What's new

U.S. Army counters rising China threat with 'game changing' super cannon

F-22Raptor

ELITE MEMBER
Jun 19, 2014
17,112
3
21,676
Country
United States
Location
United States
The Army is thinking big — really big — in its quest to maintain military dominance over global adversaries.

Army officials say they are putting more emphasis on research into a “game changing” cannon with an unprecedented range, one that could prove crucial in a conflict with a potential adversary such as China. The Strategic Long-Range Cannon (SLRC), which could reach well over 1,000 miles, represents a key piece of the Pentagon’s push for more advanced artillery capable of targeting enemy positions from distances that were once unimaginable.


The cannon, which the Army hopes to test by 2023, is part of the Pentagon’s broader effort to install “long-range precision fires” in potential battlefields around the world. The technology behind the SLRC remains in development, but Army officials said bringing such weapons into the arsenal is critical as the military prepares for the next era of warfare.

In an ironic twist, the quest for a modern longer-range artillery piece also marks a return to an earlier era for today’s modern militaries. “Super-guns” were eagerly developed by the powers drawn into World War I, and Adolf Hitler pushed Nazi scientists (unsuccessfully) to develop a V-3 “Super Cannon” to target London from bases across the English Channel.


“If you look at doctrinally how the U.S. military uses long-range fires to shoot and then maneuver … it’s one of the most important capabilities that we have as an entire Department of Defense,” ArmySecretary Ryan McCarthy told The Washington Times in an interview last week.

Such weapons, he said, can “reverse the paradigm” for potential adversaries who are now spending heavily on capabilities to deny U.S. forces access to key areas and battlefields and who may have control of the airspace above certain future battlefields, Mr. McCarthy said.

Indeed, China has put a heavy priority on a strategy known in military circles as anti-access and area denial (A2AD). Such a policy — a combination of defensive systems, artillery, radar and other tools — seeks to deny an enemy the ability to occupy or move through a specific area of land, air or sea.

The strategy, specialists say, would be vital if Chinese forces mount a full-scale invasion of Taiwan and need to keep American forces from coming to the island’s aid. If executed correctly, the A2AD approach could keep U.S. ships, planes, drones and ground forces away from the fight.


Researchers say China is trying to ramp up its A2AD strategy even further by incorporating Russian-made S-400 missile defense systems and other weapons that could slow down or even halt the U.S. ability to move planes and ships across the Pacific.

“China continues to improve its area denial capabilities and reports speculate that the country plans to acquire improved S-400 air defense systems from Russia for deployment in the region,” the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance says on its website. “Anti-satellite weapons are also believed to be employed by China to maintain A2/AD in the Asia-Pacific, and would be used to disrupt or even completely deny U.S. satellite communication and GPS capabilities.”


U.S. officials say that’s where long-range precision guns could play a huge role by providing a high-tech version of artillery-covering fire. They theoretically would be able to target areas that ships and planes simply couldn’t reach, giving U.S. forces a relatively safe and effective way to fight back.

“That integrated system challenges even our most sophisticated aircraft and challenges our most sophisticated ships to gain access to the area,” Col. John Rafferty, director of the Army’s long-range precision fires cross-functional team, told Defense News this month. “That layered enemy standoff at the strategic level was really the fundamental problem. One of the ways to solve that problem is to deliver surface-to-surface fires that can penetrate this [anti-access, area-denial] complex, disintegrate its network and create windows of opportunity for the joint force to exploit.”


Col. Rafferty last year suggested the SLRC could involve a scaling-up of the existing arsenal, perhaps the use of new, rocket-boosted shells that could be fired from the M109 howitzer.

Still, the Army’s long-range cannon program is years from delivering a prototype. In addition to the technological challenges of firing projectiles accurately at targets 1,000 miles away — roughly the distance from Washington, D.C., to Topeka, Kansas, the Pentagon also must ensure that the cost of the advanced weapon doesn’t become prohibitive.


Officials said research is underway at the Center for Army Analysis and the Research and Analysis Center at White Sands Missile Range, key hubs for Army research and development.

Mr. McCarthy, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley and a host of other top Pentagon officials have stressed the importance of long-range precision weaponry and how it is a critical piece of the nation’s 21st-century security strategy.

If the long-range cannon comes to fruition, Mr. McCarthy said, it will represent a massive step forward.

“We have run all the simulations that shows the feasibility we’ve procured, the material to start this,” he told The Times. “That capability, in particular championed by Gen. Milley personally, is one that we think … can yield the outcome [that] would be a game-changing technology for us.”

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/23/us-army-counters-china-threat-strategic-long-range/
 
U.S. dreams super weapon, all of those projects failed, such as Zumwalt class destroyer, LCS, XM2001 Crusader, Boeing–Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche.

F-35 delayed ten years and over budget.

Ford-class aircraft carriers delayed to no earlier than 2024, over budget, and malfunctional.

And many projects coming, they will all delay, over budget, or completely failure.

800 billions military budget, such a joke.
 
U.S. dreams super weapon, all of those projects failed, such as Zumwalt class destroyer, LCS, XM2001 Crusader, Boeing–Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche.

F-35 delayed ten years and over budget.

Ford-class aircraft carriers delayed to no earlier than 2024, over budget, and malfunctional.

And many projects coming, they will all delay, over budget, or completely failure.

800 billions military budget, such a joke.

The only weapon that didn't fail is the long researched SUPER GLUE which F-22Raptor uses to glue his lips to his white master's butt.
 
no chance of war between US and china .
"If you want peace, prepare for war", weapons are the tools to defend nation interest. War or no war depends on strategic decision, no matter weapons well prepared or not.
 
U.S. dreams super weapon, all of those projects failed, such as Zumwalt class destroyer, LCS, XM2001 Crusader, Boeing–Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche.

F-35 delayed ten years and over budget.

Ford-class aircraft carriers delayed to no earlier than 2024, over budget, and malfunctional.

And many projects coming, they will all delay, over budget, or completely failure.

800 billions military budget, such a joke.

And yet the Chinese military modeled itself after the US military post Desert Storm and has been playing catch-up ever since.

The US military is at the beginning stages of its next revolutionary advancement, similar to that of the 1980s.
 
And yet the Chinese military modeled itself after the US military post Desert Storm and has been playing catch-up ever since.

The US military is at the beginning stages of its next revolutionary advancement, similar to that of the 1980s.
If you say so.
 
When the Chinese put up quite a show for the world to witness 3 weeks ago it would be very difficult to convince others of China catching up. They have hypersonic missiles, the ICBM that can cover every corner of USA, the mysterious DF-100 which is quite unique. The Russians and Chinese are leading in certain areas leaving the US far behind. Maybe some Americans are living in denial
 
U.S. dreams super weapon, all of those projects failed, such as Zumwalt class destroyer, LCS, XM2001 Crusader, Boeing–Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche.

F-35 delayed ten years and over budget.

Ford-class aircraft carriers delayed to no earlier than 2024, over budget, and malfunctional.

And many projects coming, they will all delay, over budget, or completely failure.

800 billions military budget, such a joke.
This is an achievable weapon only question is what contribution it can make which modern missiles can't. If it is deployed will it be on land, a sea platform or both?
 
When the Chinese put up quite a show for the world to witness 3 weeks ago it would be very difficult to convince others of China catching up. They have hypersonic missiles, the ICBM that can cover every corner of USA, the mysterious DF-100 which is quite unique. The Russians and Chinese are leading in certain areas leaving the US far behind. Maybe some Americans are living in denial
Chinese are lacking in space war.
 
U.S. dreams super weapon, all of those projects failed, such as Zumwalt class destroyer, LCS, XM2001 Crusader, Boeing–Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche.

F-35 delayed ten years and over budget.

Ford-class aircraft carriers delayed to no earlier than 2024, over budget, and malfunctional.

And many projects coming, they will all delay, over budget, or completely failure.

800 billions military budget, such a joke.
This is from a country -- China -- that have not contributed to the arts and crafts of warfare for 300 yrs. :rolleyes:
 
U.S. dreams super weapon, all of those projects failed, such as Zumwalt class destroyer, LCS, XM2001 Crusader, Boeing–Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche.

F-35 delayed ten years and over budget.

Ford-class aircraft carriers delayed to no earlier than 2024, over budget, and malfunctional.

And many projects coming, they will all delay, over budget, or completely failure.

800 billions military budget, such a joke.

184,561 viewsOct 16, 2019, 07:53pm
The Most Expensive Ship In The World Is Broken. The U.S. Navy Secretary Should Be Held Accountable.
960x0.jpg

Secretary of the Navy Richard V. Spencer bet his job that the USS Ford would work when it left the ... [+]

Later this month, tugs will pull the most expensive ship ever built in the world, the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), away from the Huntington Ingalls Industries shipyard in Virginia. But America’s brand-new, $13 billion aircraft carrier will emerge from a 15-month refit, or “post-shakedown availability,” broken and unable to fight. This is unacceptable, and it is high time for the Secretary of the Navy, Richard V. Spencer, to hold his service accountable.

But he can’t.

At the USS Ford, the extent of America’s massive systems engineering failure is impossible to understate. The aircraft carrier does not work. As of October 9, only two of eleven advanced weapons elevators actually function, making it impossible for the carrier to safely receive and store weapons. Compounding the problem, the Secretary of the Navy made a high-profile bet with President Donald J. Trump, that, if the USS Ford left the shipyard without functional elevators, the President could fire him.

So rather than search for accountability and solutions within the Navy he leads, it is now time for Mr. Spencer to do the right thing and resign, letting somebody else find the faults and fix them.

If the Secretary of the Navy counts upon Presidential inaction, staying on after the broken USS Ford leaves the shipyard, he will plunge the U.S. Navy into a full-fledged accountability crisis. If that happens, Mr. Spencer deserves a peremptory summons to the Oval Office and a swiftly-delivered “You’re Fired” moment before assembled White House press cameras. And then, as Secretary Spencer takes his long and lonely limo drive to the airport, the U.S. Navy needs to sit down and determine why the organization failed such a promising Service Secretary.

960x0.jpg

Only two Advanced Weapons Elevators actually work. Nine elevators that serve lower compartments are ... [+]

The Navy Is Not Transmitting Information Up The Chain:

A troubling unwillingness to transmit troubling data up the chain of command likely led Secretary of the Navy Richard V. Spencer to fatally compromise his tenure.

In December 2018, the Secretary of the Navy, after hearing President Donald Trump complain about the non-functional elevators aboard the troubled USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) aircraft carrier, made an ill-advised wager with the President. According to USNI News, the Secretary Spencer said, “I asked him to stick his hand out; he stuck his hand out. I said, let’s do this like corporate America. I shook his hand and said, the elevators will be ready to go when she pulls out or you can fire me.”

To observers, this was a foolish gamble by an inexperienced bureaucrat. But, at some level, Secretary Spencer had to know what he was doing. He has, after all, a reputation for being a sophisticated and sober businessman. He served in the Marine Corps, and then he went to corporate America, working at Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch and several other firms. That sort of bio suggests the Secretary of the Navy is able to collect data and make rational decisions. It hints that the Navy Secretary’s unfortunate bet would never have happened unless someone, somewhere in the Navy, indicated that the USS Ford’s elevators were making good progress.

They weren’t.

At the time Secretary Spencer made his bet, even casual shipyard observers knew that the likely problems with the USS Ford’s structural flexing and the vessel’s dysfunctional elevators were far larger and more challenging than portrayed. And now, after fifteen months in the shipyard, the Navy is pulling the ship out of the yard before any of the nine lower ammunition-carrying elevators—critical elevators that are needed to stow the ammunition required to make the ship battle-ready—are working. Sources say that one, maybe two elevators are nearing completion. But then, even if the advanced electromagnetic elevators work, the USS Ford must go through a shock trial, where the ship is jolted by a series of explosive charges near the hull. The rickety elevators–along with several other critical subsystems that require tight tolerances to operate correctly–are unlikely to survive intact.

The scope of the systems engineering failure is enormous. Upper stage advanced weapons elevator Number 1 was accepted in December 2018, and Upper stage advanced weapons elevator Number 3 was accepted in early 2019. Despite comforting affirmations, a slew of wrong predictions, elevator tiger teams, construction of an on-land prototype, and an on-land “digital twin”, no other elevator has evidently been fixed while the USS Ford has been in the shipyard. And it is unlikely they will be fixed without another full-scale refit.

The Secretary of the Navy is not alone in trafficking over-optimistic predictions about the USS Ford. Eleven months ago, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition James Geurts, when the Senate asked him for a target date on the elevators, testified, “we will get through all of the production and much of the testing.” And yet here we are, in October 2019, with only two functional elevators.

It is an accountability nightmare. How did these senior leaders–the top civilian leaders of the Navy–get their assessments so wrong?

Even though nobody has been fired—yet—the bet has compromised the Secretary of the Navy’s effectiveness, limiting his ability to sell the Navy to the American People. It is a tragedy. Behind the scenes, the Secretary is well-liked, earning the respect of partners in Congress, industry and beyond. But the un-managed fracas around Spencer’s ill-made bet has made the Navy Secretary a public caricature. He appears in public only to give a canned motivational speech, take softball questions from friendly moderators, and then retreat to his Pentagon office, surrounded by a skeleton crew of staff who seem more eager to fret over his public image than to answer tough questions about the state of the force.

Is this any way to run a Navy? Is this how corporate America does it—isolated, ineffective, over-budget and completely unaccountable? If so, the venerable titans of American industry and the American Navy are weeping in embarrassment.

960x0.jpg

Good leaders know accountability starts at the top.

Let’s Peel The Onion: Accountability Is Lacking:

Certainly, nobody wants to bring bad news to the boss. But in battle, prompt transmission of valid information is a matter of life and death. The choices can be stark. Leaders need good information to act upon or sailors will perish.

Despite regular exhortations to “train as you fight and fight as you train”, the naval enterprise struggles to bring bad news to the higher levels in the chain of command. It is a habit that perpetuates something of a complacent “not my problem” or career-protecting sluggishness in the face of avoidable disaster.

It is a habit the U.S. Navy can no longer afford.

Every naval stakeholder knows that sustained refusal to confront discomforting news has devastating consequences in terms of sunk costs, sunken ships and, in time, dead sailors. But, somehow, again and again, critical information is not getting through to leadership. This has to stop.

Transmitting valid but troubling data and acting decisively on that information is not easy. But making tough calls is the essence of public service and military command, and it is what any Navy is built to do.


Craig Hooper
I offer blunt, uncompromising guidance on national security solutions, bringing complex security issues and oft-neglected defense topics to the attention of interested

.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 0, Guests: 2)


Back
Top Bottom