speed maneuvering. Furthermore, the study indicated that the turboprop designs were not “volume-limited” in the same way as a streamlined high-speed aircraft and could thus carry a lot of fuel.


    Northrop’s 1968 A-X design concept. U.S. Air Force art

    However, internal squabbling over the contract design delayed the A-X program. By 1970, suitable turbofan powerplants appeared on the market.
    But serendipity rather than capability ultimately drove the final decision to power the YA-10 with turbofan instead of a turboprop. As chance would have it, the Navy paid for the development of General Electric’s TF-34 — to go along with the S-3 Viking anti-submarine plane — at precisely the time contractors were looking for a suitable turbofan for A-X prototypes.
    When plane makers submitted proposals for the project’s second round, four of the six submissions featured the TF-34. That late in the A-X’s development, the aircraft designs had grown so large and complex that turbofans looked like the obvious choice for their simplicity and thrust class — not their efficiency.


    U.S. Air Force T-6 Texan II trainers. Air Force photo


    The boring stuff, propulsion efficiency

    Generically, the turboprop is among one of the most efficient forms of aerodynamic propulsion — at least up to a certain airspeed. In effect, the engine takes advantage of the fact that propellers are highly efficient forms of propulsion, but are functionally Mach-limited.
    The forward airspeed of a propeller aircraft is inherently linked to the maximum rotational speed of the prop itself. At slower speeds, turboprops beat out modern turbofans handily on propulsion efficiency.
    And it is at slower speeds that a combat aircraft enhances its utility in some “counter-land” attack missions, including close air support for troops on the ground and forward air control, guiding other aircraft around the battlefield.
    For airspeeds up to 370 miles per hour, the turboprop has a superior propulsive efficiency over turbofans and turbojets. They beat out even the high-bypass fans by as much as 25 percent and turbojets by a staggering 40 percent.


    Rolls Royce art

    At 370 miles per hour, the turboprop reaches its maximum propulsive efficiency, which then drops off while jets continue to climb. At around 460 miles per hour, the turboprop drops to the efficiency of a high-bypass fan and at 575 miles per hour it is no more efficient than a turbojet.
    For the speed and altitude regime where we expected the OA-X to operate, the turboprop was the most efficient propulsion type available. Its attributes contributed to the staying power of the engine as an extremely popular propulsion type for small aircraft in general, including short-haul airliners.
    Turboprop-powered small aircraft have demonstrated low fuel consumption, well under 490 pounds per hour on average. For an OA-X class of aircraft, the engine would allow the planes to eke out significant flight times — 2 hours or more — on a paltry internal fuel load.
    The OA-X we proposed consumed only 5 percent as much jet fuel as a Strike Eagle for the same amount of flying time. Put another way, an F-15E pilot could taxi on the ground for 6 to 8 minutes and burn the same amount of gas one of our proposed aircraft would use up in an hour .
    In addition, the turboprop had major implications for fuel supply, as well as consumption. The smaller fuel needs meant U.S. or friendly forces could supply forward bases via local resources and airlift, avoiding the logistical fratricide common to fuel supply operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    As for maintenance, the PT6A excelled in particular. The T-6s engine can normally run for 2,250 hours before repair crews have to inspect the “hot section” — which they can do without even removing the engine from the plane.
    A full overhaul isn’t due until 4,500 hours and only then must technicians pull the engine out completely. Even at a high utilization of 900 hours per aircraft per year, the PT6A can stay on the plane for five years between overhauls.


    A PT6A engine from a T-6 trainer sits on a test stand. Rick Goodfriend/U.S. Air Force photo

    More interesting, survivability

    The survivability of a turboprop’s core turbine is similar to a jet engine as far as actual combat damage goes. The turbine sections are essentially identical and damage mechanisms are similar.
    However, a PT6A has a very small turbine that is often protected by armor plating. The propeller is exposed to a lesser extent than the fan disc inside a jet engine, because it is not continuous — which is why you can shoot guns through a moving prop and not a fan section.
    The infrared signature of a turboprop-powered aircraft is completely different from a jet. A jet aircraft stands out in two portions of the infrared spectrum based on the propulsion — typically the nozzle and exhaust plume — and because of aerodynamic heating caused by friction effects on the leading edges of the wings and other surfaces.
    Older heat-seeking missiles like the Soviet AA-2 Atoll or early American AIM-9 Sidewinder variants rely on a shot from tail aspect where the exhaust plume dominates the spectrum between 2 and 5 microns. Pilots can shoot newer missiles — newer in this case meaning under 40 years old — from any aspect because the weapons can see into the far infrared, from 8 to 12 microns, where hot metal emissions start to pop out.
    For these weapons, a jet presents a pretty visible infrared target in most directions, because of both the hot engine and friction-heated surfaces warming up as the aircraft passes through the air. Though still a turbine, the front-mounted “tractor” PT6A turboprop vents exhaust in a smaller exhaust shroud on the front of the engine rather than through a hot tailpipe.
    As a result, this hot exhaust immediately mixes with ambient air,while the wing partly blocks the view from below. The well-mixed exhaust plume then emerges aft of the wing.


    PC-9 hudournik


    Kroatia_PC9-e1418997314319.jpg
    avatar
    Admin
    Admin

    Posts : 420
    Join date : 04.03.2016
    Age : 37
    Location : Zagreb

    Re: US Navy - pregled tehnike, nove tehnologije i buducnost

    Postaj by Admin on uto oľu 28, 2017 1:06 am

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/22/us/is-americas-military-big-enough.html?smid=fb-share


    Is America’s Military Big Enough?



    President Trump has proposed a $54 billion increase in defense spending, which he said would be “one of the largest increases in national defense spending in American history.”

    U.S. defense spending

    Source: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (in 2017 dollars)

    Past administrations have increased military spending, but typically to fulfill a specific mission. Jimmy Carter expanded operations in the Persian Gulf. Ronald Reagan pursued an arms race with the Soviet Union, and George W. Bush waged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Mr. Trump has not articulated a new mission that would require a military spending increase. This has left analysts wondering what goals he has in mind. Erin M. Simpson, a national security consultant, called Mr. Trump’s plans “a budget in search of a strategy.”



    Totals may not add up due to rounding. | Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (2015)
    The United States has higher military spending than any other country partly because its foreign policy goals are more ambitious: defending its borders, upholding international order and promoting American interests abroad.

    “Our current strategy is based around us being a superpower in Europe, the Middle East and Asia-Pacific,” said Todd Harrison, the director of defense budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “We’ve sized our military to be able to fight more than one conflict at a time in those regions.”

    Some of Mr. Trump’s statements have suggested a reduced footprint for the United States military.
    He criticized America’s role as a global military stabilizer. Last month, in his first address to a joint session of Congress, he said the United States had “defended the borders of other nations while leaving our own borders wide open.”

    He also called for defusing tensions with Russia, the United States’ chief military competitor.
    But Mr. Trump has also taken positions that point to a more aggressive military posture.

    He has advocated challenging China and Iran more directly.
    He wrote on Twitter that America must “greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability.”
    These statements have left analysts unsure about the role Mr. Trump wants the United States military to play in the world.
    The following is a closer look at Mr. Trump’s proposed upgrades to four crucial aspects of the military — troops, air power, naval power and nuclear weapons — and what his new spending might achieve.

    1 Troops



    The United States has approximately 1.3 million active-duty troops, with another 865,000 in reserve, one of the largest fighting forces of any country.



    Source: International Institute for Strategic Studies

    The United States also has a global presence unlike any other nation, with about 200,000 active troops deployed in more than 170 countries.


    Includes Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Coast Guard. | Source: Defense Manpower Data Center
    Many are stationed in allied nations in Europe and northeastern Asia. Mr. Trump has criticized these alliances, saying the United States does too much to defend its allies. It seems unlikely, then, that Mr. Trump intends his spending increase to bolster those deployments.

    “The general concept of readiness often happens without a conversation about what the forces are for,” said Benjamin H. Friedman, a research fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington. “They don’t know exactly what they want to do, except that they want a bigger military.”

    Mr. Trump wants to increase the number of active-duty military personnel in the Army and Marine Corps by about 70,000 — a rise of about 11 percent over the current total of 660,000.



    The United States increased troop levels in the early 2000s for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but has scaled down as it has withdrawn from those conflicts. Mr. Trump has been critical of those missions, suggesting that he does not plan to ramp up operations in either conflict.

    Gordon Adams, a former senior White House national security budget officer, said, “Unless you decide you’re going to war — and going to war soon — nobody keeps a large military.”

    2 Air Power



    The United States has around 2,200 fighter jets, including about 1,400 operated by the Air Force. Mr. Trump wants to add at least 100 more fighter aircraft to the Air Force.


    Includes only active and non-training aircraft. | Source: FlightGlobal and Teal Group
    Analysts informally categorize fighter aircraft by “generations” as a way to compare capabilities. While there is some variation among analysts on how planes are classified, there is a broad consensus that American aircraft are more advanced than those of other nations.

    While Mr. Trump has focused on the overall number of aircraft, this is an imperfect metric for either air power or cost.
    The military already has plans to spend an estimated $400 billion on new F-35 fighter jets, a fifth-generation plane. But Mr. Trump has not provided any details on which programs he would expand.

    Because different warplanes serve different roles at different costs, it is difficult to know what problem Mr. Trump is trying to address by adding 100 fighter aircraft.

    3 Naval Power



    The United States Navy has 275 surface ships and submarines. Mr. Trump wants to increase that number to 350, including two new aircraft carriers.

    The new carriers would add to America’s already overwhelming advantage: More than half of the world’s 18 active aircraft carriers are in the United States Navy.


    In early March, Mr. Trump said that the United States Navy was the smallest it had been since World War I.

    Most analysts reject this comparison. Technological advances mean that individual ships are far more powerful and versatile than they were a century ago, allowing a single ship to fulfill capabilities that would have once required several ships.
    Mr. Trump has not specified new missions that would require additional carriers, which could take years and billions of dollars to build.


    *Attack/guided missile submarines. | Source: International Institute for Strategic Studies
    Expanding the fleet size could come at significant cost. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that building a fleet of around 350 ships could cost about 60 percent more per year than average historical shipbuilding budgets, with a completion date of 2046.

    But a larger fleet could help reduce pressure on the Navy, according to Brian Slattery, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. “They’ve had to push those deployments longer and longer because the Navy needs to be in all the same places in the world, and there are fewer ships to do it,” he said.

    Others argue that the Navy’s resources are stretched because they have too many deployments and that a more modest strategy around the world would alleviate the strain. “To the extent that they are not in great shape, it’s because they have too many missions,” Mr. Friedman said.


    4 Nuclear Weapons


    After Mr. Trump tweeted his pledge to expand America’s nuclear capability, he told the talk-show host Mika Brzezinski of MSNBC: “Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.”
    He has not specified whether he hopes to build more warheads or develop new weapons systems for delivering them.
    The United States and Russia possess the vast majority of the world’s nuclear warheads, although both have reduced their arsenals under a series of treaties.



    Mr. Trump criticized the latest of those treaties, a 2010 agreement with Moscow called New Start, as “just another bad deal,” according to Reuters.
    He has not clarified whether he will consider abrogating the treaty, which could open the way for the United States and Russia to expand their nuclear arsenals and capabilities.

    Analysts say Mr. Trump’s call for a nuclear “arms race” could potentially cost billions. But as with other spending plans, he has not articulated a strategic goal.
    While Mr. Trump has said that he wants to defeat the Islamic State, he has not explained how increasing the size of the military would accomplish that.

    Mr. Trump’s focus on big-ticket items is mainly “useful in more conventional military campaigns,” said Michael C. Horowitz, a University of Pennsylvania professor who studies military leadership. “The kind of investments you would make if you were primarily focused on counterinsurgency campaigns are very different.”

    Mr. Trump’s announcements appear to emphasize optics as much as strategy, Mr. Horowitz said. “To the extent that tangible pieces of military equipment symbolize strength, those are things that I think the administration is interested in investing in.”
    Tactical aircraft include fighter, attack and dual-role aircraft.

    - - - - - - - - - -
    Correction: March 22, 2017
    An earlier version of the chart on fighter aircraft with this article​ ​classified some of the planes in the United States Air Force and in the British Royal Air Force​ ​incorrectly. ​​ Eighty-seven​​ British planes and 431 American ones ​are​ fourth generation​, not third.​

    ​An earlier version of the credit for the chart on U.S. defense spending misstated part of the name of the source.  It is the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, not the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Spending.
    avatar
    Admin
    Admin

    Posts : 420
    Join date : 04.03.2016
    Age : 37
    Location : Zagreb

    Re: US Navy - pregled tehnike, nove tehnologije i buducnost

    Postaj by Admin on pon tra 10, 2017 10:57 pm

    Sta ce reci mali rusi ...
    USS GERALD FORD


    Najveći ratni brod svih vremena započeo s testiranjem na moru!



    Nakon dugog čekanja novog nosača zrakoplova od 13 milijardi dolara zbog odugovlačenja jer je Američka mornarica morala ispraviti mnoge tehnološke propuste, novi je nosač zaplovio.


    AUTOR: Vojnapovijest.hr

    Nakon nekoliko godina odgađanja, milijardi dolara te jako puno znoja, novi najveći nosač zrakoplova Gerald R. Ford isplovio je u subotu s više od tisuću američkih mornara te stotinama visokih dužnosnika i radnika iz Mornaričkih nuklearnih reaktora, Zapovjedništva mornaričkih morskih sustava te brodogradilišta Newsport News, piše Navy Times.


    Brod je istisnine 100 000 tona te je prebačen u Hampton Roads pa onda i u more kako bi započeo prvi dio pomorskih testiranja.

    Nakon dugog čekanja novog nosača zrakoplova od 13 milijardi dolara zbog odugovlačenja jer je Američka mornarica morala ispraviti mnoge tehnološke propuste, novi je nosač zaplovio. Ovo je prvi brod nove klase nosača aviona te posjeduje veliki broj nadogradnji i promjena za razliku klase Nimitz koja se danas najviše koristi u Američkoj mornarici.

    Planiranje i izgradnja broda USS Gerald Ford traje već više od desetljeća; prvi je ugovor potpisan u svibnju 2004. godine. Čelik je po prvi puta izrezan u kolovozu 2005. godine, a svečanost polaganja kobilice održana je u studenome 2009. godine. Izgrađen je na velikom doku u Newport Newsu koji možete prihvatiti dva broda njegove veličine. Prvi je puta pušten u more 2013. godine, a krstila ga je Susan Ford, kćer predsjednika Forda 9. studenoga 2013. godine.

    2015. godine smo pisali o njemu - SAD gradi najveći ratni brod svih vremena vrijedan 13 milijardi dolara!

    Brod se prema prvim predviđanjima trebao pridružiti floti 2014. godine, ali je gradnja usporena zbog velikog broja izazova, ali i velikih problema kao što su problemi s novo dizajniranim nuklearnim reaktorima te električnim instalacijama. Datum dostave broda odgođen je nekoliko puta, a prošle je godine pronađen problem u glavnim turbinama broda, tako da je datum dostave Američkoj mornarici ponovno odgođen.

    Više od 900 mornara stiglo je na brod u kolovozu 2015. godine kako bi započeli s vježbama. Brod je trebao početkom 2016. godine biti na moru. Mornari su ostali na brodu unatoč svim probijanjima rokova.

    Sean Stackley, danas glavni tajnik Američke mornarice, nedavno je izjavio kako će se prvo testiranje izvesti u ožujku, ali je odgođeno.

    Svečanost puštanja u rad, točke kada brod formalno ulazi u službu, očekuje se kasnije ove godine, iako točan datum još nije objavljen.

    Prema zakonu, Američka mornarica mora održavati te posjedovati flotu od 11 nosača zrakoplova, ali se iznimka dogodila 2012. godine kako bi Američka mornarica mogla izrezati već stariji nosač zrakoplova Enterprise - prvi nosač na nuklearni pogon. Ironično, Enterprise je i dalje u Newport Newsu, na suhom doku, bez nuklearnog goriva te čeka svoju konačnu sudbinu.

    Povijesno gledajući, dolaskom nosača aviona USS Gerald Ford označava se po prvi puta u 42 godine da je Američka mornarica izgradila nosač zrakoplova nove klase. Prošli se puta to dogodilo 1.ožujka 1975. godine, kada je USS Nimitz zaplovio s istog pristaništa. Nakon mjesec dana dostavljen je Američkoj mornarici, a 3. svibnja je i formalno ušao u upotrebu. Danas je Nimitz najstariji nosač zrakoplova u floti, te će najvjerojatnije ostati u službi sve dok USS John F. Kennedy, koji se danas gradi u Newport Newsu, ne pridruži floti.

    Najnoviji dokumenti Američke mornarice govore kako će se Kennedy pridružiti floti 2023. godine. Treći brod iste klase, novi Enterprise je također u ranim fazama gradnje.


    Sponsored content

    Re: US Navy - pregled tehnike, nove tehnologije i buducnost

    Postaj by Sponsored content


      Sada je: čet srp 27, 2017 4:22 pm.