FY25 DoD budget

FY25 budget documents were released this week.

I've only started looking over things briefly, but the one thing that stood out to me is apparently JASSM is still getting an AGM-158D model.

I had thought previously the AGM-158D was renamed the AGM-158B-2, but pic related procurement document says Lot 22 has 450 AGM-158B-2 and 100 AGM-158D.

So is this AGM-158D something new?

This thread isn't JUST about JASSM. But for all FY25 budget document-related items.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/Pages/Fiscal-Year-2025.aspx

    https://www.asafm.army.mil/Budget-Materials/

    https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/FM-Resources/Budget/Air-Force-Presidents-Budget-FY25/

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Lot 22 has 450 AGM-158B-2 and 100 AGM-158D.
    ?????? the frick?

    for those unaware B-2 and D are supposed to, both, be the same thing, JASSM-XR. a JASSM with a 2000 km range.

    maybe they changed the designation halfway through production and there are tiny differences that account for it? i don't know anon that's odd.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah that's what I thought as well and why it struck me as odd they'd SPECIFICALLY say they're changing from 550 AGM-158B-2 to only 450 and 100 of the AGM-158D.

      And this is a brand new document from this week, so it's not like it's old data from a few years ago when it was still the AGM-158D.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        yeah that's really fricking weird. i wonder if they're doing a sneaky sneak where the D has an additional sensor or something, but in that case why do that in the first place when it's eventually going to come out that you clearly haven't scrapped the D designation as you're still procuring it new in 2026?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Makes it REALLY fricking confusing trying to research anything about it since everything will point you to the AGM-158B-2

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe the D will be the super-sized version with the larger airframe and warhead that the XR was originally supposed to be?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Maybe the D mod is a B-2 with the seeker of an LRASM (158C)?

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Every year someone makes a thread about the budget by weapon type. Comptroller just dropped the list. I hope that anon comes back and makes a thread about it https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/FY2025/FY2025_Weapons.pdf

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Just start posting some

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Mk48 Mod 2
        I'm assuming this is the latest version of the 5 inch, but I can't find any info on it without being deluged in articles about the Mk 48 LMG

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No, it's the latest version of the 57mm. At least in theory, it can serve as a longer-ranged CIWS than 20mm, whereas a 5" has trouble getting more than a couple shots in before impact.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Mk48 Mod 2
            I'm assuming this is the latest version of the 5 inch, but I can't find any info on it without being deluged in articles about the Mk 48 LMG

            It's an electro-optical targeting system, radar, and fire control computer tied into the 57mm.

            The gun itself isn't really any different from a regular 57mm Bofors.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Radar? As in, LCS will finally have a radar-controlled gunfire system?
              Finally! I've only been complaining about that oversight for almost 20 years, now. As built, LCS was joystick-only for the gun, which kinda made it worthless as a CIWS.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            It's an electro-optical targeting system, radar, and fire control computer tied into the 57mm.

            The gun itself isn't really any different from a regular 57mm Bofors.

            > For the Constellation class the gun will be part of the MK 48 MOD 2 Gun Weapon System and will incorporate the MK 110 57mm gun, the MK 160 Gun Fire Control System and the MK 20 Electro-Optical Sensor System. The gun will also be controlled by the frigate version of the AEGIS Baseline 10 combat management system.

            Thanks guys. That 57 does look badass. And it's another addition to the worldwide fleet of medium-caliber, air-bursting, AA cannon systems.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          > For the Constellation class the gun will be part of the MK 48 MOD 2 Gun Weapon System and will incorporate the MK 110 57mm gun, the MK 160 Gun Fire Control System and the MK 20 Electro-Optical Sensor System. The gun will also be controlled by the frigate version of the AEGIS Baseline 10 combat management system.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So basically instead of the current USN ape out in the red sea where they launch missiles at EVERYTHING because they're not confident in their 5" guns ability to hit a moving airborne target, the Constellation-class with the Mk48 Mod 2 will actually be able to hit incoming missiles or drones at a distance with some significantly cheaper 57mm rounds compared to an ESSM or SM-6/SM-2.

            Nice.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Not exactly. You really don't want to wait until the last second to roll the dice on CIWS, even if it's 57mm CIWS. If something nasty is homing in on you, you need to commence the engagement as far away as you can.

              Now, if it's just a spy drone, nice and slow and not on a collision course, maybe you wait a minute to see if it gets within gun range.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Sometimes yes, not all the time.

    I often argue with his shit posts so I pre-empted him this year by starting the thread myself.

    If you notice anyone start spamming it over it and over THEN you'll know he has joined.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Looks like the thread

      [...]

      does a better job and goes into more detail. Can you try and match that energy

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nah, i've got a meeting in about an hour I need to prepare for, so I don't have time to spam the thread, maybe tonight.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >warriortard is known for making a certain thread
      >I posted it this time so he couldn’t!
      Why did you admit that? It makes you look obsessed with him

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Because I wanted to discuss the new budget documents and I wasn't going to wait for that twat to get off his ass and start it.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So how many 155 shells and M30-rockets are we talking? I want nothing less than 3 per russian person living west of the Urals

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > In FY 2025, Army guidance is to procure 3,000 Standard Unitary, 2,874 Standard Alternative Warhead (AW), and 510 ER GMLRS in support of the Army's Total Munitions Requirement (TMR)
      > The Army requested authority to implement a four-year Multi-Year Procurement (MYP) contract covering FY 2024 - FY 2027. A Request for Proposal (RFP) has been released at an annual quantity floor of 4,500 standard range GMLRS rockets.

      https://www.asafm.army.mil/Portals/72/Documents/BudgetMaterial/2025/Base%20Budget/Procurement/Missile%20

      > M795
      > FY 2025 Total Base dollars in the amount of $53.973 million supports the procurement of 31,237 rounds
      > M1128
      > FY 2025 Total Base dollars in the amount of $68.275 million supports the procurement of 15,062 rounds

      https://www.asafm.army.mil/Portals/72/Documents/BudgetMaterial/2025/Base%20Budget/Procurement/Procurement%20of%20Ammunition.pdf

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >So how many 155 shells and M30-rockets are we talking? I want nothing less than 3 per Russian
      person living west of the Urals
      >its ~45k
      looks like youre getting about 4hrs of a single day at current Ruzzian expenditure rates

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    [...]
    Sometimes yes, not all the time.

    I often argue with his shit posts so I pre-empted him this year by starting the thread myself.

    If you notice anyone start spamming it over it and over THEN you'll know he has joined.

    Rent free and obsessed

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Why is he so good at thread topics bros? Man has his finger in the pulse of /k/ attention

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They're cancelling the M7

      annnnnnnny second now

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What makes you say that?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          it's sarcasm, people have been saying it'll be cancelled since it was announced.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Big Army orders M7
            >Troops don't use it because it collects dust in the armory after troops go back to their M4's because they fail to see the tactical advantages of carrying a boat anchor into combat
            >DoD wastes more money as usual

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              They don't get a choice moron

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The M7 isn't going to be a 1:1 exchange with M4's.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That's not really the point.

                Your unit will be assigned either the M4 or M7, you don't get to choose.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Oh even better.
                >Its 2031 and the mainland commie bugs try invading democratic island bugs
                >US sends troops to help
                >C-17 drops supply of ammo
                >Troops open ammo drop
                >Oops all 5.56
                >Unit only has meme supreme round firing M7 and M250
                We went to standard cartridges after WWII because this exact fricking issue.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Am I moronic or is this like $10,000 per rifle?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yup, though it includes other shit like the optic, and it's both a rifle and machine gun, so realistically the LMG likely costs more skewing the numbers.

        Based on civilian pricing the rifle should be around $4-5k, though I could see them charging the army $6-7k with the suppressor.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Sig delenda est

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/jA3HS9w.jpg

        Yup, though it includes other shit like the optic, and it's both a rifle and machine gun, so realistically the LMG likely costs more skewing the numbers.

        Based on civilian pricing the rifle should be around $4-5k, though I could see them charging the army $6-7k with the suppressor.

        NGSW-R is 4-4.5k, NGSW-AR is 10-11k, NGSW-FC is 10-12k. Add another 7-8k for the FWS-I that's being procured at the same 120,000 unit number as NGSW is now

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >$4.5k for an AR-18 with a proprietary chamber and Sig US QA
          That's it I'm getting a CAGE code

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Nice, 1300-1600 deliveries per month from Feb 2024 out through 2026 and beyond.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Request. Doesn't mean funded or delivered.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              No, the deliveries that started last month are from the FY23 and FY24 orders. The FY24 order deliveries start in August 2024 until August 2025. September 2025 would be the first FY25 budget delivery. So 1300+ per month from now until August 2025 at the minimum even if they don't fund NGSW at all for FY25 (and that's obviously not going to happen, it'll get full funding)

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The quantity "purchased" in a Fiscal year doesn't necessarily equal the quantity delivered in that year. There's production lead time and capacity.

                Just because the Navy "buys" a frigate this year, that doesn't mean it's on the dock by Dec 31.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, which is why the budget documents include a delivery timetable for your convenience

                They also have a page with the breakdown on the production lead time if you want to read more.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/VEhVPeZ.jpg

                Yes, which is why the budget documents include a delivery timetable for your convenience

                They also have a page with the breakdown on the production lead time if you want to read more.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/VEhVPeZ.jpg

                Yes, which is why the budget documents include a delivery timetable for your convenience

                They also have a page with the breakdown on the production lead time if you want to read more.

                https://i.imgur.com/aXMw0P1.jpg

                [...]

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/aXMw0P1.jpg

                [...]

                https://i.imgur.com/VEhVPeZ.jpg

                Yes, which is why the budget documents include a delivery timetable for your convenience

                They also have a page with the breakdown on the production lead time if you want to read more.

                I really love these documents, no other country has anything like it. The only thing on here you don't get are the actual secret squirrel programs that are not public at ALL, and stuff like the B-21 where you don't get a breakdown but still get the topline.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >FY25 budget documents were released this week.
    airmen bro's were eatin good!!

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Even more LRASM in 2025

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      LRASM stockpile is getting huge. God I love America and our nuclear carriers that do not lack arresting cables and catapults

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        as a dual UK/US citizen, I enjoy being able to shit on both sides of the carrier argument personally.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >2023: 142
      >2024: 97
      >2025: 285
      the frick happened?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        AF ran out of money

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      if this trend continues the US will have 91,700 PRISM missiles by 2033

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Looks like we currently plan to max out just under 300/yr

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Is that per pod or per missile?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            gotta be per missile

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Per missile, it's actually lower in that document than what I had last heard.

              O.K. Just seems a bit high, at almost twice the price of a JASSM for a fraction of the range. But then, prices can be awfully wonky at times and it can be really hard to figure out just what's driving the cost (new tech, amortized fixed costs, poor economies of scale, etc.).

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                JASSM is air launched, that's free energy and vastly increases range.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Per missile, it's actually lower in that document than what I had last heard.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Blinked and there's already 100 booker.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      God I love assault guns

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >God I love assault guns

        The booker is not an assault gun, it has not enough armor to participate in an assault. It is a boosted gun truck.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This abortion is inferior to the CV90-120 but it is Uhhmericaahn and the CV90-120 is not even purpose built as a tank.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        In what way is it inferior to the cv90-120? It’s a purpose built assault gun not an IFV with a tank gun slapped on it

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >In what way is it inferior to the cv90-120? It’s a purpose built assault gun not an IFV with a tank gun slapped on it

          120 mm mogs 105 mm in armor penetration and the protection on both is about equal, that is, nonexistant against ATGMs and tank guns. But the CV90 is already in mass production.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > 120 mm mogs 105 mm in armor penetration
            The booker isn’t meant to fight tanks. It’s a cheap way to throw HE shells at dug in positions/buildings. It can also carry much more ammo than a similarly sized vehicle that mounts a 120
            >cv90 is already in mass production
            Not in the US

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The rest is kind of boring

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >LE WARRIORTARD
    It's a decent thread. I'm starting to think you're him, or someone who wants to derail threads by bringing him up.

    You know he only autistically slides in threads involving IFVs right?

    > In FY 2025, Army guidance is to procure 3,000 Standard Unitary, 2,874 Standard Alternative Warhead (AW), and 510 ER GMLRS in support of the Army's Total Munitions Requirement (TMR)
    > The Army requested authority to implement a four-year Multi-Year Procurement (MYP) contract covering FY 2024 - FY 2027. A Request for Proposal (RFP) has been released at an annual quantity floor of 4,500 standard range GMLRS rockets.

    https://www.asafm.army.mil/Portals/72/Documents/BudgetMaterial/2025/Base%20Budget/Procurement/Missile%20

    > M795
    > FY 2025 Total Base dollars in the amount of $53.973 million supports the procurement of 31,237 rounds
    > M1128
    > FY 2025 Total Base dollars in the amount of $68.275 million supports the procurement of 15,062 rounds

    https://www.asafm.army.mil/Portals/72/Documents/BudgetMaterial/2025/Base%20Budget/Procurement/Procurement%20of%20Ammunition.pdf

    This is kinda anemic. Is this not counting the ones they're procuring to replace what they've sent to Ukraine? Or is this the total number?

    Like it's not anemic in respect to Ukraine but considering the two major wars thing it is kinda a bit underwhelming.

    [...]

    Black person if you can't take the time to read a few pdfs that's not our problem.

    https://i.imgur.com/ovMy8Pj.jpg

    Even more LRASM in 2025

    >205 LRASM
    >285 AARGM
    >230 PrSM
    Frickin' daddy harder, deeper, pin my waist down and dig your thumbs into my kidneys I want your babies levels of procurement going on here. I like it.

    https://i.imgur.com/J0ZVZTf.jpg

    The rest is kind of boring

    >1,148 SDB-IIs
    Holy fricking shit that's more impressive than the AARGM buy.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >This is kinda anemic. Is this not counting the ones they're procuring to replace what they've sent to Ukraine? Or is this the total number?
      >Like it's not anemic in respect to Ukraine but considering the two major wars thing it is kinda a bit underwhelming.
      lmfao what is this embarrasing cope^

      its ~45k rounds
      literallly 4 fricking hours of fires at Russias current rate

      your response should have been:
      >"WTF 45k...? is that a typo? surely they meant 450k? ri...right?"
      lmfao
      >4hrs of shells
      >"its not anemic"
      plz

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >lmfao what is this embarrasing cope^
        Not referring to the artillery shell buy, dumbass. The US Army could drown your village in 155mm.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          45k is GMLRS production not artillery shell lmao

          >45k is GMLRS production not artillery shell lmao
          wrong
          > In FY 2025, Army guidance is to procure 3,000 Standard Unitary, 2,874 Standard Alternative Warhead (AW), and 510 ER GMLRS in support of the Army's Total Munitions Requirement (TMR)
          > The Army requested authority to implement a four-year Multi-Year Procurement (MYP) contract covering FY 2024 - FY 2027. A Request for Proposal (RFP) has been released at an annual quantity floor of 4,500 standard range GMLRS rockets.
          https://www.asafm.army.mil/Portals/72/Documents/BudgetMaterial/2025/Base%20Budget/Procurement/Missile%20

          so which is it?

          > In FY 2025, Army guidance is to procure 3,000 Standard Unitary, 2,874 Standard Alternative Warhead (AW), and 510 ER GMLRS in support of the Army's Total Munitions Requirement (TMR)
          > The Army requested authority to implement a four-year Multi-Year Procurement (MYP) contract covering FY 2024 - FY 2027. A Request for Proposal (RFP) has been released at an annual quantity floor of 4,500 standard range GMLRS rockets.

          https://www.asafm.army.mil/Portals/72/Documents/BudgetMaterial/2025/Base%20Budget/Procurement/Missile%20

          > M795
          > FY 2025 Total Base dollars in the amount of $53.973 million supports the procurement of 31,237 rounds
          > M1128
          > FY 2025 Total Base dollars in the amount of $68.275 million supports the procurement of 15,062 rounds

          https://www.asafm.army.mil/Portals/72/Documents/BudgetMaterial/2025/Base%20Budget/Procurement/Procurement%20of%20Ammunition.pdf

          im not reading the dumb fricking document

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >i'm not reading the document
            >here let me steer it into artillery shell numbers IGNORE THE GMLRS IGNORE THE GMLRS IGNORE THE GMLRS IGNORE THE GMLRS
            >OH GOD ALMIGHTY IGNORE THE PRSM
            As I said before, can drown your village in 155mm. Now frick off vatnik.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            btw
            https://www.defensenews.com/land/2023/10/06/us-army-awards-15b-to-boost-global-production-of-artillery-rounds/
            aiming for 80,000 rounds a month. Not including air power. Go leave.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Yes the budget documents are specifically for US army procurement in FY25, nothing more. production of 155mm intended for allies wouldn't be in that budget.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >"aiming for"
              >"hoping to"
              >"planned by 4th quarter 2025"
              lol
              LMFAO even

              just think at peak production:
              >the totality of combined global western 155mm munition production will amount to 8hrs of single day of current Russian expenditure, PER MONTH
              >plans are to scale that number to 100k a month! (10hrs of Russian expenditure!)
              holy shit!
              just think
              after the whole planet scales up its 155mm munnition charity, at maximum capcity, per month, it will be able to supply roughly 10hrs of ammunition
              >not 10 days
              >not 10 weeks
              >not 10 months
              but a measely 10hrs of current use rates

              you should just back totally away from the entire 155mm talking point
              just never bring it up,
              its so shameful,
              so inexplicable, and you have fundamentally no ability to argue anything 'good' about the topic

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Bro, just stop posting. You've already embarrassed yourself.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                please refer to
                [...]
                because you acting like a clown is convincing us you are a clown..

                ok its more like the west could supply roughly 36hrs worth of shells (at Russian fire rates), per month, at maximum global-total surge

                i mean come on

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                have a nice day. This is my last reply.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >This is my last reply.
                Thank you for stopping. You were only encouraging him

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                please refer to

                >literallly 4 fricking hours of fires at Russias current rate
                >no really glorious RASHA fires 250,000 shells per day! (90,000,000 per year)
                this post convinced me that Russia is not pathetic but actually very strong

                because you acting like a clown is convincing us you are a clown..

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                M1156 will help deal with the problem. It might not totally solve it, but it'll make a huge difference. And *that* hasn't been sent to Ukraine, it's all being reserved for the Army.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >And *that* hasn't been sent to Ukraine, it's all being reserved for the Army.
                Uhh no, it was sent back in 2022 by the US

                I'm more interested in M1156; supposedly, over 100K have been produced already, and they cost roughly the same as JDAM kits.

                Also we should have a new long range one ready soon if not already.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >a new long range one ready
                The 58 caliber gun it was being designed for was canceled.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                "There is another...."

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Oh, COME ON! Not again!
                This is getting ridiculous. We're still using M109s that have the same rate of fire as the original model did 60 years ago! Range has improved, but hasn't kept up with competitors; how can even the A7s operate without constant threat of getting counterbattery fire?
                We might as well just license something from Europe and call it a day.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Details? I thought Ukraine had only received the more expensive Excalibur. At least, that's all I've seen reported.
                It always seemed very odd that they hadn't been getting PGK; I assumed that some sort of decision must have been made that PGK would be reserved for the US military or something.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >900,000k she’ll production a year
              Jesus that’s impressive. Based US

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >roughly 90 days at low, conservation rates!
                ha BASED US!!!!!

                let's see Russia's procurement documents
                oh wait, it's a turd world shit-hole that doesn't release procurement documents.
                >help me north Korea I'm winning!

                https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery-shell-production-us-europe-ukraine/index.html

                imagine thinking Global western media would air this story if it wasnt "real" or even an underestimation

                im telling you, your best bet bet is to utterly stop talking about 155mm production
                just back totally away from the topic
                >haha, I have shittons of ammo, and my friends is giving me shittons more! i lost!
                fricking plz

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The US doesn’t need to lob as many shells as Russia so it works out. The vast majority of Russian artillery hits nothing at all. The west doesn’t have that problem

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >have
                had
                >friends is giving
                another turd world shit-hole sold me
                >i lost
                practically everything useful the Soviet union ever built.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >https://www.defensenews.com/land/2023/10/06/us-army-awards-15b-to-boost-global-production-of-artillery-rounds/

              WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army said it awarded $1.5 billion in contracts to nine companies in the U.S., Canada, India and Poland to boost global production of 155mm artillery rounds.

              I guess most of that will be from overseas because outsourcing gets around the DEI/ESG drag.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        45k is GMLRS production not artillery shell lmao

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No, 45k is 155mm artillery.

          > In FY 2025, Army guidance is to procure 3,000 Standard Unitary, 2,874 Standard Alternative Warhead (AW), and 510 ER GMLRS in support of the Army's Total Munitions Requirement (TMR)
          > The Army requested authority to implement a four-year Multi-Year Procurement (MYP) contract covering FY 2024 - FY 2027. A Request for Proposal (RFP) has been released at an annual quantity floor of 4,500 standard range GMLRS rockets.

          https://www.asafm.army.mil/Portals/72/Documents/BudgetMaterial/2025/Base%20Budget/Procurement/Missile%20

          > M795
          > FY 2025 Total Base dollars in the amount of $53.973 million supports the procurement of 31,237 rounds
          > M1128
          > FY 2025 Total Base dollars in the amount of $68.275 million supports the procurement of 15,062 rounds

          https://www.asafm.army.mil/Portals/72/Documents/BudgetMaterial/2025/Base%20Budget/Procurement/Procurement%20of%20Ammunition.pdf

          >> M795
          >> FY 2025 Total Base dollars in the amount of $53.973 million supports the procurement of 31,237 rounds
          >> M1128
          >> FY 2025 Total Base dollars in the amount of $68.275 million supports the procurement of 15,062 rounds

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >literallly 4 fricking hours of fires at Russias current rate
        >no really glorious RASHA fires 250,000 shells per day! (90,000,000 per year)
        this post convinced me that Russia is not pathetic but actually very strong

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >this post convinced me that Russia is not pathetic but actually very strong
          good, numbers arent usually brown peoples strong suit
          but Russia is firing ~10k a day now, down from 40k-60k a day peak in fall of 2022, and 20k-30k a day during parts of 2023

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            and the backpedaling starts.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >backpedaling
              AHHAHAHAHAHAH
              AAHAHAHAHAHAH
              please

              I guess it all depends how fast ukraine wastes them
              if it fires them at the rate Russia does, a months supply will be gone in mere hours,

              and by 2026, you may get 36hrs if you were conservative with your shooting

              but hey,
              >"backpeddling"
              HAHAHAHA
              AHAHHAHHAH

              sure

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                let's see Russia's procurement documents
                oh wait, it's a turd world shit-hole that doesn't release procurement documents.
                >help me north Korea I'm winning!

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If you put PGKs on the shells, how many are needed to kill a target?

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Another great topic ruined by the Floridan fart sniffer

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Cope these warriortard defense spending threads have always been possible. If I had to pick a thread party pooper I would pick concerned about shell production guy

      >backpedaling
      AHHAHAHAHAHAH
      AAHAHAHAHAHAH
      please

      I guess it all depends how fast ukraine wastes them
      if it fires them at the rate Russia does, a months supply will be gone in mere hours,

      and by 2026, you may get 36hrs if you were conservative with your shooting

      but hey,
      >"backpeddling"
      HAHAHAHA
      AHAHHAHHAH

      sure

      >"aiming for"
      >"hoping to"
      >"planned by 4th quarter 2025"
      lol
      LMFAO even

      just think at peak production:
      >the totality of combined global western 155mm munition production will amount to 8hrs of single day of current Russian expenditure, PER MONTH
      >plans are to scale that number to 100k a month! (10hrs of Russian expenditure!)
      holy shit!
      just think
      after the whole planet scales up its 155mm munnition charity, at maximum capcity, per month, it will be able to supply roughly 10hrs of ammunition
      >not 10 days
      >not 10 weeks
      >not 10 months
      but a measely 10hrs of current use rates

      you should just back totally away from the entire 155mm talking point
      just never bring it up,
      its so shameful,
      so inexplicable, and you have fundamentally no ability to argue anything 'good' about the topic

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I don’t like warriortard but his threads are great
      ???????

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This isn't a warriortard thread, he would've spammed it 5x more.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Are you moronic? He’s been making these threads for years with an example in right here

          [...]

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            there is nothing that indicates those posts were by anyone in particular. you are moronic and I appreciate the guy that effort-posts the actual procurement documents every time. we've seen some cool stuff because of his work.
            I'm going to filter anyone that posts
            >warriortard
            now.
            goodbye forever.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              > there is nothing that indicates those posts were by anyone in particular
              Act like your not the easiest poster to spot on this board
              >all slides in linked thread are posted from an iPhone
              Here’s a random caption
              > Just shy of 5,000 GMLRS. I expect this to change as this was released before we started supplying them to Ukraine. Still a massive number compared to any other military on earth
              >compared to any other military on earth
              WT phrasing

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes anon everyone and everything was actually posted by a single guy. The guy wasn’t made up so people could derail threads that would be crazy

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >I'm going to filter
              Don't. If you don't see them you won't be able to submit reports to give the angry schizo(s?) a timeout

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    you can't look at what they're buying some personality did it before

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah warriortard, you aren’t welcome here

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Don't know who warriortard is but I'm the asian that posted most of the slides

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Extremely inorganic post made by warriortard himself

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    ivas my beloved....

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They had 20 IVAS 1.2 prototypes in August 2023, another 280 pre-production units will be delivered for testing at some point in FY24, that would mean the 3162 units in FY25 are the first "real" order of IVAS 1.2 units.

      That's not bad anon.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's still contingent on how 1.2 testing goes. With the UX changes I'm hopeful they can do well.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >'its heavy, and my neck hurts'
          that will be 80% disability+tip!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            1.2 will hopefully only be as bad as EVNG's 2.5lbs.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              ENVGs were comfy, we should have just said frick it and ordered a shit load of them instead of getting cold feet halfway through. Or at least used the money to buy everyone PVS15s to replace the 20 year old PVS14s everyone in III Corps are still rocking.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >instead of getting cold feet halfway through
                We didn't?

                ENVG-III and ENVG-B are both in active use in conjunction with FWS-I.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I thought we chopped orders from like 100k total to 15k?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I mean orders might've been downsized, but they're still buying them and more orders get placed every year.

                FY25 budget includes $100M for ENVG-B, 2364 units, and the Army's stated total "Army Acquisition Objective" is 122,323 units.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Damn, no idea why I thought the program was being quiet-shelved. Thanks.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                thankfully these documents are easy enough to search through once you know how they work.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Dang, $60-80K apiece? That sounds absurdly high. I thought good military thermals were under $30K? Is there an amortization issue or something causing it to be that high?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                $100,292,000 divided by 2364 units is ~$42424.70 per unit.

                Cheaper even than the FY23 order that was over 3x larger at 8144 units at $358,140,000 for a per-unit price of ~$44138.53.

                So in 2 years they brought the cost down by ~$2000 per unit.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I already explained that I didn't want to wait for warriortard to start the thread this year, and still people insist he started this thread. Dammed if you do dammed if you don't.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Why aren’t people buying my vitriol and lies!!!

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    guess that means they more or less finalized the design

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      lmao fricking $9B with only 1 segment of 1 boat procured, i wonder how much of that is for the industry itself.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        ESL or shit reading comprehension, which is it?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It says 1 segment of two, of the 2nd boat. Then it says long lead purchases for future procurement and quote "submarine industrial base"
          I am wondering how much of that $9B is for the submarine industrial base.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I am wondering how much of that $9B is for the submarine industrial base.
            wiki-pedia says columbia-class subs will cost $4.5-$6.2billion A PIECE
            >lmfao, HOW?
            and what are they going to even be armed with?
            Missiles the navy doesnt have?

            its so confusing...

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Sure, but again, looking at previous years which were ALSO paying for long lead procurement and a similar 1 segment of 1 boat procurement, the fact it's $9B in 2025 but $5.5B the previous years tells me they've got an extra $3-4B in there.

              So my guess is they're attempting to dump a BIG chunk of that into the submarine shipyards to try and expand production.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >and what are they going to even be armed with? Missiles the navy doesnt have?
              Err, they're going to be armed with Tridents. The Columbia class is a direct replacement for the Ohio class, so while some of the missiles may be new-build, others will come from a retiring sub.

              The new ballistic missile design is a ground-based one for replacing the Minuteman fleet. The Trident program is doing its own thing, and there really isn't much of a need to replace the design right now.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      im brown and have a thurdie brain,
      but how TF does ( 1 ) submarine cost $9billion........

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        In budgets, the Navy loads the development cost of the program into the first ship. After that it's unit procurement cost.

        Of course, being the Navy, their unit costs end up wrong but what can you do.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Most of you are too young to remember this, but warriortard blaming is getting as bad as the height of PrepHole's Discord paranoia in 2014.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Now guess why warriortard loves to falseflag and call other people warriortard. Yeah, it is to get this reaction.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >armatard falseflagging armatard was so obvious he got laughed off the board
        >warriortard falseflagging warriortard is actually getting some traction

        simply, anglo superiority

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I thought he didn’t like anglos, are you saying he is an Anglo

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >don't look at the JASSM don't look at the JASSM don't look at the JASSM
            >look at WARRIORTARD!!!!!!!!!!!!
            1,148 SDB-II in 2025 alone btw, that's 143 F-16 sorties

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is nobody noticing that the AGM-158B-3 is also listed?
    First I've ever even see that mentioned

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I also noticed that, but I frankly assumed it would just be a further development on the extended range model.

      I'm still more curious about seeing AGM-158D again.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It seems the big rumors are that the D model is in fact the XR come back, or it has some form of IIR seeker.
        Whatever the case, it's interesting stuff.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          But I thought thats what AGM-158B-2 was...

          AGM-158B is the ER, and AGM-158B-2 is XR....right?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            AGM-158B-2 is believed to be a refinement of the ER model, incorporating a new wing design, new RAM coatings, two way data link, maybe some other features as well.

            XR got shitcanned or went dark. The whole renaming thing was never happened.
            Check this paper, it specifically mentions the B-2 being a variant of the ER model.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Anything on AUKUS and new subs? Media over here is catastrophising as usual about how we're being ripped off because it's obviously going to be delayed and overbudget.
    t.Aussie

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Nothing specifically besides it looks like the US is pumping a ton of excess money into the sub building industry

      Sure, but again, looking at previous years which were ALSO paying for long lead procurement and a similar 1 segment of 1 boat procurement, the fact it's $9B in 2025 but $5.5B the previous years tells me they've got an extra $3-4B in there.

      So my guess is they're attempting to dump a BIG chunk of that into the submarine shipyards to try and expand production.

      https://i.imgur.com/r4Qyhc7.png

      guess that means they more or less finalized the design

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        A lot of that is for Virginia production scaling up, as well as the Columbias now

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yup

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        > scaling up

        1.3 Virginias per year and it ain't budging for at least the rest of this decade.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          And yet we still see some $3B of the Columbia class FY25 budget going to building the industry.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Media over here is catastrophising as usual
      Its going to be 20 years of constant AUKUS screeching. Its what Australian media does.
      >The F-111s are American junk
      nvm it became an icon
      >The Collins class cant be done, Australia has no submarine experience.
      nvm it was the best submarine of its class at the time
      >The Hobart Destroyers are over priced trash
      nvm theyre good and we didnt build enough lf them
      >The F-35 are just lemons
      nvm it actually is great
      >AUKUS Submarines
      It will be like the Collins again and the media wont stop whinging until theyre in the twilight of their life

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    D for rapid Dragon?

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    700 M982 shells per month in 2025 is neat.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I'm more interested in M1156; supposedly, over 100K have been produced already, and they cost roughly the same as JDAM kits.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Relevant since these were announced pretty much the same time, but Poland just procured 821 JASSM's, and damn near 1000 AIM 9X/120C's, gaytt dayum they are preparing for some shit.
    AGM-158 bros, we can't stop winning.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You missed something, anon.

      https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/poland-agm-158b-2-joint-air-surface-standoff-missile-extended-range

      >WASHINGTON, March 12, 2024 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Poland of AGM-158B-2 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile with Extended Range All-Up-Rounds and related elements of logistics and program support for an estimated cost of $1.77 billion. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today.

      They're calling them JASSM-ERs, which have a range of 900 km or so, but the model number they're using is the B-2, which has a range of 1900 km.

      >In March 2016, Lockheed Martin began analysis on an enhanced wing design to further increase range.[61] In September 2018, the corporation was awarded a contract to develop an "Extreme Range" variant of the AGM-158. The weapon would weigh about 5,000 lb (2,300 kg) and deliver a 2,000 lb (910 kg) warhead out to a range of 1,900 km (1,200 mi; 1,000 nmi).[62][63]

      Is the State Department moronic, did some wires get crossed, or are they doing the most stupid shit to get people not to notice?

      Pic related

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Is that state department moronic
        Seems like a pretty effective method of negating Russia's threat.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          In public yeah but I fully expect another S-300 put into an orphanage over this. They are going to be MAD.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        See:

        >Lot 22 has 450 AGM-158B-2 and 100 AGM-158D.
        ?????? the frick?

        for those unaware B-2 and D are supposed to, both, be the same thing, JASSM-XR. a JASSM with a 2000 km range.

        maybe they changed the designation halfway through production and there are tiny differences that account for it? i don't know anon that's odd.

        ,

        Yeah that's what I thought as well and why it struck me as odd they'd SPECIFICALLY say they're changing from 550 AGM-158B-2 to only 450 and 100 of the AGM-158D.

        And this is a brand new document from this week, so it's not like it's old data from a few years ago when it was still the AGM-158D.

        They're both more up-to-date on the program than I am, but my understanding is that the 5,000lb variant disappeared from all planning and was replaced by "just another range extension". The fact that no fewer than *3* different models (B-2, B-3, and D) are referred to in this document has everybody completely thrown for a loop. What's the difference between them? Is one of them the 5,000lb weapon come back to life? We haven't figured it out yet.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I'm

          >Lot 22 has 450 AGM-158B-2 and 100 AGM-158D.
          ?????? the frick?

          for those unaware B-2 and D are supposed to, both, be the same thing, JASSM-XR. a JASSM with a 2000 km range.

          maybe they changed the designation halfway through production and there are tiny differences that account for it? i don't know anon that's odd.

          I know about the whole frick-around thing they're doing with designations.
          But yeah what the frick? There's a B-3 now?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      JASSM is such a popular export cruise missile.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Well yeah, Russians were totally unable to stop those shorter ranged French Low Observable cruise missiles. It only makes sense that the stealthier, longer ranged, JASSM is the gold standard

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's honestly one of the best stand off munitions ever created.

        https://i.imgur.com/PGga834.png

        FY 25 will be the first year for 30mm equipped ACVs, all previous ones have just had an M2 on a remote-controlled mount. Not bad, but 30mm is a lot more fun.

        oh frick yeah, I'm actually really excited to see these jankmobiles with 30mm.
        >seabed warfare capability for the first time
        wonder what this actually means, from seabed to strike landtargets vs going near surface for VLS?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah Block VI Virginia is a black hole of no one knows.

          I have no idea what technologies would enable a significant stealth increase over Block V, but they've got something I guess.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah toobs are out of my depth, I have a squid sub buddy but he's not on a later block virginia, that side of the house is out of my depth(kek) as a scif monkey from the chairforce.
            In my highly uneducated opinion my guess is one/some of the following:
            >new acoustic absorbing/maybe radar as well(some ground penetrating radars have been tested for subs, works better in fresh water vs salt iirc) material, or some weird hybrid coating
            >new sound dampening for the engines(new props wouldn't dedicate an entire block change imo)
            >new form of terrain/non-vis(some space magic lasers with low dispersion in water for lidar?) observation/nav to prevent outgoing casts to be caught/heard
            >active decoy system

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah your guess is as good as anyone who hasn't served on a later block Virginia-boat or is directly involved with the R&D.

              There is also already rumblings of a Block VII before switching to SSN(X) production in FY35.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That's a quick turnaround timeline wise.
                Makes me think they identified a few ways to id the sub and are breaking out the fixes to those weaknesses in 2 stages.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Could also be upgrades to the photonic mast laser system or any number of other things.

                We get more info on top secret airforce programs than we do about submarines.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                By design due to their nature, but was genuinely surprised how much of the sensor data is public knowledge for the Mq9s/RQ4s when they first came about/a year later. Those cmos packages for tracking is genuinely an insane tech feat.
                Plus us chairmen love flaunting our cool shit if I'm honest kek.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I assume it's also just because it's easier to hide something under the ocean than it is up in the air.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It is 2024, a trillion has become as laughable as a billion used to be only 5 years ago.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    They are, and the replies to you are him seething. It's not a surprise, that's why he brings up JASSM, because he uses its non existant 2000km version to compare against other cruise missiles as a shill would.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >its non existant 2000km version
      Do you have any actual proof that AGM-158B-2 ISN'T 1900 km range? Like, an actual source that states that they've retired that idea? Because from what is publicly available it looks like you can just buy them.

      You wouldn't be someone trying to derail a good thread, would you, c**t?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >the JASSM makes me insecure
      Lmao

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No anon, it scares him. The thought that a B-2 could refuel somewhere over Canada and basically pick a side of the Russian Federation to hit, then change its heading 45 degrees to match, then fly and release JASSM-XRs over the ocean, terrifies him. Russian air defense is based around the concept that the enemy will have to fly fairly close to the target to hit it, close enough that the VKS or a SAM battery can hit it. If the enemy is releasing 2000 km range cruise missiles well beyond range of anything you have (and that's not a joke Russian air refueling is anemic and most Russian fighters don't have 1000 km range plus 15 minutes in AB) you have basically no way to stop them.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > compare against other cruise missiles as a shill would.
      Isn’t that the point of the board? It’s not like it’s a secret that the JASSM is best in its class

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why isn’t there a poster counter anymore?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      To make warriortard's job easier

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Schizo

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Because hiro-asiatic is a moronic slum-lord, preferring to wank his tiny jap dick to gacha png's than actually fixing this website. frick that homosexual.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Sorry your multiple devices got BTFO

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          don't you give me that shit homie, it's objective fact the quality of this website has been declining sharply due to that moron not giving a shit about it. The moderation problems, with overactive jannies and moderators bending the rules to their own purposes is a good example of this. Remember that Vatnik Mod that used to throw the book at anyone who was critical of Russia? If Hiroshima Nagasaki was doing his job properly and actually reigning his moronic moderation team in, that shit wouldn't have happened or at least would have been dealt with much earlier. And that's just the administration, there's so many other ways in which he's been constantly mismanaging this site, including this recent move of removing the poster count.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Who would willingly moderate online discussions if not dysgenic freaks with an agenda?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              exactly, and as the owner of the site, it's asiatic-moot's responsibility to refrain those dysgenic freaks from running roughshod over everything. As you can see from the general state of things, he's been doing a shit job at it.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    JASSM coupled with impunity

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Does pic-related mean they're developing a different 767 variant BESIDES the current KC-46?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I found an old Boeing press release that states the 767-2C is a KC-46 without the refueling equipment installed. 4 of them were built a decade ago as EMD (test) aircraft. I'm guessing the verbiage means they're paying for new modifications and testing for said modifications, which might not fall into the normal O&M buckets.
      Again, that's just a guess.

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    $328M is a lot of money to buy a single business jet.

    The only thing from Boeing near that price range would be the BBJ 787-9 or 787-8 both of which are in the $250-300m range, then another ~$30-70m for military upgrades/communications shit.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      VP gets a BBJ 787-8 with military upgrades, not bad.

      Will still likely pale in comparison to the new Air Force ones.

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Looks like the Abrams R&D budget got a nice boost for the M1E3 development.

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    FY 25 will be the first year for 30mm equipped ACVs, all previous ones have just had an M2 on a remote-controlled mount. Not bad, but 30mm is a lot more fun.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is awesome. The marines needed a fighting vehicle with an autocannon. They don’t use the LAV-25 in an offensive role

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No one else has a meu equivalent and it’s glorious

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    SM-3 block IB production appears to be ending, all future production is going to be SM-3 block IIA

    Though notably, for the first time in 20 years the MDA did not provide a public budget document for FY25 citing orders "from above". All we get is what's in the DoD overview document, no specific justification book doing line item breakdowns of each thing they're buying and what programs they're paying into.

    Very odd.

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Buying 4 LTAMDS radars in FY25.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/hSEhVxz.png

      Trident II upgrade budget got a nice boost

      https://i.imgur.com/JWOkX10.png

      SM-6 block IB development is still ongoing. It's got a larger rocket motor for increased range and performance.

      Thank you florida man. These are great

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        kys

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Trident II upgrade budget got a nice boost

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    SM-6 block IB development is still ongoing. It's got a larger rocket motor for increased range and performance.

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    FY25 funds the first Block VI Virginia-class boat, though not much is known about it besides it intends to build on the capabilities of the Block V boats but has further enhancements to stealth capabilities

    > “The key thing here is to really enable that organic subsea, seabed warfare capability for the first time.”

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    MOAR burkes

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    New landing ship

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Excellent. The marine littoral force is insane. No one else has anything similar

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Space shit aint cheap I guess

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I'm super excited about this stuff.
      It's actually a huge deal and I'm surprised people aren't talking about it more.

      Basically the original SBIRS (an infrared missile detection thingie) was split into SBIRS High and SBIRS Low, SBIRS High is now SBIRS and is in GEO, which is great for coverage but doesn't have the best resolution and is in, you know, GEO. It can get basically a 2D track on something and that's it, although apparently based on some stories that have come out it can do basically semi-3D tracking of missiles through their flight.

      SBIRS Low was meant to be in LEO, and had the advantage of being able to look sideways/up at missiles and build an actual 3D track of them through space. LEO satellites travel a lot faster so you can get basically parallax on the target and determine where it is really well. If you have two or more satellites in LEO spotting it, you can get a very accurate track. They abandoned SBIRS Low for cost and up-mass reasons.

      This is really important because to cue ABM radars and fire SM-3s/GBI you need really good tracks on things. ABM radars can spot shit like golf balls at insane ranges, but you need to be able to tell them where to look so they can get into the good radar modes and optimize for small targets. These infrared systems let you do that.

      Now they're going even harder than the original proposal polar HEO satellites and shit. I fricking love it.

      https://defensescoop.com/2023/11/27/space-force-meo-missile-warning-tracking-cdr/

      https://defensescoop.com/2024/03/11/space-force-missile-warning-budget-2025/

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If the Administration would stop slow-walking Starship launch clearances, they could get dirt-cheap up-mass prices.
        Also, 8m Keyholes.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          They have a 110-minute launch window scheduled for tomorrow morning at 7am CT.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, I'll have to set my alarm for that. Only took them almost half a year to allow it; that's a pretty big change from when SpaceX was testing the early-model ships with no serious government roadblocks.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Lets be fair, starship is a LOT bigger and has the potential for a much larger mishap.

              I still think they're being jerked around a bit, but it's not as bad as you're saying.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                SN4, SN5, SN6, SN8, SN9, SN10, SN11, and SN15 all flew (or blew up on the pad) over the course of about 9 months. Most of those ended in mishaps. Then came Twitter and we've seen 2 launches in the last 3 years.

                I'll readily admit that not everything is a conspiracy and that Hanlon's Razor is usually correct; however, the constant slippage of approvals (and involving regulatory bodies that have no experience in spaceflight) seems a bit... much.

  44. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    As far as warriortard threads go. This one ain’t half bad

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I've said it twice and i'll say it again.

      I'm not warriortard, I just enjoy this particular thread of his and didn't feel like waiting until he got around to posting it himself since the documents got released on Monday and I wanted to talk about them.

      People keep insisting I'm warriortard anyway though, so whatever I guess.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The post you are replying to is most likely by warriortard himself, maybe think about why he is doing this.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I've said it twice and i'll say it again.

          I'm not warriortard, I just enjoy this particular thread of his and didn't feel like waiting until he got around to posting it himself since the documents got released on Monday and I wanted to talk about them.

          People keep insisting I'm warriortard anyway though, so whatever I guess.

          You aren’t fooling anyone

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous
  45. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    What does he have to do with discussions about dod budgets I thought all he cared about was shitting on bong weapons for no particular reason.

  46. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just as a side note, the following production lines will be effectively closed:
    MQ-9
    RQ-4
    C-130
    V-22
    F-18
    E-2

    Of these, I'm not overly-concerned about the drones, which aren't stealthy (and the RQ-4 came out absurdly overpriced for reasons I've never understood). The F-18 and E-2 shutdowns were known years in advance; if the USN hasn't given themselves enough margin to account for losses (combat or otherwise), that's pretty much their own fault. The V-22 line will likely be shifted over to Valor-chan as long as *that* doesn't get cancelled. The C-130, on the other hand, concerns me, as there is no replacement for it even on the horizon, and the C-17 line has been gone for a decade already. That means no new military-grade airlift for at least a decade--maybe two. 737s and 767s aren't rated for gravel or grass strips.

    In addition, F-35 production got slashed from ~150 to <50, purely because the military budget is capped (while domestic spending essentially isn't). And shipbuilding is even worse: the USN is "divesting" 10 ships while only ordering 6.

    While some munitions are being purchased in healthy quantities, like JASSM, AMRAAM, or SDB2, others... aren't. TLAM? 22. Standards? 125 for all types (does that mean all new production is going to SM-6 and SM-2MR is remanufactured missiles only?). In certain cases, this is simply not sustainable against a (hypothetical) peer opponent (fortunately, Russia probably doesn't count).

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >TLAM? 22.
      There's no point in keeping more than a few reloads in stock since they're inherently limited by the number of launch platforms that carry them and aren't quickly reloadable.
      >does that mean all new production is going to SM-6 and SM-2MR is remanufactured missiles only?
      SM-6 is a direct SM-2 replacement so this would be logical. SM-2MR is also the really old stuff, like early 90s at the latest. There's the SM-2ER with the dual-mode seeker that's mainly produced for export but MR is wholly outdated compared to the rest of the arsenal.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Standards? 125 for all types
      it's 125 SM-6 and 12 SM-3

      see

      https://i.imgur.com/ICaSKNY.png

      SM-3 block IB production appears to be ending, all future production is going to be SM-3 block IIA

      Though notably, for the first time in 20 years the MDA did not provide a public budget document for FY25 citing orders "from above". All we get is what's in the DoD overview document, no specific justification book doing line item breakdowns of each thing they're buying and what programs they're paying into.

      Very odd.

      &

      https://i.imgur.com/JWOkX10.png

      SM-6 block IB development is still ongoing. It's got a larger rocket motor for increased range and performance.

      i'd say it's likey we're simply seeing a production shift from SM-3 block IB to SM-3 block IIA, and the normal order of ~50-70 SM-3's/year will be back by FY27/28. But they'll all be the more capable SM-3 block IIA instead of IB.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        SM-2MR still makes up the vast majority of the arsenal, with Block III in production for some 30 years and IIIC upgrades making them roughly equal to SM-6 except without the booster (the more things change...). That's thousands of missiles, and with upwards of 10,000 cells to fill, SM-2 will be the mainstay of the surface fleet for years to come.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      One thing to remember is that the services will knowingly cut critical things like ships and place that money into other programs. Then when Congress writes up the NDAA and appropriations act they'll add back in the money for said ships and they'll come out on top funding wise.

      https://www.stripes.com/branches/navy/2022-03-28/navy-budget-ships-sailors-defense-strategy-5507685.html

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Navy is building 6 but asking to decommission 19.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Aren't they mostly ticos and LCS ships?

        Kinda needed, the ticos are old.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, the USN is trying to get rid of as many LCSes as Congress will allow them to.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Cost cutting?
            Because they suck?
            Making room for real frigates?
            All the above?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              The second leads to the first and third. The modular mission systems don't work and are expensive as shit because we built only a handful before figuring out that they are a failed program. It was funny getting a tour of one and the XO trying to skirt around the fact the fact that they might be assigned a minesweeping or ASW mission but everyone knows they'd be only able to half ass it at best because it's not even a secret that the tech didn't work out. They did do a good job at showing what systems you can automate to reduce staffing requirements, which is nice for the eternally body strapped USN, but the only thing they're really good for is pirate hunting since even their air defense config is pretty anemic and they don't carry any real long range strike ability.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                > the eternally body strapped USN

                In the 80s, the Navy had twice the current manpower, on a significantly smaller population base.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                In the 80s, a the Navy also had a fleet twice the size of the current USN, so what exactly is your point beyond current thing bad?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That the Navy could recruit twice the sailors they do now back in the day, but now they can't/won't. Didn't think that was very hard to understand, but....

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Has nothing to do with bodies.

                We don't have the ships for the sailors even we had the people in service.

  47. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    frick jannies

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They seemingly deleted a single poster's posts.

      I'm fine with it.

  48. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    does manpower shortages have any effect on retiring additional ships?
    or is it a strictly money thing

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Both and neither? If it's a critical thing, like nuclear reactors being permanently undermanned, they'll just frick over the people who get suckered into it and overwork them with zero regards to retention or QoL, which has the nice feedback of keeping them understaffed because people want out and tell everyone to avoid it. However, you do see them retiring old but viable ships that are too expensive to keep running around with in part because of the larger staffing requirements. Hell, one of the big selling points for the new Ford class carriers was that they reduced the staffing requirement for the reactor by 50%, and similar levels of cost savings means that running the Nimitz is actually more expensive in the long run then just buying Fords even at their insane price tag.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Turns out people are expensive

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *