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.
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/
>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.
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?
Makes it REALLY fricking confusing trying to research anything about it since everything will point you to the AGM-158B-2
Maybe the D will be the super-sized version with the larger airframe and warhead that the XR was originally supposed to be?
Maybe the D mod is a B-2 with the seeker of an LRASM (158C)?
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
Just start posting some
>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
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.
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.
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.
Thanks guys. That 57 does look badass. And it's another addition to the worldwide fleet of medium-caliber, air-bursting, AA cannon systems.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
Looks like the thread
does a better job and goes into more detail. Can you try and match that energy
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.
>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
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.
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
> 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
>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
Rent free and obsessed
Why is he so good at thread topics bros? Man has his finger in the pulse of /k/ attention
They're cancelling the M7
annnnnnnny second now
What makes you say that?
it's sarcasm, people have been saying it'll be cancelled since it was announced.
>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
They don't get a choice moron
The M7 isn't going to be a 1:1 exchange with M4's.
That's not really the point.
Your unit will be assigned either the M4 or M7, you don't get to choose.
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.
Am I moronic or is this like $10,000 per rifle?
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.
Sig delenda est
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
>$4.5k for an AR-18 with a proprietary chamber and Sig US QA
That's it I'm getting a CAGE code
Nice, 1300-1600 deliveries per month from Feb 2024 out through 2026 and beyond.
Request. Doesn't mean funded or delivered.
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)
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.
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.
>FY25 budget documents were released this week.
airmen bro's were eatin good!!
Even more LRASM in 2025
LRASM stockpile is getting huge. God I love America and our nuclear carriers that do not lack arresting cables and catapults
as a dual UK/US citizen, I enjoy being able to shit on both sides of the carrier argument personally.
>2023: 142
>2024: 97
>2025: 285
the frick happened?
AF ran out of money
if this trend continues the US will have 91,700 PRISM missiles by 2033
Looks like we currently plan to max out just under 300/yr
Is that per pod or per missile?
gotta be per missile
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.).
JASSM is air launched, that's free energy and vastly increases range.
Per missile, it's actually lower in that document than what I had last heard.
Blinked and there's already 100 booker.
God I love assault guns
>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.
This abortion is inferior to the CV90-120 but it is Uhhmericaahn and the CV90-120 is not even purpose built as a tank.
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
>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.
> 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
The rest is kind of boring
>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?
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.
>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.
>1,148 SDB-IIs
Holy fricking shit that's more impressive than the AARGM buy.
>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
>lmfao what is this embarrasing cope^
Not referring to the artillery shell buy, dumbass. The US Army could drown your village in 155mm.
>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?
im not reading the dumb fricking document
>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.
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.
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.
>"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
Bro, just stop posting. You've already embarrassed yourself.
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
have a nice day. This is my last reply.
>This is my last reply.
Thank you for stopping. You were only encouraging him
please refer to
because you acting like a clown is convincing us you are a clown..
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.
>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
Also we should have a new long range one ready soon if not already.
>a new long range one ready
The 58 caliber gun it was being designed for was canceled.
"There is another...."
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.
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.
>900,000k she’ll production a year
Jesus that’s impressive. Based US
>roughly 90 days at low, conservation rates!
ha BASED US!!!!!
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
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
>have
had
>friends is giving
another turd world shit-hole sold me
>i lost
practically everything useful the Soviet union ever built.
>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.
45k is GMLRS production not artillery shell lmao
No, 45k is 155mm artillery.
>> 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
>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
>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
and the backpedaling starts.
>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
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!
If you put PGKs on the shells, how many are needed to kill a target?
Another great topic ruined by the Floridan fart sniffer
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
>I don’t like warriortard but his threads are great
???????
This isn't a warriortard thread, he would've spammed it 5x more.
Are you moronic? He’s been making these threads for years with an example in right here
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.
> 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
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
>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
you can't look at what they're buying some personality did it before
Yeah warriortard, you aren’t welcome here
Don't know who warriortard is but I'm the asian that posted most of the slides
Extremely inorganic post made by warriortard himself
ivas my beloved....
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.
It's still contingent on how 1.2 testing goes. With the UX changes I'm hopeful they can do well.
>'its heavy, and my neck hurts'
that will be 80% disability+tip!
1.2 will hopefully only be as bad as EVNG's 2.5lbs.
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.
>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.
I thought we chopped orders from like 100k total to 15k?
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.
Damn, no idea why I thought the program was being quiet-shelved. Thanks.
thankfully these documents are easy enough to search through once you know how they work.
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?
$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.
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.
>Why aren’t people buying my vitriol and lies!!!
guess that means they more or less finalized the design
lmao fricking $9B with only 1 segment of 1 boat procured, i wonder how much of that is for the industry itself.
ESL or shit reading comprehension, which is it?
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.
>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...
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.
>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.
im brown and have a thurdie brain,
but how TF does ( 1 ) submarine cost $9billion........
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.
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.
Now guess why warriortard loves to falseflag and call other people warriortard. Yeah, it is to get this reaction.
>armatard falseflagging armatard was so obvious he got laughed off the board
>warriortard falseflagging warriortard is actually getting some traction
simply, anglo superiority
I thought he didn’t like anglos, are you saying he is an Anglo
>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
Is nobody noticing that the AGM-158B-3 is also listed?
First I've ever even see that mentioned
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.
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.
But I thought thats what AGM-158B-2 was...
AGM-158B is the ER, and AGM-158B-2 is XR....right?
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.
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
Nothing specifically besides it looks like the US is pumping a ton of excess money into the sub building industry
A lot of that is for Virginia production scaling up, as well as the Columbias now
Yup
> scaling up
1.3 Virginias per year and it ain't budging for at least the rest of this decade.
And yet we still see some $3B of the Columbia class FY25 budget going to building the industry.
>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
D for rapid Dragon?
700 M982 shells per month in 2025 is neat.
I'm more interested in M1156; supposedly, over 100K have been produced already, and they cost roughly the same as JDAM kits.
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.
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
>Is that state department moronic
Seems like a pretty effective method of negating Russia's threat.
In public yeah but I fully expect another S-300 put into an orphanage over this. They are going to be MAD.
See:
,
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.
I'm
I know about the whole frick-around thing they're doing with designations.
But yeah what the frick? There's a B-3 now?
JASSM is such a popular export cruise missile.
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
It's honestly one of the best stand off munitions ever created.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I assume it's also just because it's easier to hide something under the ocean than it is up in the air.
It is 2024, a trillion has become as laughable as a billion used to be only 5 years ago.
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.
>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?
>the JASSM makes me insecure
Lmao
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.
> 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
Why isn’t there a poster counter anymore?
To make warriortard's job easier
Schizo
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.
Sorry your multiple devices got BTFO
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.
Who would willingly moderate online discussions if not dysgenic freaks with an agenda?
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.
JASSM coupled with impunity
Does pic-related mean they're developing a different 767 variant BESIDES the current KC-46?
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.
$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.
VP gets a BBJ 787-8 with military upgrades, not bad.
Will still likely pale in comparison to the new Air Force ones.
Looks like the Abrams R&D budget got a nice boost for the M1E3 development.
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.
This is awesome. The marines needed a fighting vehicle with an autocannon. They don’t use the LAV-25 in an offensive role
No one else has a meu equivalent and it’s glorious
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.
Buying 4 LTAMDS radars in FY25.
Thank you florida man. These are great
kys
Trident II upgrade budget got a nice boost
SM-6 block IB development is still ongoing. It's got a larger rocket motor for increased range and performance.
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.”
MOAR burkes
New landing ship
Excellent. The marine littoral force is insane. No one else has anything similar
Space shit aint cheap I guess
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/
If the Administration would stop slow-walking Starship launch clearances, they could get dirt-cheap up-mass prices.
Also, 8m Keyholes.
They have a 110-minute launch window scheduled for tomorrow morning at 7am CT.
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.
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.
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.
As far as warriortard threads go. This one ain’t half bad
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.
The post you are replying to is most likely by warriortard himself, maybe think about why he is doing this.
You aren’t fooling anyone
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.
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).
>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.
>Standards? 125 for all types
it's 125 SM-6 and 12 SM-3
see
&
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.
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.
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
The Navy is building 6 but asking to decommission 19.
Aren't they mostly ticos and LCS ships?
Kinda needed, the ticos are old.
Yeah, the USN is trying to get rid of as many LCSes as Congress will allow them to.
Cost cutting?
Because they suck?
Making room for real frigates?
All the above?
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.
> the eternally body strapped USN
In the 80s, the Navy had twice the current manpower, on a significantly smaller population base.
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?
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....
Has nothing to do with bodies.
We don't have the ships for the sailors even we had the people in service.
frick jannies
They seemingly deleted a single poster's posts.
I'm fine with it.
does manpower shortages have any effect on retiring additional ships?
or is it a strictly money thing
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.
Turns out people are expensive