Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Army & Security Forces

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


US Army News and updates general discussion

This is a discussion on US Army News and updates general discussion within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; The US Army's Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) has taken delivery of a two-arm highly dexterous manipulation system ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old May 4th, 2016   #16
Banned Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 6
Threads:
US Army takes delivery of RE2 Robotics' dual-arm HDMS

The US Army's Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) has taken delivery of a two-arm highly dexterous manipulation system (HDMS) from RE2 Robotics.

The HDMS has been supplied as part of an Army Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Phase II extension contract. The dual-arm HDMS technology can be used for explosive ordnance disposal, as well as combat engineering and chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, explosives (CBRNE) operations.

The manipulator's arms allow operators to perform complex tasks, such as securing an object with one arm and manipulating with the other.RE2 Robotics president and CEO Jorgen Pedersen said: "The direct benefit of the HDMS technology to army personnel is significantly increased performance and capability over currently fielded manipulators for both tele-operated and semi-autonomous use on mobile robot platforms.
nathanmarcus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19th, 2016   #17
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
Ranger25's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Si Vis Pacem. Para Bellum
Posts: 559
Threads:
US Army integrating Stinger availability into AH64e models

ATAS will now be available to be fitted onto all Apache E model Helos whereas on the D it was only case by case



ATAS to become a standard air-to-air component for Apache AH-64E | IHS Jane's 360
________________
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Ranger25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2016   #18
Moderator
General
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,241
Threads:
The US Army has been resorting to creative in an attempt to balance its books be fore a Congress mandated audit in 2017. Trillions of dollars have been involved. U.S. Army fudged its accounts by trillions of dollars, auditor finds | Reuters Apparently US Defence Department accounts haven't been audited for decades and lack of such oversight has now come to bite the regulators in their ass.
________________
"There is one immutable truth we cannot prevent; war is coming, we just don’t know when or where." Brigadier Andrew Harrison DSO MBE
ngatimozart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2016   #19
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
Ranger25's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Si Vis Pacem. Para Bellum
Posts: 559
Threads:
Long Range Precision Fire

The US army is moving forward with a long range replacement for the 80s designed ATACMS system. Raytheon was awarded the contract today.

LRPF will extend the range of US Army up to a maximum of 499km (think START limits).

This will give them long range stroking power independent of Air Strikes and the ability to hit C2, staging, etc at long ranges

US Army awards Raytheon Long Range Precision Fires risk mitigation contract

SNAFU!
________________
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Ranger25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2016   #20
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major General
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 2,042
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger25 View Post
The US army is moving forward with a long range replacement for the 80s designed ATACMS system. Raytheon was awarded the contract today.

LRPF will extend the range of US Army up to a maximum of 499km (think START limits).

This will give them long range stroking power independent of Air Strikes and the ability to hit C2, staging, etc at long ranges

US Army awards Raytheon Long Range Precision Fires risk mitigation contract

SNAFU!
The Solomon blog snafu article on Land 400 is not complimentary. Is this a case of sour grapes by the losing bidders or is there substance?
ASSAIL is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 26th, 2016   #21
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
Ranger25's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Si Vis Pacem. Para Bellum
Posts: 559
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASSAIL View Post
The Solomon blog snafu article on Land 400 is not complimentary. Is this a case of sour grapes by the losing bidders or is there substance?

I take his commentary(SNAFU/Solomon) with a grain of salt but I do think they can offer some good information. I just shift through the editorials on the site.
________________
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Ranger25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26th, 2016   #22
Just a bloke
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,286
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASSAIL View Post
The Solomon blog snafu article on Land 400 is not complimentary. Is this a case of sour grapes by the losing bidders or is there substance?
Snafu Solomon the 'ex' US Marine who freely admits that doesn't understand the importance of situational awareness in combat vehicles? (Or combat in general more likely...)

Yeah, his POV isn't exactly relevant to well, just about anything military related...

https://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com.a...tuational.html
ADMk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2016   #23
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,044
Threads:
I just had a look at the articles on that site for Land400, and they don't make a lot of sense. The author complains that the requirements are written too generic so that the manufacturers don't know what to offer (manned/unmanned turret etc), and later complains that the requirments are written specifically to exclude some contenders. Which is it? Are the requirements too specific or too generic?

His love affair with the Sentinel seems strange as well. The reason Sentinel was excluded is pretty simple - it couldn't come within cooee of meeting protection requirements. Since it was by far the largest vehicle, it was no surprise it couldn't be armoured to the same extent as a smaller vehicle.

I think the biggest problem is he seems to fundamentally not to understand what sort of vehicle is being procured. The CRV is constantly referred to as an IFV, which it is not. The advantages of, for example, the Sentinel are not suited to a CRV. It is hardly rocket surgery.
Raven22 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2016   #24
Just a bloke
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,286
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven22 View Post
I just had a look at the articles on that site for Land400, and they don't make a lot of sense. The author complains that the requirements are written too generic so that the manufacturers don't know what to offer (manned/unmanned turret etc), and later complains that the requirments are written specifically to exclude some contenders. Which is it? Are the requirements too specific or too generic?

His love affair with the Sentinel seems strange as well. The reason Sentinel was excluded is pretty simple - it couldn't come within cooee of meeting protection requirements. Since it was by far the largest vehicle, it was no surprise it couldn't be armoured to the same extent as a smaller vehicle.

I think the biggest problem is he seems to fundamentally not to understand what sort of vehicle is being procured. The CRV is constantly referred to as an IFV, which it is not. The advantages of, for example, the Sentinel are not suited to a CRV. It is hardly rocket surgery.
His opinion on just about everything he posts doesn't make a lot of sense...

Apparently Norway is looking at second hand M109's or K9's for it's SP gun replacement program.

This therefore makes them 'better' than PZH-2000 in his estimation.

Couldn't possibly be something as simple as 'cheaper' obviously...
ADMk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2016   #25
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Sydney
Posts: 246
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADMk2 View Post
His opinion on just about everything he posts doesn't make a lot of sense...

Apparently Norway is looking at second hand M109's or K9's for it's SP gun replacement program.

This therefore makes them 'better' than PZH-2000 in his estimation.

Couldn't possibly be something as simple as 'cheaper' obviously...
He's another drop in the ocean of clickbait bloggers from what I can tell. There's nothing exciting about saying that the program is going ahead essentially as planned and that the AMV35 and Boxer simply met the requirements best. I guess the blog becomes much more interesting when you have something salacious to talk about or allude to. Why ruin a good story with the facts eh?
Boagrius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2016   #26
New Member
Private
Guardian52's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 37
Threads:
Post FVL Program Stalls as OH-58 is retired.

I'm sure we were all pretty livid when the US Army announced that the OH-58D Kiowa fleet was not going to be upgraded/replaced with the OH-58F Block II (as originally planned) but in fact the entire fleet of dedicated reconnaissance rotor-winged aircraft will be retired. And now that we're here in August 2016, the question to be asked is "Where do we go from here?"

Well, apparently we're not going anywhere, at least not in the AAS (Armed Arial Scout) category of helicopter. That's correct, ladies and gentlemen, the US Army will be without an AAS until the 2030s when the Future Vertical Lift (FVL) line of aircraft enter development. Notice that I said development, not service. So, not only will the OH-58 Kiowa (and our only AAS) not have a viable replacement for the remainder of the decade; but it's not likely to have one for another fifteen years. And fifteen years is being very generous. I'd like to point out that the Joint-service Vertical take-off/landing Experimental (JVX) aircraft program began in 1981 and that resulted in the V-22 Osprey; which did not enter service until 2007.

So, why is this important?
Well, let's start with the mission and capabilities of the OH-58 Kiowa:
Crew: 2 pilots
Length: 42 ft 2 in (12.85 m)
Main rotor diameter: 35 ft 0 in (10.67 m)
Height: 12 ft 10 in (3.93 m)
Main rotor area: 14.83 ft2 (1.38 m2)
Empty weight: 3,829 lb (1,737 kg)
Gross weight: 5,500 lb (2,495 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Rolls-Royce T703-AD-700A or 250-C30R3 turboshaft, 650 hp (485 kW) each

Performance:
Maximum speed: 149 mph (240 km/h)
Cruise speed: 127 mph (204 km/h)
Range: 161 miles (556 km)
Endurance: 2.0 hours
Service ceiling: 15,000 ft (4,575 m)

Armament:
Each pylon (two total) can carry one of the following:
1x M3P (or M296) .50 cal (12.7 mm) machine gun
1x LAU-68 rocket launcher w/ seven 2.75" Hydra 70 rockets
2x AGM-114 Hellfire missiles

So we're talking about an aircraft that can fly in-between buildings, laze targets for Apaches with its Mast-Mounted Sight (MMS), while defending itself with its M2 Brownings (the OH-58F would have been able to carry the GAU-19 tri-barreled .50 Cal). Or, totally ignoring its recon role, it can kill tanks and bust bunkers with four AGM-114s.

So, to make a long story short, the OH-58 Kiowa is being retired without a viable replacement for the next fifteen plus years.

No big deal... Wait... Russian tanks positioning themselves to make another push into western Ukrain? Oops...
: Kremlin deploys more tanks to eastern Ukraine

Thank you for your time, have an excellent day.
Keep Up The Fire
- Guardian

"Mortis Prius Infamia"

Sources: http://breakingdefense.com/2015/01/t...vulnerability/
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/01/t...vulnerability/
http://www.scoutsout.com/next-generation/oh-58f/
http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/oh58f.htm
Guardian52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2016   #27
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Sydney
Posts: 246
Threads:
^ Perhaps it has been determined that the Apache/UAV mix will suffice in the interim? I know there has been a big push for the E model to pick up some of the slack in the armed recon role by networking it with various UAVs. Not au fait with the bigger picture though or how effective this is likely to be as a capability "replacement". I'll leave that to the more knowledgeable posters around these parts...
Boagrius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2016   #28
New Member
Private
Guardian52's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 37
Threads:
Yeah and that's a really cool capability, I like the concept. I don't like splitting a 2 man aircrew; one guy worrying about a drone and trying to process that information, while the other guy is left with the threats directly in his line of sight. I prefer to have 2 different manned aircraft, preferably working under the same Chain of Command, supporting each other and not relying on a constant signal link with an unmanned aircraft that may or may not be armed/can't take cover from SAMs and AA behind hills and buildings and such.
Guardian52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2016   #29
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Sydney
Posts: 246
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guardian52 View Post
Yeah and that's a really cool capability, I like the concept. I don't like splitting a 2 man aircrew; one guy worrying about a drone and trying to process that information, while the other guy is left with the threats directly in his line of sight. I prefer to have 2 different manned aircraft, preferably working under the same Chain of Command, supporting each other and not relying on a constant signal link with an unmanned aircraft that may or may not be armed/can't take cover from SAMs and AA behind hills and buildings and such.
I suppose that comes down to a question of CONOPS and how you best employ the platforms in question to make the most of the crew's (perhaps divided) attention. Doesn't strike me as a show stopper though. The level of networking being built into something like the Guardian would have to help maintain a very high (perhaps unprecedented) level of crew SA.
Boagrius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2016   #30
New Member
Private
Guardian52's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 37
Threads:
It is a question of CONOPS; that's a very good point. I'm sure the Guardian and its crews could handle the extra information flow; my main beef is that the UAVs in question will not necessarily be armed at all times. An OH-58 Kiowa can be rapidly tasked to provide CAS in the event other assets are not available; very few UAVs can. Also, I don't like the premise of a UAV, presumably armed with AGM-114s and nothing else, providing CAS in most scenarios.
1. A maximum of 2-4 shots (missiles) I'm pretty sure is the payload of the MQ-9
2. I've never heard of JTACs, CCT, TACPs being in direct communication with UAV pilots and I imagine that would be difficult to coordinate directly because they fly UAVs from Las Vegas. I don't like having a middle-man when my life is on the line, and I need CAS ASAP (Danger Close, troops in contact)
3. How many of these UAVs do we have currently in the inventory that can perform this mission requirement with the Guardian? Maybe they've been working on this for years but tbh I don't have that much faith in Obama's (and eventually Clinton's) DOD. I don't think the OH-58 was planned for retirement until somebody at the White House decided this was one of the things they could cut from. So now they're going to design, and mass produces a new system to replace a more effective system that didn't even need an upgrade? Granted, from what I've gathered, the older Kiowa's were suffering in the engine maintenance department, lot's of malfunctions relative to time in the air, but the OH-58F program addressed that with adaptations to the Rolls-Royce engines.
Guardian52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:28 AM.