Service Weapon System Code Weapon System Name Air Force
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Hearing National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs Committee on Armed S
i [H.A.S.C. No. 112–111] HEARING ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 AND OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES HEARING ON FISCAL YEAR 2013 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BUDGET REQUEST FOR MISSILE DEFENSE HEARING HELD MARCH 6, 2012 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 73–437 WASHINGTON : 2012 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected]. SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio, Chairman TRENT FRANKS, Arizona LORETTA SANCHEZ, California DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island MO BROOKS, Alabama RICK LARSEN, Washington MAC THORNBERRY, Texas MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico MIKE ROGERS, Alabama JOHN R. GARAMENDI, California JOHN C. FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia BETTY SUTTON, Ohio AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia TIM MORRISON, Professional Staff Member LEONOR TOMERO, Professional Staff Member AARON FALK, Staff Assistant (II) C O N T E N T S CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 2012 Page HEARING: Tuesday, March 6, 2012, Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Budget Request for Missile Defense ................................................................... 1 APPENDIX: Tuesday, March 6, 2012 .......................................................................................... 33 TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2012 FISCAL YEAR 2013 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BUDGET REQUEST FOR MISSILE DEFENSE STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Sanchez, Hon. Loretta, a Representative from California, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces ..................................................................... -
2018 Annual Report Our Leadership Team (From Left to Right): Frank A
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS In millions, except per share data 2018 2017 2016 Net Sales $53,762 $49,960 $47,290 Segment Operating Profit 5,877 5,092 4,982 Consolidated Operating Profit 7,334 6,744 5,888 Net Earnings From Continuing Operations 5,046 1,890 3,661 Net Earnings 5,046 1,963 5,173 Diluted Earnings Per Common Share Continuing Operations 17.59 6.50 12.08 Net Earnings 17.59 6.75 17.07 Cash Dividends Per Common Share 8.20 7.46 6.77 Average Diluted Common Shares Outstanding 287 291 303 Cash and Cash Equivalents $772$ 2,861 $ 1,837 Total Assets 44,876 46,620 47,560 Total Debt, net 14,104 14,263 14,282 Total Equity (Deficit) 1,449 (776) 1,477 Common Shares Outstanding at Year-End 281 284 289 Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities $3,138 $ 6,476 $ 5,189 NOTE: For additional information regarding the amounts presented above, see the Form 10-K portion of this Annual Report. A reconciliation of Segment Operating Profit to Consolidated Operating Profit is included on the page preceding the back cover of this Annual Report. On the Cover: F-35B Lightning II On September 29, 2018, the first F-35B Lightning II stealth fighters landed on the flight deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth, as Britain’s newest Royal Navy aircraft carrier conducted trials off the Eastern Seaboard of the United States. These developmental trials included more than 500 take-offs and landings from the warship over an 11-week period. The F-35B is one of three variants of the world’s most advanced supersonic fifth-generation fighter jet. -
Aerospace-Facts-And-Figures-1988
Facts and Figures 8 8 8 9 Key Technologies Legacy for the 21st Century Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. $16.95 Compiled by Economic Data Service Aerospace Research Center Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. 1250 Eye Street, N.W., Washington , D.C. 20005 (202) 371 -8400 Director , Research Center: Virginia C. Lopez Manager, Economic Data Servi ce: Carl M. P ~ s ale Ed itorial onsultant: Jam s 1. Hagg rty De~ign : wen Hoelscher and Associates Published by Aviation Week 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, N.Y. 10020 1-800-433-0880 Copyright © 19tl!l by Aerospace Industries A ss ociution u f i\mericu. Inc . Library o f Congre ss utalog N<> . 46-25 007 Ackno-wledgments Air Transport Association of America Battelle Memorial Institute Council of Economic Advisers Export-Import Bank of the United States Exxon International Company General Aviation Manufacturers Association Helicopter Association International International Air Transport Association International Civil Aviation Organization McGraw-Hill Publications Company National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Science Foundation Office of Management and Budget Price Waterhouse U.S. Departments of Commerce (Bureau of the Census, Bureau of Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration) Defense (Comptroller; Directorate for Information, Operations and Reports: Army, Navy, Air Force) Labor (Bureau of Labor Statistics) Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration) Focused development of key "enabling" technologies will determine the U.S. aerosp~ce. industry's technological and market leadership mto the next century. These technologies will help ensure U.S. defense superiority and will also provide endless possibilities for a range of products to revolutionize the way we live-from fully-automated factories to crash-resistant, ultra safe automobiles to greatly improved medical diagnostic equipment. -
L AUNCH SYSTEMS Databk7 Collected.Book Page 18 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM Databk7 Collected.Book Page 19 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM
databk7_collected.book Page 17 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM CHAPTER TWO L AUNCH SYSTEMS databk7_collected.book Page 18 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM databk7_collected.book Page 19 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM CHAPTER TWO L AUNCH SYSTEMS Introduction Launch systems provide access to space, necessary for the majority of NASA’s activities. During the decade from 1989–1998, NASA used two types of launch systems, one consisting of several families of expendable launch vehicles (ELV) and the second consisting of the world’s only partially reusable launch system—the Space Shuttle. A significant challenge NASA faced during the decade was the development of technologies needed to design and implement a new reusable launch system that would prove less expensive than the Shuttle. Although some attempts seemed promising, none succeeded. This chapter addresses most subjects relating to access to space and space transportation. It discusses and describes ELVs, the Space Shuttle in its launch vehicle function, and NASA’s attempts to develop new launch systems. Tables relating to each launch vehicle’s characteristics are included. The other functions of the Space Shuttle—as a scientific laboratory, staging area for repair missions, and a prime element of the Space Station program—are discussed in the next chapter, Human Spaceflight. This chapter also provides a brief review of launch systems in the past decade, an overview of policy relating to launch systems, a summary of the management of NASA’s launch systems programs, and tables of funding data. The Last Decade Reviewed (1979–1988) From 1979 through 1988, NASA used families of ELVs that had seen service during the previous decade. -
Gallery of USAF Weapons Note: Inventory Numbers Are Total Active Inventory figures As of Sept
Gallery of USAF Weapons Note: Inventory numbers are total active inventory figures as of Sept. 30, 2014. By Aaron M. U. Church, Associate Editor I 2015 USAF Almanac BOMBER AIRCRAFT flight controls actuate trailing edge surfaces that combine aileron, elevator, and rudder functions. New EHF satcom and high-speed computer upgrade B-1 Lancer recently entered full production. Both are part of the Defensive Management Brief: A long-range bomber capable of penetrating enemy defenses and System-Modernization (DMS-M). Efforts are underway to develop a new VLF delivering the largest weapon load of any aircraft in the inventory. receiver for alternative comms. Weapons integration includes the improved COMMENTARY GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator and JASSM-ER and future weapons The B-1A was initially proposed as replacement for the B-52, and four pro- such as GBU-53 SDB II, GBU-56 Laser JDAM, JDAM-5000, and LRSO. Flex- totypes were developed and tested in 1970s before program cancellation in ible Strike Package mods will feed GPS data to the weapons bays to allow 1977. The program was revived in 1981 as B-1B. The vastly upgraded aircraft weapons to be guided before release, to thwart jamming. It also will move added 74,000 lb of usable payload, improved radar, and reduced radar cross stores management to a new integrated processor. Phase 2 will allow nuclear section, but cut maximum speed to Mach 1.2. The B-1B first saw combat in and conventional weapons to be carried simultaneously to increase flexibility. Iraq during Desert Fox in December 1998. -
Shemyaafr,Alaska 1992IRPFIELD INVESTIGATIONREPORT
EM0-1096 VOL 1 ShemyaAFR,Alaska 1992IRPFIELD INVESTIGATIOREPN ORT Volume 1 of 4 TECHNICAL .., FINAL February1993 preparedfor U.S.Air Force IO ElmendorfAFB,Alaska 11th AirControlWing 1lth CivilEngineeringOperationsSquadron UnderContractDEU-91-06 Preparedby CH2MHILL RC.Box8748 Boise,Idaho83707 For EnvironmentalManagementOperations Undera RelatedServicesAgreement withtheU.S.Departmentof Energy EnvironmentalManagementOperations Richland,Washington99352 j OtSTR|BUTIOPJ 0_:: ii-tIU L_OCuiviENT iL, ',..;;'-,_;;;.,.';,:{:1;" ,. FINAL I i i NOTICE i This report has been prepared for the United States Air Force by CH2M HILL for the purpose of aiding in the implementation of a final remedial action plan under the Air Force Installation Restoration Program (IRP). As the report relates to actual or possible releases of potentially hazardous substances, its release prior to an Air Force final decision on remedial action may be in the public's interest. The limited objectives of this report and the ongoing nature of the IRP, along with the evolving knowledge of site conditions and chemical effects on the environment and health, must be considered when evaluating this report, since subsequent facts may become known which may make this report premature or inaccurate. Acceptance of this report in performance of the contract under which it is prepared does not mean that the Air Force adopts the conclusions, recommendations or other views expressed herein, which are those of the contractor only and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the United States Air Force. Government agencies and their contractors registered with the Defense TechnicalInformationCenter (DTIC) should direct requestsfop copies of.this report to: Defense Technical InformationCenter (DTIC), Cameron Station,Alexandria, VA 22304-6145. -
Beyond the Paths of Heaven the Emergence of Space Power Thought
Beyond the Paths of Heaven The Emergence of Space Power Thought A Comprehensive Anthology of Space-Related Master’s Research Produced by the School of Advanced Airpower Studies Edited by Bruce M. DeBlois, Colonel, USAF Professor of Air and Space Technology Air University Press Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama September 1999 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Beyond the paths of heaven : the emergence of space power thought : a comprehensive anthology of space-related master’s research / edited by Bruce M. DeBlois. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Astronautics, Military. 2. Astronautics, Military—United States. 3. Space Warfare. 4. Air University (U.S.). Air Command and Staff College. School of Advanced Airpower Studies- -Dissertations. I. Deblois, Bruce M., 1957- UG1520.B48 1999 99-35729 358’ .8—dc21 CIP ISBN 1-58566-067-1 Disclaimer Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Air University, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other US government agency. Cleared for public release: distribution unlimited. ii Contents Chapter Page DISCLAIMER . ii OVERVIEW . ix PART I Space Organization, Doctrine, and Architecture 1 An Aerospace Strategy for an Aerospace Nation . 3 Stephen E. Wright 2 After the Gulf War: Balancing Space Power’s Development . 63 Frank Gallegos 3 Blueprints for the Future: Comparing National Security Space Architectures . 103 Christian C. Daehnick PART II Sanctuary/Survivability Perspectives 4 Safe Heavens: Military Strategy and Space Sanctuary . 185 David W. Ziegler PART III Space Control Perspectives 5 Counterspace Operations for Information Dominance . -
Program Acquisition Cost by Weapon System Major Weapon Systems OVERVIEW
The estimated cost of this report or study for the Department of Defense is approximately $32,000 for the 2017 Fiscal Year. This includes $13,000 in expenses and $19,000 in DoD labor. Generated on 2017May03 RefID: E-7DE12B0 FY 2018 Program Acquisition Cost by Weapon System Major Weapon Systems OVERVIEW The combined capabilities and performance of United States (U.S.) weapon systems are unmatched throughout the world, ensuring that U.S. military forces have the advantage over any adversary. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 acquisition funding request for the Department of Defense (DoD) budget totals $208.6 billion, which includes base funding and Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding; $125.2 billion for Procurement funded programs and $83.3 billion for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) funded programs. Of the $208.6 billion, $94.9 billion is for programs that have been designated as Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs). This book focuses on all funding for the key MDAP programs. To simplify the display of the various weapon systems, this book is organized by the following mission area categories: Mission Area Categories • Aircraft & Related Systems • Missiles and Munitions • Command, Control, Communications, • Mission Support Activities Computers, and Intelligence (C4I) Systems • RDT&E Science & Technology • Ground Systems • Shipbuilding and Maritime Systems • Missile Defense Programs • Space Based Systems FY 2018 Modernization – Total: $208.6 Billion ($ in Billions) Space Based Aircraft & Systems Related $9.8 -
IMTEC-89-53 Military Space Operations: Use of Mobile Ground
. -. ,(. ,. .“” ,Y .,, . -- II, ./, .I i /, . % . ,L. United States Gdneral Accounting Off& Report to the Honorable &.A0 John P. Murtha, Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives July 1989 MILITARY SPACE ’ OPERATIONS Use of Mobile Ground Stations in Satellite Control GAO/IMTEC439-63 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Information Management and Technology Division B-224148 July 3, 1989 The Honorable John P. Murtha Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: In your January 9, 1989, letter and in subsequent discussions with your office, you asked us to determine (1) how mobile ground stations fit into the Air Force’s overall satellite control architecture, (2) how many sta- tions exist and are planned, (3) what they cost by program element and appropriation account, and (4) how much the Department of Defense budgeted in fiscal year 1990 for mobile ground stations. As agreed with your office, our review focused primarily on mobile ground stations used by the Air Force’s satellite programs and included mobile ground stations used for one Defense Communications Agency satellite program. The Air Force’s satellite control architecture establishes a requirement for mobile ground stations to provide command and control instructions to maintain the position of a satellite in orbit as well as to provide the capability to process information coming from satellites. This network of stations, when completed, is planned to supplement fixed stations and/or to totally command and control a satellite’s position in orbit or process information. As of May 1989, there were 39 existing mobile ground stations. -
National Reconnaissance Office Review and Redaction Guide
NRO Approved for Release 16 Dec 2010 —Tep-nm.T7ymqtmthitmemf- (u) National Reconnaissance Office Review and Redaction Guide For Automatic Declassification Of 25-Year-Old Information Version 1.0 2008 Edition Approved: Scott F. Large Director DECL ON: 25x1, 20590201 DRV FROM: NRO Classification Guide 6.0, 20 May 2005 NRO Approved for Release 16 Dec 2010 (U) Table of Contents (U) Preface (U) Background 1 (U) General Methodology 2 (U) File Series Exemptions 4 (U) Continued Exemption from Declassification 4 1. (U) Reveal Information that Involves the Application of Intelligence Sources and Methods (25X1) 6 1.1 (U) Document Administration 7 1.2 (U) About the National Reconnaissance Program (NRP) 10 1.2.1 (U) Fact of Satellite Reconnaissance 10 1.2.2 (U) National Reconnaissance Program Information 12 1.2.3 (U) Organizational Relationships 16 1.2.3.1. (U) SAF/SS 16 1.2.3.2. (U) SAF/SP (Program A) 18 1.2.3.3. (U) CIA (Program B) 18 1.2.3.4. (U) Navy (Program C) 19 1.2.3.5. (U) CIA/Air Force (Program D) 19 1.2.3.6. (U) Defense Recon Support Program (DRSP/DSRP) 19 1.3 (U) Satellite Imagery (IMINT) Systems 21 1.3.1 (U) Imagery System Information 21 1.3.2 (U) Non-Operational IMINT Systems 25 1.3.3 (U) Current and Future IMINT Operational Systems 32 1.3.4 (U) Meteorological Forecasting 33 1.3.5 (U) IMINT System Ground Operations 34 1.4 (U) Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) Systems 36 1.4.1 (U) Signals Intelligence System Information 36 1.4.2 (U) Non-Operational SIGINT Systems 38 1.4.3 (U) Current and Future SIGINT Operational Systems 40 1.4.4 (U) SIGINT -
Mg 34 and Mg 42 Machine Guns
MG 34 AND MG 42 MACHINE GUNS CHRIS MC NAB © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com MG 34 AND MG 42 MACHINE GUNS CHRIS McNAB Series Editor Martin Pegler © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 4 DEVELOPMENT 8 The ‘universal’ machine gun USE 27 Flexible firepower IMPACT 62 ‘Hitler’s buzzsaw’ CONCLUSION 74 GLOSSARY 77 BIBLIOGRAPHY & FURTHER READING 78 INDEX 80 © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com INTRODUCTION Although in war all enemy weapons are potential sources of fear, some seem to have a deeper grip on the imagination than others. The AK-47, for example, is actually no more lethal than most other small arms in its class, but popular notoriety and Hollywood representations tend to credit it with superior power and lethality. Similarly, the bayonet actually killed relatively few men in World War I, but the sheer thought of an enraged foe bearing down on you with more than 30cm of sharpened steel was the stuff of nightmares to both sides. In some cases, however, fear has been perfectly justified. During both world wars, for example, artillery caused between 59 and 80 per cent of all casualties (depending on your source), and hence took a justifiable top slot in surveys of most feared tools of violence. The subjects of this book – the MG 34 and MG 42, plus derivatives – are interesting case studies within the scale of soldiers’ fears. Regarding the latter weapon, a US wartime information movie once declared that the gun’s ‘bark was worse than its bite’, no doubt a well-intentioned comment intended to reduce mounting concern among US troops about the firepower of this astonishing gun. -
LORAN-A Historic Context
' . Prepared by Alice Coneybeer U.S. Coast Guard, MLCP (se) Coast Guard Island, Bldg. 540 Alameda, CA 94501-5100 Phone 510.437.5804 Fax 510.437.5753 U.S. Coast Guard- Maintenance & Logistics Command Pacific • • • • • • • • • • LORAN-A Historic Context Alaska (District 17) September 1998 ENCLOSURE(2.} ( LORAN-A Context 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS .........•.....................................................•......................•........•..................................•. 1 2. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................... 2 3. IDSTORY OF LORAN-A STATIONS.............................................................................................................. 2 4. LORAN-A IN ALASKA. ..................................................................................................................................... 3 5. LORAN-A DURING THE COLD WAR IN ALASKA (1945-1989) ............................................................... 4 6. NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGffiiLITY EVALUATION .............................................................................. 4 6.1 SIGNIFICANCE OF LORAN-A WITIIIN TilE CONTEXT OF TilE DEVELOPMENT OF AIDS TONAVIGATION ............................................................................................................................... 5 6.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF LORAN-A WITIIIN TilE CONTEXT OF WORLD WAR II IN ALASKA .............. 5 6.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF LORAN-A WITIIIN TilE HISTORIC CONTEXT