International Military Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Austin »

North Korea May Possess 20 Nuclear Warheads
The figures, sounded by Chinese nuclear experts during a closed meeting with US colleagues, exceed previous US estimations ranging from 10 to 16 nuclear bombs, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday, citing sources briefed on the issue.

"They [Chinese experts] believe on the basis of what they've put together now that the North Koreans have enough enriched uranium capacity to be able to make eight to 10 bombs' worth of highly enriched uranium per year," Siegfried Hecker, former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, who attended the meeting in February, said as quoted by the newspaper.

Earlier this month, head of US Northern Command Admiral William Gortney told reporters that North Korea may be capable of placing a nuclear warhead on a long-range missile that could reach the United States.
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/asia/20150423/10 ... z3Y8eXRwrW
Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 567
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Avarachan »

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/26/ ... urder-inc/
Andrew Cockburn has written a must-read book. The title is Kill Chain: The Rise Of The High-Tech Assassins. The title could just as well be: How the US Government and US Military Became Murder, Inc ....

The decision [to scrap Global Hawk] was supported by the 2011 report from the Pentagon’s test office that the drone system was “not operationally effective.” Among its numerous drawbacks was its inability to carry out assigned missions 75% of the time. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Congress that in addition to the system’s unacceptable failure rate, the drone system “has fundamentally priced itself out of our ability to afford it.”

As Cockburn reports: “It made no difference. Congress, led by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon and Democratic Congressman Jim Moran (whose northern Virginia district hosts the headquarters of both Northrop and Raytheon) effortless brushed aside these pleas, forcing the Air Force to keep buying the unwanted drone.”

Cockburn provides numerous examples of the utter failure of the unmanned revolution ushered in by unrealistic dreamers, such as Andrew Marshall, John Foster, William Perry, and David Deptula, who have done much harm to the US military and American taxpayers. The failure stories are legion and sad. Almost always the victims are the innocent going about their everyday affairs.

The book opens with the story of three vehicles crammed with people from the same village heading to Kabul. Some were students returning to school in Kabul, some were shopkeepers heading to the capital to buy supplies, others were unemployed men on their way to Iran seeking work, and some were women bringing gifts for relatives. This collection of ordinary people, represented on screens by vague images, was willfully mistaken, as the reproduced conversations between drone operators and assassins show, for a senior Taliban commander leading forces to attack a US Special Forces patrol. The innocent civilians were blown to smithereens ....

What the US military has done in Afghanistan and Iraq is to create far more enemies than it has killed. Every time high-tech killing murders a village gathering, a wedding or funeral, or villagers on the way to the capital, which is often, the US creates hundreds more enemies. This is why after 14 years of killing in Afghanistan, the Taliban now control most of the country.
rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1171
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by rkhanna »

Pretty decent summary of Various US sniper schools

http://sofrep.com/6874/the-spec-ops-sniper-training/

leaving this quote as food for thought

"Great shooting, patience and intelligence aside; having a sound comprehension of ballistics and how all factors affect bullet flight, from the moment the firing pin strikes, is what separates the professional sniper from the aspiring one."
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Thrust Vectoring In The Real World

Multi Axis Thrust Vectoring History and Achievements with the F-16 MATV

Some tid bis
In only four months, the airplane, previously limited to twenty-five degrees angle of attack, was cleared to perform such maneuvers as the Cobra, J-turn, and helicopter to unlimited AOAs. But whether this capability would have real tactical utility was left for the operational phase of the test program.

The limiter allows the pilot to maintain the aircraft's energy in the turns by keeping the airplane out of the post-stall region, where drag is dramatically higher. If the MATV pilot employed post-stall maneuvering too early or at the wrong time, he would indeed slow down too fast and the bandit could gain an advantage. However, thrust vectoring allowed the F-16 to employ that portion of the flight envelope between the normal AOA limiter and the AOA for maximum lift (around thirty-five degrees AOA). As a result, the MATV pilot could take advantage of the F-16's maximum turn capability.

The F-16 MATV demonstrated significant increases in air-to-air maneuver capability by expanding the usable F-16 flight envelope from the current 25 degrees AOA to beyond eighty degrees, including a record stabilized AOA of eighty-three degrees. This expansion included unrestricted dynamic maneuvering beyond 125 degrees AOA with no pilot restrictions required. And the MATV test team did all this in less than three months.

Thrust vectoring proved to provide some distinct advantages in close-in aerial combat. However, two factors weighed against any retrofit of the F-16 fleet.

The first was technical. The advent of highly effective off-boresight missiles and helmet mounted targeting systems made the ability to point the nose of the aircraft less important.

The second was tactical. The MATV system proved most effective near the end of an aerial engagement when most energy (speed) was used up. And a slow fighter can be an easy target, especially when the engagement involves more than one adversary. Cobra maneuvers and J turns make for eye-watering displays at airshows, but they are not as effective for aerial encounters with an aerial adversary, until the very end of a close-in fight. But for the F-16, MATV could have provided a capability to remove the twenty-five degree AOA limiter, which would open the door to new BFM tactics.

The MATV could go from 200 knots level flight to beyond vertical in about two seconds.
member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by member_23694 »

Sukhoi Test Pilot Explains ‘Supermaneuverability’
Su-35S maneuvers point to combat capability

http://aviationweek.com/awin/sukhoi-tes ... verability

http://www.ruaviation.com/docs/7/2013/7/2/70/print/
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by brar_w »

IADS has been there since before and it was more about radar coverage but the new systems are about countering stealth
That is exactly what I am telling you. UHF, and VHF radars are nothing new. I have just names you a few NATO threats in the VHF domain from the 1960's, 70's, 80's. The same threats come from a family of VHF and UHF systems that were well known. Popular media would have you believe that this is something that has just popped up and its just because of "stealth" while, they will talk much less about the fact that they have existed for decades, and "red-air" VHF radars exist at the various test-ranges in the US, precisely to test their performance against stealth assets. Same was the story about bi-static radars about a decade ago. They were then the buzzword until it was revealed that the late 90's upgrades to the RCS ranges included adding bistatic systems including a ground and air borne bi-static system that flies around Groom lake and has been widely reported by the media.
while I don't disagree with US being proactive about these new radar developments, let me know how exactly they plan to jam a UHF or a VHF radar?
Just as they have always down, through tactical jamming. One component is obviously the Growler. That component is well understood and the current system covers the mid and high bands. The next system is in development in the Next Generation Jammer.

The way you deal with extremely expensive, 200 m sized radars that are not very mobile, is to counter it both through suppression with both your stand-off jammers and your stand-in jammers. That is the non classified component of how they wish to deal with the threat. Of course stealth opens up kill chains..A VHF radar can only tell something is around, but it still requires a track and still requires a targeting solution for the missile, and this is where stealth assets can slip in and do what they have to do. This is a challenge. VHF or UHF radars are no wonder weapons that are looked as a ZERO SUM GAME. Hence you see stealth being emphasized by all modern systems.

If you want to get into the larger, A2AD debate do note that mainstream media has reported on the P-AEA investments that are likely to be flying at the moment. You deal with the larger radars by allocating resources to both suppress and soften them up. Expect a lot of F-35, F-22, LRS-B missions to deal with these threats. The USAF backed out of the stand-off jamming mission and are only concentrating in Stand in and P-AEA. While the stand-in plans are known the P-AEA plans are totally classified but we have plenty of evidence out there from budgetary documents and research projects (Quartz, Sensor-Craft, PAEA-UAV, RQ180) to come to a conclusion that they aren't sitting on their a$$es while everyone from AvWeek to a blogger Joe with 5 years of "internet" experience is claiming VHF to all of a sudden be a wonder weapon, especially when stealth designs have been measured against the threat (Stealth is just not RCS, signature it is a lot of other stuff, including active cancellation, and other complicated cyber techniques) for a few decades (See the UHF radar in the E-2D? It is designed by Lockheed that also incidentally designed a 100+ meter VHF radar for the USAF with the sole function of measuring stealth capability).

I don't need to jam all radars..I need to suppress some (UHF for example), be resistant to others and be able to suppress kill chains in order to send my weapons down-range and towards these systems. Thats the point of having stealth - you break the kill chains and accomplish the mission.

The mainstream media would have you believe that the USAF is putting all the investments in the F-35 however if you look at the ACTUAL BUDGET there is a significant (many times the F-35 investment) in CLASSIFIED PROCUREMENT - This is Acquisition/ Procurement and not research (which incidentally is also higher than the F-35 procurement for just the classified component) and this is just the USAF. Thats 95 Billion $ worth of SECRET ACQUISITION over 5 years. It would be quite safe to assume that a lot of this has to do with acquisition phases for capabilities that were developed in the last decade. Since much of it is known, expect an ELO (Extreme Low Observability) vehicle for both ISR (think a hyper stealth Global Hawk but with much larger sensor coverage) and Penetrating electronic attack. The USAF has been saying for a decade that the B-3 is not JUST A BOMBER but a mission. Unlike the B-2, the Long Range Strike Mission involves multiple aircrafts, from the bomber to other electronic/cyber and ISR assets.

Image
The diameter of the Hawkeye's rotodome is 7.2m, so the UHF antenna is bounded by that and if we look at the cutaway diagram posted above the transmitters are even smaller, its not physically impossible to mount a small set of them on capable fighters
Go and do it. Or go ask the different radar, fighter makers around the world why they aren't doing so. They got to be retarded given stealth has been around since what the 80's.
A rotodome by comparison is rigid. so, looking at a slightly different geometry of about three transmitters in a surfboard shaped pod and two such pods in something as similar to the CARABAS radar's antenna placement closer to the fuselage. Even if it means a capability hit, a squadron can make up a set of nodes with 120 degree coverage versus having just two Hawkeyes from a Carrier
Good luck with your CARABAS as an air to air weapon. Only problem is that you won't see this anytime soon.
yes, a typical setup is the surveillance radars do the cueing and the finer tracking radars take over, which is what the Hawkeye does too, so how is it helping the kill chain against LO targets? and then why are you loathe about having UHF surveillance pods in addition to the Bars FCR on the MKI?
Because you are taking something from the E-2, something from the CARABAS and without any form of scientific justification coming to an absurd conclusion hat it is possible to mount UHF radars on a fighter. As I mentioned earlier, there have been efforts to mount different radars onto aircrafts for the purpose of cooperative ISR and sensor networking. As I had mentioned back then, the strategy of doing so in the UHF domain was to use conformal apertures because you cant squeeze elements down into a POD. Unfortunately, the research into that is classified like I mentioned earlier (Google SENSOR CRAFT).

As I said, I do not need to sit and prove that its next to impossible if not outright impractical. Much smarter folks working for radar makers, and fighter makers around the world are doing it for me !
from your perspective, nobody is asking them for a fighter configuration, when they have Hawkeyes or JSTARS etc., but sans these aircraft and if you do not have optimal locations for your ground radars when you are behind a mountain range, or just the plain old enemy, the horizon limitation over sea, some could be asking
No one is asking, and no one is seriously considering. Unless you know something the rest of the world doesn't.
Bottom line the only variable introduced was the UHF pod on a fighter aircraft to be used in an 'AWACS' configuration, technically if its an issue I am all ears. No requirement exists or will ever exist cannot be a generic answer
The technicalities have been explained. You can't take an E-2D radar, scale it down and use "just a few modules". It doesn't work that way. You need a much larger size in your aperture if you want comparable performance from UHF or VHF compared to X band radars. So if you begin to cut down on your UHF radar and try to "POD MOUNT IT" its not going to be effective. It just does not scale. So you won't see 10, 20m by 20m VHF radars but one very large 200 m by 20 m radar to get some performance out of it in the current context. Not to mention that you will be sucking power like anything because you'll need that for your VHF radar to try to keep up with your X band radar.

You are going to need some extra performance in an air to air setup compared to a ground mapping or foliage penetrating radar. This is basic common sense.

Anyhow, there is information out there on the technical characteristics of UHF and VHF radars, and the more common X band radars and why the latter make better fighter radars. There is some wisdom in the fact that all modern aircraft, including the multi-billion dollar projects in the US, Russia and China are all using X band radars and not developing UHF / VHF pods.

Do note that the APY-9 is quite a complex radar and system overall. Its not something that you can just roll of the production line. Its a system that has been in the concept and design phase and required the expertise of two of the top few radar makers in the world with plenty of radar legacy to execute and bring about. It is simple to go right that we can just take a few modules, shrink it down, magically loose little performance by having it as a pod and voila - we can now tell whether stealth aircraft are out there " somewhere".

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but unlike the "Convert a Trainer into a MALD" argument, I am not going to try to explain why this idea of yours is a rather poor one, and why no one is looking to, or going to be looking to adopt it anytime soon ;). I can point to some books on radar performance and history if you so wish.
Last edited by brar_w on 26 Apr 2015 19:35, edited 2 times in total.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Singha »

imo india should also create a MALD type decoy and a associated launcher for the back ramp of any transport a/c. we have ample number of AN32 with good t:w ratio and perhaps thats a good option as the carrier vehicle. we should saturate the scene of a air ingress with decoys to light up SAMs and radars, induce wastage and EM emissions for AWACS to chew on.

Sagem has been offering to arm the french c130 fleet with some small missile by removing the semi-permanent wing mount fuel tanks. the c130 itself has been testing some tube launch missile I think either hellfire or something even smaller. even the Osprey is trying to make a rear firing missile work.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by brar_w »

MALD is good for what it does. MALD-J is even better, because it is smart enough to act as a MALD when there is no detectable (or rather jam_able) emission and turns to a Stand In jammer when it has an EA solution. The eventual plan is to first turn the thing into a programable system (guide it mid flight and tell it when to jam and when not to) and then eventually to have it go full out and attack while at it (kinetically). They are also developing multiple MALD concepts where a couple of the MALD's are fitted with an ISR payload with a high quality data link to both support the MALDs and the aircraft it is providing cover for. That version is called the MALD V if I am not mistaken.

The point was that Besides the Growler, that is a very valuable tool in the hands of the VAQ there are many ways to deal with the RF spectrum. Stand In Jamming is obviously one component. Cyber, and active cancellation is another. Also there is the entire Penetrating EA mission that has been kept in the dark. The attacking force doesn't have to JAM all 100% of the 200 meters sized VHF radars..They have to suppress some, barage MALD's, and get into range to launch 200-300 KM Anti Radiation Missiles (that now have GPS as well). The "intelligent" Cyber jamming tasks would be performed by ELO aircraft much closer to the source, and this is where it gets murky and where even opinionated reporters/analysts are only forced to speculate.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... es-328032/

The problems arise when one side of the "camp" claims that * I have VHF AESA so stealth is obsolete and the other claims * I have stealth and therefore I need nothing else. The best way to summarize it would be to quote the USAF boss when he says that Stealth isn't a luxury but the price of admission against a near peer adversary. You'll loose stealth in 2030 just as you lost non-stealth in 1990..Its just that, if you have non-stealth in 2030, you better plan on having a significant numerical advantage compared to your adversary because you'll loose a boat load of aircraft to IADs.
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10034
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Mort Walker »

VHF and UHF systems operate from 300 MHz to 1 GHz. This corresponds to about 30 cm to 1 m wavelengths. Typical AESA and PESA radar systems operate from S-Band to X-Band which is 3-10 GHz. This corresponds to about 3-10 cm wavelengths.
To combine all of these frequencies in to one radar systems would be difficult primarily because of differences in antenna configuration and mixing circuits in transmit/receive modules. Manufacturing high frequency mixing components across such large wavelengths (3-100 cm) that don't suffer from spurious emissions is not possible given present manufacturing technology.

In order to detect stealth, it would be more effective, in terms of detection and cost, to utilize the 3-10 GHz region more effectively. That is to start with a higher power transmitter, high gain antenna and more sensitive receiver. This isn't possible in confined space and weight constraints in a combat aircraft, but very much so in an AWACS. This is the reason why the IAF is going for a modern large scale AWACS on the Airbus A-330 platform.

Stealth is about reducing the energy returned per unit area. To detect a target that is "stealthy" would involve getting more energy reflected from the target. This may involve using more transmit power, high resolution beam width, horizontal+vertical polarization of the wavefront and signal processing techniques which allows a receiver to see below the thermal noise floor. Of course this means having advanced technical and manufacturing capabilities.

Another disadvantage of VHF and UHF is that these low frequencies allow using commonly available electronic components to build jammers. Such jammers have existed since WWII and you can build them as a hobbyist.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by brar_w »

^^ Its the simple DDD tactics that are already performed. A few decades ago you had technology that couldn't package the desired RCS numbers into a maneuvering platform, or couldn't package the electronics in so as to make them compatible with both a maneuvering platform and Low Observability requirements. Now you can not only meet your RCS targets, but do so in a maneuvering, supersonic airframe. As is widely known, the amount of jamming you require to "get the job done" is related to the RCS you present in the first place. Working backwards, you do not need a GROWLER as the most optimum jammer for F-22 or F35..Although it is required for a ton of other tasks (including supporting F-22 and F-35, but for other things).

Here's a quick -

Stand Off - Whack a Mole + Comms Jam
Stand IN - Target Specific emitters
P-AEA - Actively conduct electronic attack and deception while within the SAM envelope
Spoof - Cyber deception

The NGJ would allow the Growler the agility to quickly shift from a Stand Off mission to a more specific cyber/spoof/deception type of mission whereas currently it is a "loud" stand off jammer. Actually with the power the new HiRAT provides, it can do a lot of the cyber stuff while still standing off. The F-35 concentrates its EA/EW (And the F-22) in the defensive role (Missiles, FCR's etc) and offensive component is only now coming to light (Janes reported on it last month).

Stealth is also not about " I WIN BECAUSE I KNOW YOU ARE THERE", its about " CAN YOU SEE ME?, AND IF SO, CAN YOU DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT". Breaking kill chains gets you in to do what you are there to do..SAM envelops are shrunk, radar performance is degraded, and whatever is left is jammed or suppressed through other means (MALD and MALDJ's). Additionally, a VLO (or ELO) jamming aircraft need not be as loud as the Growler, hence the Stand In Jamming mission being tackled separately. Unfortunately the "marketing" of the current fighter industry has clouded much of the discussion. I had a series of posts on the different EA/EW missions in the JSF threads that covered most of this. Some people think that because the USAF does not buy the Growler, or create a growler like platform means that they are not invested in the DDD tactics, or in the EA/EW mission. They are concentrating on the Stand In, and P-AEA mission and have considerable classified investments to that end. Why the heck would a service with strategic platforms and bombers in place wish to mount its primary EA/EW payloads on a platform with a 2 hour TOS? (Growler).

As those familiar with the matter have opined, you cant jam every threat, and you cant be stealthy to every possible Radar...You achieve your objectives by squeezing both sides...i.e. presenting the least possible net RCS to your enemy's sensors and exercising control over the RF domain. That is why Jammer investment, radar investment, stealth investment and electronics and computing investment is a strategic US investment priority with inputs from everyone from the services, to the Congress, to DARPA - and why it is likely to be the bulk of the classified research and Procurement.

What sort of sensor is the DRDO developing? Would they continue with the L band type AESA or are they looking for a UHF sort hybrid setup like the E-2D? The USAF is doing L band for a future platform but then again they do not expect the AWACS to be survivable in the Chinese context so it would operate far back leaving the SA around the FEB to be generated through distributed sensors on platforms that are far more survivable (Darpa is currently developing this through SOSITE) with the object to distribute your SA and not give one nice, juicy target to your enemy which you then have to allocated huge resources to protect. There may even be no actual, clean sheet full fledged E-2 replacement..They are most likely going to do a RECAP and invest significantly more in the distributed network and capability.

http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/STO/Progr ... SITE).aspx

Do note however that the current "Known" stealth is based on the B-2 and F-22 research programs (F117 to a lesser extent) and we know from the media reports that bases were upgraded to measure bistatic before the F-35 program was launched (Holloman AFB)..We also know that there has been considerable investment between 2000 and 2010, and its widely rumored that the stealth aircraft spotted over texas were byproducts of that. Interestingly Denys Overholser's outfit published requirements for fastners for a stealth aircraft with -70Db RCS (Take it for what its worth) before the paper practically vanished from the internet. We also know that around 2007, Northrop Grumman (Creator of the B-2) sent a high level team to Australia to convince John Cashen (Father of the B-2) to come back and work for a classified stealth aircraft. He consulted them for a few years, apparently for the RQ-180. The current state of the art in stealth, won't be unveiled till perhaps a decade from now.

Since its filed and published, you can rest assured that this isn't going to see the light of the day but this was what they were researching on in the 2000's, around the time Cashen came back.

https://www.google.com/patents/US829222 ... CB0Q6AEwAA

https://www.google.com/patents/USD58851 ... CB4Q6AEwAA
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10034
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Mort Walker »

brar_w wrote: Stealth is also not about " I WIN BECAUSE I KNOW YOU ARE THERE", its about " CAN YOU SEE ME?, AND IF SO, CAN YOU DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT". Breaking kill chains gets you in to do what you are there to do..SAM envelops are shrunk, radar performance is degraded, and whatever is left is jammed or suppressed through other means (MALD and MALDJ's). Additionally, a VLO (or ELO) jamming aircraft need not be as loud as the Growler, hence the Stand In Jamming mission being tackled separately. Unfortunately the "marketing" of the current fighter industry has clouded much of the discussion. I had a series of posts on the different EA/EW missions in the JSF threads that covered most of this. Some people think that because the USAF does not buy the Growler, or create a growler like platform means that they are not invested in the DDD tactics, or in the EA/EW mission. They are concentrating on the Stand In, and P-AEA mission and have considerable classified investments to that end. Why the heck would a service with strategic platforms and bombers in place wish to mount its primary EA/EW payloads on a platform with a 2 hour TOS? (Growler).
With detecting any aircraft it has ALWAYS been about "CAN YOU DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT"? If all else is equal and you able to get a target lock by radar, then it is only useful if you are able to shoot it down.
brar_w wrote: As those familiar with the matter have opined, you cant jam every threat, and you cant be stealthy to every possible Radar...You achieve your objectives by squeezing both sides...i.e. presenting the least possible net RCS to your enemy's sensors and exercising control over the RF domain. That is why Jammer investment, radar investment, stealth investment and electronics and computing investment is a strategic US investment priority with inputs from everyone from the services, to the Congress, to DARPA - and why it is likely to be the bulk of the classified research and Procurement.
Keep in mind RCS is dependent on frequency and the way energy is reflected back from the target. Similarly a stealth aircraft can employ active cancelling and jamming, but you pay a price in terms of power and range.
brar_w wrote: What sort of sensor is the DRDO developing? Would they continue with the L band type AESA or are they looking for a UHF sort hybrid setup like the E-2D? The USAF is doing L band for a future platform but then again they do not expect the AWACS to be survivable in the Chinese context so it would operate far back leaving the SA around the FEB to be generated through distributed sensors on platforms that are far more survivable (Darpa is currently developing this through SOSITE) with the object to distribute your SA and not give one nice, juicy target to your enemy which you then have to allocated huge resources to protect. There may even be no actual, clean sheet full fledged E-2 replacement..They are most likely going to do a RECAP and invest significantly more in the distributed network and capability.
My guess would be that L-Band (1-2 GHz) implementation may be due to a few reasons. One it may suffer the least amount of water vapor attenuation, two, excellent workable discrete electronic components from the communications industry, three, for more accurate velocity detection.
brar_w wrote: Do note however that the current "Known" stealth is based on the B-2 and F-22 research programs (F117 to a lesser extent) and we know from the media reports that bases were upgraded to measure bistatic before the F-35 program was launched (Holloman AFB)..We also know that there has been considerable investment between 2000 and 2010, and its widely rumored that the stealth aircraft spotted over texas were byproducts of that. Interestingly Denys Overholser's outfit published requirements for fastners for a stealth aircraft with -70Db RCS (Take it for what its worth) before the paper practically vanished from the internet. We also know that around 2007, Northrop Grumman (Creator of the B-2) sent a high level team to Australia to convince John Cashen (Father of the B-2) to come back and work for a classified stealth aircraft. He consulted them for a few years, apparently for the RQ-180. The current state of the art in stealth, won't be unveiled till perhaps a decade from now.
Stealth design has been around for a long time. The SR-71 and B-1 incorporated significant stealth design elements back in the 1960s and early 1970s. Bistatic radar is nothing new and developing and testing against that is fairly standard. The problem is that there isn't significant work being done in modern radar system development outside of the US. So the US has advantages with stealth. The work that is being done for stealth aircraft detection is in the realm of wake vortex detection using a combination of radar and lidar. Where you focus on detection of a volume of clear air turbulence reflectivity.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by brar_w »

With detecting any aircraft it has ALWAYS been about "CAN YOU DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT"? If all else is equal and you able to get a target lock by radar, then it is only useful if you are able to shoot it down
More so now, since your target radars are less capable against the incoming force
Bistatic radar is nothing new and developing and testing against that is fairly standard.
The first time that testing again bistatic radars become routine for new stealth designs was in the late 1990's with its incorporation at the ranges.
The SR-71 and B-1 incorporated significant stealth design elements back in the 1960s and early 1970s
The SR design had considerable RCS reduction measures, however it did not result in tactically significant detection advantage to the pilots as its presence was almost always known (And the A11, and A12's). It however did have the RCS of a small light aircraft with which it was confused at times over Canada.

The F-117 and its predecessors were the first true stealth aircraft in the fact that they began reversing the tactical advantage in favor of their systems. Even the B-2 was rolled out in 1988 so its pretty safe to say that what has happened in the ELO world (Although the word was first used in the media by AvWeek it was used in a couple of AFRL presentations a few years ago) is considerably more advanced.
My guess would be that L-Band (1-2 GHz) implementation may be due to a few reasons. One it may suffer the least amount of water vapor attenuation, two, excellent workable discrete electronic components from the communications industry, three, for more accurate velocity detection.
Any specs on it yet? Just wanted to see how it compares to the Phalcon
vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by vasu raya »

brar_w, good enumeration, though I was looking whether E2D uses both SAR and beam steering because in principle it has a smaller set of UHF TRMs than a ground based system.

Stand in Jammer?
The Rafale's Spectra is a Stand in Jammer in that it provides a return signal that the probing radar would expect when no target is found, something that resembles static in which case why the RCS can't be completely nullified wrt that radar by going below its noise floor? yes, starting with a LO, VLO would make these things easier, but as a technique why can't one apply this to a larger platform like the Su-30? by adding conformal antennas. As a special case, the Su-35's wing slat mounted L band antennas could work to actively cancel against a UHF radar?

Mort Walker, I am with you on the all-in-one radar antenna not being feasible, but the disagreement was about UHF transmitters that are pod mounted. As an example the E2D Hawkeye was considered which is a hybrid radar of both UHF ESA and an X-band ESA, each uses a different set of antennas and is said to detect low flying missiles against sea clutter.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by brar_w »

though I was looking whether E2D uses both SAR and beam steering because in principle it has a smaller set of UHF TRMs than a ground based system
You cant scale down (either the size, or the TRM) and hope to get performance. By their very nature UHF and VHF frequencies require huge sizes to compete with the X band performance (even then they come with huge compromises, and performance penalties).
Stand in Jammer?
The Rafale's Spectra is a Stand in Jammer in that it provides a return signal that the probing radar would expect when no target is found, something that resembles static in which case why the RCS can't be completely nullified wrt that radar by going below its noise floor?
Spectra is a self-defense jamming system. A stand-in jammer is something that gets really close to jam the signal or comms. No one expects it to come back hence things like the MALD-J.
but as a technique why can't one apply this to a larger platform like the Su-30?
You would have to develop some very advanced EA/EW capability that is at par or ahead of the rest of the world. Moreover, you would have to be one leg up against the Radar and IAD makers of the world. Those that are investing in capability are doing so from both ends..as they have come to the conclusion that Jamming, spoofing or the active cancelation isn't going to by itself assure access. The IAF seems to have taken a similar path with internal weapons bays and stealth requirements on the AMCA.

You can add a lot to the Su-30 if thats your point, but the realities are that at the moment the Super-30 Upgrades will most likely still use a PESA as compared to an AESA so some radical upgrade to the innards that brings the electronics and avionics to cutting edge in terms of new systems is way off.
by adding conformal antennas. As a special case, the Su-35's wing slat mounted L band antennas could work to actively cancel against a UHF radar?
You are trying to add conformal antennas to an airframe that isn't designed for them? And as an upgrade? Just think about it ! Secondly, there is only one program of record, anywhere in the WORLD that successfully tested conformal radar arrays for a maneuvering aircraft, and even then the requirements were not for a fighter type of maneuvering. Good luck designing conformal active radars that are integrated into the wings and that can sustain 9G flight. I know in the US, this capability has never been demonstrated.
the Su-35's wing slat mounted L band antennas could work to actively cancel against a UHF radar?
Those are IFF interrogators and not active radar arrays.
vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by vasu raya »

Thank you, rather than going for composites in the airframe in a bid to reduce the RCS for the Su-30, the avionics option seems much more prudent. Per wiki, the Russians have reduced the frontal RCS on the Su-35 and would rather have you buy that than optimize on the MKI airframe while avionics have been a mix on the MKI since the beginning. The Spectra system uses few conformal antennas not a whole lot though so its not the function of its AESA radar alone. if no conformal antennas are possible on the MKI airframe then you end up with pods (no, not UHF) since a 360 degree geometry is needed.

Back to the MALD, its rationale is to play the decoy using a Luneberg lens and be cheap, when you add a stand in Jammer its cost gonna rise and being closer to the hostile radar how long will it survive, is it enough for the rest of the pack to complete their mission? and if it can weasel its way closer why not just add a munition to take out the radar? after all the anti radiation seeker, a passive one at that seems to be a special case of the stand in Jammer.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Thank you, rather than going for composites in the airframe in a bid to reduce the RCS for the Su-30, the avionics option seems much more prudent. Per wiki, the Russians have reduced the frontal RCS on the Su-35 and would rather have you buy that than optimize on the MKI airframe while avionics have been a mix on the MKI since the beginning. The Spectra system uses few conformal antennas not a whole lot though so its not the function of its AESA radar alone. if no conformal antennas are possible on the MKI airframe then you end up with pods (no, not UHF) since a 360 degree geometry is needed.
Keep in mind that Super 30 is most likely an upgrade. You aren't significantly going to change the aircraft externally through the upgrade.

SPECTRA is an internal integrated self defense jamming suite (among other things). Many other such suites exist throughout the world and I am sure the Russians have one as well. It is not a radar but an active jamming system. Such systems have been flying on advanced aircraft for many years. Even the F-16 has it.
Back to the MALD, its rationale is to play the decoy using a Luneberg lens and be cheap, when you add a stand in Jammer its cost gonna rise and being closer to the hostile radar how long will it survive, is it enough for the rest of the pack to complete their mission?
The entire point of the MALD is to A) Simulate aircraft and for the J B ) To get close to the emitter and jam the threat. If they try to shoot down a MALD-J, at 30K feet and mach .8, they are going to use up SAM's that they would have otherwise lobbed at the aircraft. So from a cost-stand point it is rather cost-effective. Would you rather those SAM's take shots at your aircraft? Also the MALD-J doesn't need to have the power of an aircraft jammer because it is jamming from quite close to the source.
and if it can weasel its way closer why not just add a munition to take out the radar? after all the anti radiation seeker, a passive one at that seems to be a special case of the stand in Jammer
MALD is too small for a munition, but the future growth could (has been hinted) see it be used as a weapon i.e. attack the target by itself. Passive seeker is ok but you need GPS (as a minimum) for the large radars because they can shut off (while that doesn't get you a systems kill, it does get you a MISSION KILL as a radar that is turned off, doesn't do much damage to your aircraft) the radar and your passive seeker is useless. The point is that in the next 5-6 years your MALD V's could potentially allow the F-35's to lob 250-300 KM Mach 3 Anti-Radiation Missiles (AARGM - Extended Range) with built in GPS. For that they need to plan ISR payloads and have a mix of MALD's, MALD-J's and MALD-V's. This is precisely the sort of SEAD targeting DARPA is investing in at the moment.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by TSJones »

Lockheed to help Saudi Arabia build satellites.

http://spacenews.com/two-satellite-arab ... s-drought/
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by NRao »

Image

http://www.historyinorbit.com/wp-conten ... 24x804.jpg

Image
It earned its nickname “Blackbird” because of how stealth it was. It was also extremely quiet inside the cockpit, according to pilot Richard Graham. “You could hear a pin drop. The view is spectacular, being able to see the curvature of the Earth and the black space above filled with stars,” he said.
Over 4,000 missiles were fired at the Blackbird in the 25 years it was flown, but none ever hit it. The Blackbird was just too fast and its evasive tactic was just to speed up until the missile couldn’t keep up with it
And, talking of "sensors":
Its navigation system called “R2-D2” had a sensor so powerful that it could detect up to 61 stars in broad daylight while the plane was still on the ground.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by NRao »

Armata T-14:

Image
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by NRao »

T-14:

Image
Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 1718
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Lisa »

Easy peasy, lemon squeezee. With just 150 engineers. Much better than .........!

UAE unveils details of UAE Mars mission

http://gulfnews.com/news/uae/government ... -1.1505710
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by vishvak »

The Indian military contingent marching at Russia Victory Day parade (at Red Square, Moscow) would be indeed an 'international' news, along with the 'international' fact that Indians fought in both world wars only to be forgotten by exclusivist victors.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Austin »

vishvak wrote:The Indian military contingent marching at Russia Victory Day parade (at Red Square, Moscow) would be indeed an 'international' news, along with the 'international' fact that Indians fought in both world wars only to be forgotten by exclusivist victors.
Indian fought both war for the British Army , so its more like British Army fighting against Nazi and not Indian Army
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Austin »

US Prompt Global Strike and Hypersonic Program seems like Mother of all Weapons :eek:

http://www.nationaldefense.ru/includes/ ... tail.shtml
The fact that now, for a short time in one of the countries that the US considers its enemy, will be hit lasting from 40 minutes to 2.5 hours, which will be used all the means of air attack. Now the United States for this purpose is primarily cruise missiles and intercontinental ballistic missiles. And in the near future there will be new money. Analyzing the development of technology of aerospace attack, we can say that they will hypersonic aircraft. Acting in space, and in the air, they are due to a very high supersonic speed, which will reach 20 sound velocity in a very short time can travel up to 8,000 kilometers, and then fly around the entire globe.


Now we can say with certainty that the United States until 2020, will have up to 8,000 cruise missiles, 6,000 of them they can have nuclear warheads. Such missiles will be used for the projects of defeat, including, under certain conditions, and in Russia. And the range of these missiles, which is up to 4500 km, from virtually any direction allows to reach any object on the territory of our country.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by TSJones »

Arianespace says it can out compete SpaceX:

http://spacenews.com/arianespace-assure ... te-spacex/

i dunno, can 70 million Frenchmen be wrong?

It's not just SpaceX, it's Boeing, Blue Origin, Orbital, and yes, ULA also. They all got plans as well as India, China and Russia. It's getting crowded.

Darpa and Boeing are teaming up to launch satellites via airplanes for real cheap. Hang on to yer hats fellers.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Philip »

Building of military bases overseas a must for China: Duowei
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subc ... 0516000030
Staff Reporter 2015-05-16
The People's Liberation Army Navy docks at a port in Djibouti after completing an escort mission on March 29, 2015. (Photo/CFP)

China's rapid rise as an economic and military power means it can no longer avoid permanently stationing troops overseas, says a commentary published by Duowei News, a US-based Chinese political news outlet.

On Monday, the Chinese foreign ministry appeared to have indirectly confirmed speculation that China would be establishing a military base in the tiny African country of Djibouti.

"China and Djibouti enjoy traditional friendship. Friendly cooperation between the two sides has achieved constant growth over recent years, with practical cooperation carried out in various fields," said foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying.

"What needs to be pointed out is that regional peace and stability serves the interests of all countries and meets the aspirations shared by China, Djibouti and other countries around the world. The Chinese side is ready and obliged to make more contributions to that end," Hua added.

It is believed that China will install a a permanent military base in Obock, Djibouti's northern port city.

Djiboutian president Ismail Omar Guelleh confirmed that "discussions are ongoing" and stated that Beijing's presence in his country would be "welcome."

Bordered by Eritrea in the north, Ethiopia in the west and south, and Somalia in the southeast, Djibouti enjoys key strategic positioning in the Horn of Africa as it oversees the Bab al-Mandeb strait, one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world that leads into the Red Sea and via the Suez Canal to the Mediterranean.

If China does construct a military port there, then Djibouti, a country with an area of just 23,000 square meters and a population of 820,000, will have military bases from four foreign countries.

Djibouti is already home to Camp Lemonnier, the US military headquarters in Africa largely used for covert and anti-terror operations in Yemen and Somalia. The camp houses around 2,000 people and has been called "a very important facility" for the US in the Horn of Africa by US president Barack Obama. Last May, the US signed a new 10-year lease for the facility with the Djiboutian government for US$6.3 million per year and with an option to renew for another 10 years.

Japan has also rented a 12-hectare piece of land near Djibouti-Ambouli International Airport and invested US$40 million to build a command headquarters, boarding facilities, parking apron there. More recently, the Japan Self-Defense Forces announced plans to expand its presence there by building a semi-permanent base.

As a former French colony, Djibouti also maintains military and economic agreements with France and is home to the largest French military base in Africa.

The advantage China has over these other countries is that it is Djibouti's largest trade partner and aid provider. Since establishing formal diplomatic relations in 1979, China has financed a number of major public works projects in Djibouti, including a sports stadium and two other athletic facilities, a science research center, a hospital, the offices of the country's ministry of foreign affairs and the People's Palace.

Since 2009, China has been Africa's largest trade partner for six consecutive years. In 2014, China-Africa trade reached US$221.9 billion, a 20-fold increase from 14 years ago. In 2000, China invested a total of US$500 million in Africa, but that number has increased to US$30 billion since. As at the end of 2013, China has built 3,530 kilometers of road in African countries in addition to 3,203 km of railroad, with another 1,424 km under construction. China has also built in Africa 34 power plants, nine ports, 14 airports, 11 bridges and several sports stadiums capable of seating a total of 800,000 people.

In December 2011, there were reports that East African country of Seychelles had invited China to build a military base there, though the Chinese defense ministry said it would only use Seychelles as a port to supply ships and fight piracy. Since the PLA Navy began participating in escort missions in the Gulf of Aden and off the coast of Somalia in 2008, it has used ports in Djibouti, Oman and Yemen to supply ships, a ministry spokesperson added.

Then in March 2013, Chinese president Xi Jinping made his maiden diplomatic visit to Tanzania, where he reportedly signed a US$10 billion deal to develop a massive port at Bagamoyo, about 60 km north of the capital Dar es Salaam. Military experts said at the time that China was intending to build a dual-use port in East Africa that could be used to dock and supply military vessels.

Last November, media in the southwestern African country of Namibia reported that China was in discussions to develop a "base" in the country's Walvis Bay some time in the next decade. While China will use the port to supply and repair ships as an "foreign strategic support point," it will not be creating a "US-style" military base, the media reports said.

In July 2006, US Air Force colonel Christopher J Pehrson developed the "string of pearls" theory to describe China's strategy to boost its geopolitical influence through developing and upgrading military facilities in the South China Sea, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the Coco Islands in the northeastern Indian Ocean, and Seychelles. According to Duowei, the purpose of the report may have been to spark concern and panic in neighboring countries such as India.

Last June, the US released the report "Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China," in which it noted that China deployed a submarine to the Indian Ocean for the very first time under the guise of an anti-piracy mission. The deployment was really to provide valuable operational experience, according to the report. The report went on to predict that China would establish multiple points of entry in the Indian Ocean within the next 10 years to supply ships and adjust personnel.

While Beijing has not officially confirmed whether or not it will be building a military base overseas, there is no doubt that this will become a reality in the not-too-distant future, Duowei said. China's status and position on the international diplomatic stage is rapidly changing into that of a superpower and its need for a military presence overseas and the ability to protect its interests abroad cannot be denied, Duowei added.

 
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by TSJones »

Mother Russia seems to be having some challenges recently....

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2015/05/a ... for-r.html

"Almost exactly to the day a year after Russia lost a Proton-M rocket, yet another Proton-M has failed. In this latest setback to the Russian commercial space program, today's Proton-M rocket appeared to launch normally, but failed soon into the launch and did not deliver its payload, a Mexican satellite, to orbit."

The Rodina shall triumph!

they may have to use trampolines, but hey........
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Philip »

"Necessity is the mother of invention". famous saying,v. true. Two nations in recent times have made great strides on their own despite almost the entire world against them acquiring modern mil-tech,NoKo and Iran. NoKo have developed their own N-warheads,BMs and now have developed a sub-launched BM system on their own. The foll report shows how they managed it with canniness and cunning. Iran has also made great strides in missile etch and sub construction.The Taiwanese would do well to emulate Iran's example. The small subs that Iran are developing/building,may not be anything close to Israel's German U-boats which have a N-strategic dimension,but can be very troublesome operating in the restricted waters of the Persian Gulf. Iran is building them at a fast pace too and if in the future they posses a dozen+ of them,will have a significant effect upon the mil dimension of those waters.

China too did likewise with the Varyag/Liaoning acquisition,made in extreme stealth,and have picked up from the former USSR republics as much mil tech and scientific manpower as they could.That has stood them in good stead as today they have raised the std. of milware to a v.high level.

http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/new ... [b]North’s launcher based on Soviet device: expert[/b]
May 18,2015

North Korea succeeded in test-firing a ballistic missile from a submarine, North’s state-run newspaper Rodong Sinmun reported on May 9. [Rodong Sinmun]
North Korea developed the launching device for its submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) by modeling it on a Soviet-era device imported from a Japanese trade partner in 2003, the head of a South Korean defense think tank said.

Hong Seong-min, who heads Security Policy Networks, said in an interview with the JoongAng Sunday that Pyongyang developed the device based on equipment once used for a now-retired Soviet submarine.

The arms expert added that it was imported via a Japanese trade dealer, citing a U.S. Congressional report drawn up in 2006 as evidence for his conclusions.

The SLBM launching device is used to fire missiles from underwater.

“The North developed the device modeled on that Soviet-era device, which it used for its successful SLBM firing test on May 8,” said the defense expert.

Hong continued that the North succeeded to mount the device on a Sinpo-class, or 2,000-ton, submarine, as seen in an image of the missile launch that was published by the North’s state-run Rodong Sinmun a day after the test.

He said the South Korean intelligence agency gave the same report - that the North imported the critical device once used by the Soviets - to the National Assembly in an undisclosed meeting. Reports on the North’s pursuit of the SLBM technology, however, failed to draw wide attention until the reclusive nation’s May 8 test-firing of the missile, with the country’s leader Kim Jong-un overseeing it.

Prior to importing the submarine missile’s launch equipment, the North also purchased 10 retired Soviet submarines, each weighing 2,800 tons, through a Japanese trade dealer in 1993, according to Hong.

The North bought the submarines after the vessels had been stripped of their own SLBM missile launching devices by the Russian authorities.

Hong, a retired Army major, said the North had to purchase the device 10 years later through an unidentified Japanese channel.

So far, nothing has been revealed about the trading partner in Japan that the North allegedly used.

After analyzing Pyongyang’s test-firing of the SLBM, the South Korean Defense Ministry has come to the conclusion that the North could deploy submarines equipped with SLBM capability in two to three years, a scenario that could take the Communist regime’s nuclear threat to a new level.

Concerns are growing over the North running submarines with fully operational SLBM systems because of the much higher difficulty the U.S. and South Korean militaries will have in detecting and intercepting ballistic missiles from underwater compared to their ground-based counterparts.

The greatest fear centers on whether the North would be able to miniaturize a nuclear warhead that would be small enough, less than the weight of one ton, to mount on an SLBM system which will enable the Communist state to fire a nuclear missile in addition to conventional short- and long-range missiles.

BY CHOI IK-JAE, KANG JIN-KYU [kang.jinkyu@joongang.co.kr]
[/quote]
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Vipul »

Philip you think China has not passed the mil-tech to North Korea? Seriously?
This is classic Chinese move to equip a friendly regime with enabling technologies and force multipliers to cause headaches for its competitors and fr-enemies while it enjoy's free rein for its own maneuvers.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by TSJones »

Space launch center 41 (SLC-41) at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station is being rebuilt for manned launches by the Boeing CT100 capsule on an Atlas V.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/05/ ... g-new-era/

It will be the first time a manned launch has occurred at CCAFS since October 1968 for Apollo 7 launch. historic indeed.

Meanwhile Space X is rebuilding the Kennedy shuttle 39A launch pad. And NASA is rebuilding the Kennedy shuttle 39B pad for the SLS and other smaller rockets that wish to use the 39B pad in the interim.

The gigantic transport crawler is being rebuilt and the second will be used as back up.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Singha »

putinji has sounded a note of caution at the idea of PGS being lobbed into russia armed with conventional payloads, saying he has no means to verify its payload and regretably will need to push the red button that says "inflict pain"
if it comes to nuclear delivery, the ICBMs are faster and proven.

for fast moving targets of opportunity like say a ISIS convoy , drones and manned fighter/AC130 work far better and cheaper.

PGS to me is a tech solution looking for a problem!

Noko cannot find their own backsides with their two hands without cheen guidance, so the cheen->nook->tsp arms and technology pipeline is how it works, with the great dragon using the two cats paws.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by brar_w »

putinji has sounded a note of caution at the idea of PGS being lobbed into russia armed with conventional payloads, saying he has no means to verify its payload and regretably will need to push the red button that says "inflict pain"
That is the crux of the problem with that. However in the Pacific context, a theater that is likely to get a bulk of the development concentrated, the threat is already fielding conventional ballistic missiles that the US has no way of verifying as conventional or Nuclear. PGS in that context is a wrench of your own type of thing. I however think it would be a capability developed (and perhaps even tested) but not fielded and that is what it seems to be going towards. Lockheed just recently secured a contract for work on it, and keep in mind that PGS is something that is not taking development dollar away from hypersonic cruise missiles. The HSSW is getting its fare share of funding ($800 Million over the next 5 years) and both Boeing and lockheed are competing for the work. That is something that is likely to be fielded in large numbers. Also keep in mind that the Prompt Global Strike as a Mission as envisioned by Robert Gates and his predecessor was not simply restricted to a Hypersonic glide weapon launched ballistically, it was a full fledged component of the overall global strike package. The package included Long Range Strike Bomber (B-3), Prompt Global Strike (the capability, could be a series of weapons, could be a platform etc) and Long Range, ELO ISR and networking (the mission rumored to be that of the RQ-180).

There is a lot of stuff the USAF and the US Army can do but not put it out as a fielded system. In fact if you look at the US defense budget, the USAF's single largest line item is classified defense procurement, followed by Classified Research and Development..Very Large programs like the F-35 and Long Range Bomber only follow later..

Image
for fast moving targets of opportunity like say a ISIS convoy , drones and manned fighter/AC130 work far better and cheaper.
The time is "information dependent" on most instances. The pipeline has been significantly expanded since the start of OEF, but now the problem seems to be with the decision loop. You are not going to use PGS for taking out a terrorist going around in a truck.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by TSJones »

with threats of ballistic missiles being used against the US Navy and any other US assets, Putinji had better be worried about what the US response might very well be. the sword cuts both ways. ditto for his pet dog North Korea.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Austin »

Singha wrote:putinji has sounded a note of caution at the idea of PGS being lobbed into russia armed with conventional payloads, saying he has no means to verify its payload and regretably will need to push the red button that says "inflict pain"
if it comes to nuclear delivery, the ICBMs are faster and proven.

for fast moving targets of opportunity like say a ISIS convoy , drones and manned fighter/AC130 work far better and cheaper.

PGS to me is a tech solution looking for a problem!

Noko cannot find their own backsides with their two hands without cheen guidance, so the cheen->nook->tsp arms and technology pipeline is how it works, with the great dragon using the two cats paws.
PGS is part of the system that suppose to do a Kill without using Nuclear Payload ,so it need not be nuclear, Its designed to take out Chinese and Russian Nuclear system in the guise of hitting terrorist within 30 mins any where ( need less to say Indian system would be of smaller scale )

If US can back the PGS with its existing Nuclear Triad and ABM system then it gives it a colossal advantage to them in potential first strike.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Singha »

and how are the chinese and russians going to react when they see missiles with a 30min transit time bearing down on all their ICBM sites?
they won't sit around waiting for 1st strike to attrit their assets...they will launch on warning if the inbounds are sufficiently large in number

nobody is going to sit around and find out if the payload is secular and conventional. thats what puntinji said...he is not going to lose 50% of his force waiting for impact. he would lash out as fast as he can.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Singha »

the US army has cancelled first the Crusader 155mm and then the NLOS-C cannonhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/XM1203_Non_Line_of_Sight-Cannon_%28NLOS-C%29.jpg

nobody even claims the stryker can carry a 155mm, it has some project for 105mm...

even on weaker tracked vehicles , as seen in Donar, the massive recoil of 155mm/52 looks like its going to break the spine of the beast.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkNOUI1N5uA

god forbid the 55cal is just a matter of time with perhaps a 30 litre chamber to shoot stuff out to 100k's

for the foreseeable future the US army seems happy with its horde of M109A5 , they must be upgrading it and adding electronics now and then.

the TSPians hit a home run by getting this for free with guaranteed support for atleast 20 yrs. they dumped the turks asap.

if our Soko k9 thunder does not work out, we should raid khans boneyard and demand atleast 500 m109
member_28911
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by member_28911 »

Austin wrote:PGS is part of the system that suppose to do a Kill without using Nuclear Payload ,so it need not be nuclear, Its designed to take out Chinese and Russian Nuclear system in the guise of hitting terrorist within 30 mins any where ( need less to say Indian system would be of smaller scale ) .
vis-a-vis Pakistan India already has Brahmos. Prompt Regional Strike (PRS) :twisted:.
It's Fast. Carries conventional payload. Can take on targets anywhere inside Pakistan.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Austin »

Singha wrote:and how are the chinese and russians going to react when they see missiles with a 30min transit time bearing down on all their ICBM sites?
they won't sit around waiting for 1st strike to attrit their assets...they will launch on warning if the inbounds are sufficiently large in number

nobody is going to sit around and find out if the payload is secular and conventional. thats what puntinji said...he is not going to lose 50% of his force waiting for impact. he would lash out as fast as he can.
It is complicated issue for sure even if all parties have good will.

A single or even 10 ICBM wont wipe out Chinese or Rusian nuclear forces and it also depends on the trajectory of ICBM flying towards the target but the Heart of Commander and Chief of any of these countries would be pumping at very high rate if they see even a single ICBM trajectory coming towards their country or just pass through it.

Questions like is that single ICBM carrying a 30 MT Enhanced Radiation Weapon to blank out C&C for window to do multiple strikes
Post Reply