US military, technology, arms, tactics

[brar_w]

The question/concern I have (one of many) is what happens if by massive political influence/lobbying, one company forces the guvrmand/nation to spend essentially its entire Air force combat aircraft budget on **ONE** vehicle design, however cross-service/multi-purpose/versatile/reconfigurable that is.

How is such a subversion possible for any stretch of time by just one company ? This seems to be a persistent theme on this forum. Other vendors have money as well, recourse to law and there's anti-trust law that limits how far any one company can corner the field.

One would benefit from looking at how many Combat Fighters Boeing has delivered in the last 20 years and compare that number to their competitors in Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. Boeing inherited McD's assets, and the Hornet Design from Grumman. It would be also interesting to dig up the last fighter Boeing has actually designed in house that actually won a contract (hint go back quite a few decades..).

Lockheed couldn't win a fighter competition for some time, and they inherited the F-16 from General Dynamics Fort Worth. Their dominance in the ATF was because they were one of the two most experienced design houses when it came to prototyping and low-observable designs having benefited from (competitive contracts) the F117 and other LO crafts they had designed. They also had unique experiences in high cruise speed flight. The two down-select teams for the ATF both dominated stealth in the 70's and 80's and were naturally positioned to benefit from that work. Boeing competed independently and was not even in the top three for the ATF.

The acquisition authority is to pick the best aircraft under the requirements. There is no room for industrial base concern, since that is addressed elsewhere. Like I said, Boeing has delivered more fighters than any of the three design houses int he US over the last 20 or so years. Their F-18/E/F, EA-18G, and F-15E lines have won a ton of work (on dollar amount they would probably be the largest over this period in the world). On the ATF they built quite a lot as well. They went all out on the JSF and Lockheed chose to partner with Northrop, a supplier that had proven its worth when it came to delivering structures on time and at a lower cost on the Super Hornet program (where it was the lead supplier for Boeing).

Going forward, Boeing has a very good chance in the competitions coming up. They have since their JSF loss funded a very robust team when it comes to design competency for the next generation fighters. Some of the folks that they have now are among the best. Furthermore, the Industrial base concern alone will allow the Pentagon to keep the design team well funded with work. The Super Hornet and Growler replacement program that has to begin delivering frames by the early to mid 2030's would naturally have a requirement well in excess of 500-600 aircraft. Additionally, the F-15C's, and eventually the F-22's would also need replacing starting the early to mid 2030's. There is plenty of work ahead of them to generate a lot fighter business over and above the money they will be making in supporting the large Eagle, Strike Eagle, Super Hornet and Growler Fleets.

I don't think there would be many feeling sorry for Boeing that must have delivered close to 800-1000 fighter aircraft over the last 25 or so years as a prime or as a leading supplier (majority as a prime). Others have been a lot smarter. Northrop Grumman has throughs scaled composites and other smaller acquisitions developed a very high competency in delivering advanced unmanned vehicles, open mission systems, and rapidly configurable avionics. They have benefited a lot form that. Even a cursory look at the Dollars invested in R&D and the growth in acquisitions spend in unmanned and one can see that it is among the fasted growing sectors in the military aircraft market and they have done remarkably well in that both in securing investments for advanced R&D and through its Global Hawk, payloads business, and other smaller competitions. With the B-21 they have again come to the forefront in securing high R&D as a lead integrator. Even their dollar amount revenue from the JSF matches or exceeds most foreign western OEM's in the prime-integrator capacity so they too have been willing to fund dedicated design teams and have refused to strategically partner up for any of the upcoming fighter or aircraft competitions. They will be competing as a prime for the FA-XX and USAF's F-X competitions and have a brand new clean sheet T-X sitting in California that they refuse to reveal until Boeign reveals its clean sheet design .

Consolidation (and the appearance of monopoly) is result of the last supper and the clear indication sent to the OEM's int he US that they won't be winning the sort of business they were during the cold war. Boeing has bought virtually its entire successful military offensive aircraft and Lockheed benefited a lot from acquiring the F-16. Although the Pentagon is coming out a bit stricter against consolidation I suspect there is another round due before everything settles. The hottest commodity is obviously General Atomics (its still largely private) and the most likely candidate (Needs it, can afford it, and the acquisition fits into their overall strategy) is Boeing.

[NRao]

And NG won the long range strike (LSR-B) contest, beating Boeing + LM as a team.

And, then there are other players DARPA, Air Force Research Labs (that alone employs some 1000s in Dayton alone) and a number of other efforts that contribute to the bigger picture. We have not even talked about the companies that deal with the engines yet!!

And babus? Who can forget them?



After the F-35 experience LM has had a lower profiles in the corridors of the Pentagon.

[UlanBatori]

Russians are in bad shape too since Yakovlev and MiG seem to be on the way out, leaving just Sukhoi for fighters. I haven't checked - are MiG production facilities located in Ukraine by any chance? But the real downside of the F-35 is that its cost has grown to the point where it sucks out all money that might have helped to buy alternatives.

[brar_w]

And NG won the long range strike (LSR-B) contest, beating Boeing + LM as a team.

The strategy post shake up was to maintain and sustain 3 design teams capable of producing combat aircraft (fighters, unmanned or bombers) and they have been on that path since. In Aviation (USAF) the top three line items by program code have gone to Lockheed (JSF), Boeing (KC-45 and with it KC-X) and Northrop Grumman (B-21). The next big contract award is the T-X and there are three main players with only 2 showing up with a completely new frame (virtually eliminating Lockheed). On the R&D side they are back in the business of designing NG Generation X-Planes (fighters) and much like the efforts in the previous round they are likely to be multiple OEM's that get awarded for these X-Planes. They intend to fly them pretty soon as well (in the next 4-5 years).

[NRao]

And NG won the long range strike (LSR-B) contest, beating Boeing + LM as a team.

The strategy post shake up was to maintain and sustain 3 design teams capable of producing combat aircraft (fighters, unmanned or bombers) and they have been on that path since. In Aviation (USAF) the top three line items by program code have gone to Lockheed (JSF), Boeing (KC-45 and with it KC-X) and Northrop Grumman (B-21). The next big contract award is the T-X and there are three main players with only 2 showing up with a completely new frame (virtually eliminating Lockheed). On the R&D side they are back in the business of designing NG Generation X-Planes (fighters) and much like the efforts in the previous round they are likely to be multiple OEM's that get awarded for these X-Planes. They intend to fly them pretty soon as well (in the next 4-5 years).

In short (yeah, what is that?), there is variety among vendors. No need t worry about a single vendor. ???????

Russians are in bad shape too since Yakovlev and MiG seem to be on the way out, leaving just Sukhoi for fighters. I haven't checked - are MiG production facilities located in Ukraine by any chance? But the real downside of the F-35 is that its cost has grown to the point where it sucks out all money that might have helped to buy alternatives.

There are options: T-50 could be customized for USAF use, perhaps at $100 mil per. I am dead sure they will allow US designers to redesign it too, but why would anyone do that? Then of course, since India is almost certain to reject the Rafale at more than $150 mil per (I am dead sure the French would throw in ToT for free and a perhaps 4 lines to manufacture 100 planes a year), that is certainly an option. Or perhaps a "Griffin"? Slap some radar absorbing paint and of we go, at around $100 mil per. Could be much cheaper - US engine and many other components?

Or even the F-18. Why not? Let India get a line or two and it would become even cheaper. Say $23 mil per.

.........................................

[brar_w]

From the Archives...

[NRao]

I cannot vouch for this web site, but .......

Those Old OV-10 Broncos Sent To Fight ISIS Were Laser Rocket-Slinging Manhunters

So after, based on this one article, these Broncos were NOT there for CAS - as had been assumed.

Now, The War Zone reveals details of what the pair of OV-10G+ Broncos were doing in Iraq, and how they went about it with impeccable results.
The Broncos were used to find, fix and finish the enemy. In the past, this process was largely accomplished by at least two very different aircraft and platform communities, both of which usually had their own unique command and control structures. By condensing all the required capabilities into a single platform—the OV-10—the kill chain could be drastically compressed and save gobs of money in the process.

The truth is, OV-10s weren’t really close air support aircraft in the traditional sense at all—they were manhunters.

The Bronco’s weapon of choice for this unique mission set was the relatively new but highly promising Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System, or the APKWS, a 70 mm rocket with a laser seeker and control section attached.



Just like standard unguided 70 mm “Hydra” rockets, APKWS's can be carried in bulk on various US and allied aircraft, with 7- and 19-count rocket pods commonly used. This bulk capability means a dramatic increase in precision firepower on everything from light helicopters to A-10 warthogs. The Bronco is far from a one trick pony.

Laser-guided rockets can be fired either very close or miles away from their target, and at different angles, so aircrews can use creative tactics to achieve “unique” effects on the battlefield. In the right hands, these smart rockets can take out enemy personnel and destroy lightly armored vehicles under circumstances that no other guided munition could touch—at least not without causing significant collateral damage.

Not only was APKWS adequate, but when paired with the upgraded OV-10 Broncos it seems to have been a match made in heaven, or hell depending on which side you’re on.

In some ways the Broncos wrote a new book on APKWS tactics during their tour in Iraq. When key officials were briefed on what the Broncos did during their time there, and hours of footage of the APKWS slinging OV-10s in action was shown, those officials were flabbergasted with what they saw.

The Bronco’s "match grade" MX-15HD FLIR turret and big high-def display in the cockpit make the aircraft among the most accurate precision strike platforms on the planet. Night after night, the OV-10s put this capability to work. Instead of blowing up buildings or convoys, Bronco crews were killing ISIS fighters standing in dark windows, or in a single truck surrounded by others. {#NotCAS}

As far as just how precise the OV-10 crews could be with their laser-guided rockets and high-end targeting sensors, the Bronco’s prowess in this department was almost freakish. It wasn't just taking out bad guys in windows—they were doing the same with fighters hiding under eaves, overhangs, dense cover and in doorways. Essentially, the Broncos were flying snipers for special operations forces hunting ISIS in Iraq. They could observe with great clarity from on high, collect intelligence and stalk the enemy. They could also kill that enemy with incredible accuracy. Instead of using a sniper’s bullet, the Broncos used the Pentagon’s guided munition equivalent, laser-guided rockets.

One shot, one kill, even under the most demanding of combat conditions.

[UlanBatori]

If that one-shot-one-kill Advanced Pest-e-Sha'eed etc is true, then I can see why ppl are arguing strenuously to keep the A-10 and other such heavier, longer-endurance platforms alive.

If a few observation/intel platforms can be aloft, then I don't see why ground controllers within say 1000 km can't do the actual human decision-making and 'supari' contract allotment, while a swarm of flying-wing craft deliver these gizmos to the proximity. The real advantage of UAVs in combat is that they are not constrained to have the size needed to accomodate a Burger-Muncher. They can be flying wings, which offer greater endurance and range for a given power plant, and hence greater payload fraction as well. So what is the point of the $200M prima donna?

Seems like the real limiting factor is the number of DOOs/ Telemarketing Operators that can be simultaneously focused on a single battlefield. Suppose there are 500 Hyderabadi einsteins hiding behind rocks etc as they prepare for the Jeeeeehaaaaaad assault on Deir-ez-Zor. How many DOOs will it take to detect, verify and command these gizmos, one per einstein, inside a short enough time to win the battle? Probably at least 100 kills per minute needed, and I can't see a single operator being able to accomplish all these at more than 2 per minute. So it is not the number of missiles that can be carried to the scene, but the number of detector-verifier-decisionmakers that limits this.

IOW, the investment needed is on these C^3 centers with adequate trained staffing. A few over-worked fighter pilots or helicopter pilots cannot do this. So this is one of the new features of REAL 'net-centric warfare'. The continued wastage of money on manned fighter planes is purely because you can get promoted to Jarnail a lot faster with pilot experience than with only computer operator experience, isn't it?

Reality is that the True Warrior is not the trim, fit combat pilot in the G-suit and Helmet-Mounted Sights trailing the oxygen / p-p tubes, but the swarm of burger-munching grandmas in front of the glowing screens and keyboards in the underground DOO sweatshop. No fighter jock can stomach that reality.

[NRao]

The "war fighter" is anyone who is trained to get rid of the enemy. They use certain platforms because such platforms were designed to serve a very specific function. Multi-role, Omni-role, yada, yada, yada changed some of that narrative. Or at least so some thought - granted.

However, the topic on hand - first-gen-wing-with-5th-gen-systems - is not the picture that was painted. In fact, if at all, this OV-10/Bronco article pokes a whole bunch of holes in the Gnat for a CAS narrative. The OV-10 was used: i) as a stand off platform ii) it was used to weaken the entire structure of the enemy - by precision weapons (by being able to kill individuals if needed) (NOT CAS) iii) it was designed and fought a very good PC war (take out individuals standing in windows and take out one car parked among others? Let a A-10 try that) iv) it was upgraded with instruments that the A-10 currently does not host, etc (there are more).

This was a case of matching a variety of requirements with a variety of technologies at hand - because no other could do it - as well.

So, as I see it, the US now has a OV-10 Bronco for stand-off interdiction at a very granular level, an A-10 that is very, very capable to operate in sanitized areas for solely CAS purposes and a assorted number of other, very capable, proven platforms for stand-off CAS. The common theme: stand-off.

Innovation trumps copying.

[TSJones]

60-70 years ago none of the savages had automatic rifles. now, everybody an their dog has got one.

same for RPGs. and cell phones.

so it will be with manpads, smarter and more versatile.

use of low and slow CAS is in its death bed.

[KrishnaK]

As for "how will the chinese put the missiles in the air", well, balloons can take missiles up to 80,000 feet if needed. Rockets can too, the Chinese have had those since the 14th century BCE.

There are rockets now, balloons are just a special version. You still have to see the US plane first. The incoming US Planes will have figured out which ones to shoot down when they make an appearance.

[Singha]

I think it's a fairly creative idea to meet a daesh swarm with a simple man pack uav swarm controlled via a robust truck antenna linked via satellite to a offshore call centre of sorts with 10,000 seats staffed 24x7 three shifts in bengaluru. People can plan to take down 10 high end uav but not 10,000 Sr-uav packed with 500gm warhead swarming all around and biting like a pack of wasps.

still not happy? We could 50,000 easily within a couple miles here.

Have container trucks with Diwali box rocket type uvls launch 100s each

[NRao]

Dis iz craji.

Super Hercules, Osprey Fleets Into Missile Slinging Electronic Warfare Platforms

SF. Now Marines.

The USMC has been experimenting with arming their KC-130Js for years under the Harvest Hawk program, which saw combat in the Middle East. It has also recently tested the Osprey as a weapons delivery platform, capable of close air support. These tests included the use of a new tablet-based system that connects the forward air controller on the ground directly with the Osprey via data link. Now it seems the Marines have seen enough. With the Navy working on making distributed lethality a reality by up-arming as many vessels as possible, the USMC looks to do the same with its air arm.

Under this new plan, all of the USMC’s 79 KC-130J Super Hercules transports will be become “shooter capable” and receive Harvest Hawk-like capabilities. Where the Harvest Hawk concept was a bolt-on/roll-on kit, more permanent associated upgrades will now be applied to the KC-130J fleet.



SNI reports that each Hercules will receive a top-of-the-line L3/Wescam FLIR/electro-optical sensor and laser designator ball system that will be permanently installed under the KC-130J’s nose. This deviates from the Harvest Hawk concept that saw a similar, albeit less capable, sensor ball installed in a modified bolt-on adaptation of an underwing-mounted fuel tank. Wing-mounted and pressurized internally mounted weapons racks will also be made available.

Hellfire, Griffin and Viper Strike missiles will make up the KC-130J’s combat punch. Right now, there appear to be no plans to integrate a bushmaster cannon or standoff weapons like the Small Diameter Bomb, as seen on the most recent derivatives of the Air Force Special Operations Command's AC-130 gunships.

Some good vids and more write up.

CAS has a new game to play.

[UlanBatori]

the US now has a OV-10 Bronco for stand-off interdiction at a very granular level,

That jogged my memory on WHERE I have heard of the OV-10 being used most. Operations in Laos etc. I think that is a Culinary International Airlines, not USAF, weapon. The mission also makes sense for that. The Air Force is not in the business of assasination, they are much better at mass pest-e-sha'eed. As in Shomali Plain, not Bredatoria.

[UlanBatori]

Singhaji:
Some time back I read a from a guy whose job was to munch burgers. Claims to have been burned out by the stress and workload. When he left, they gave him a nice certificate - with a number printed on it. Bredator kills attributed to him.
So the kernel of the swarm system is already in place. I imagine that mass-producing even something like a Bredator is not that hard. In fact there are some interesting SBIR type solicitations out on improving weather prediction etc related to just these operations.

I just don't think it has reached a level where there are few Divisions like 463rd Bredator Division, with 15,000 operators located at one camp. But it is feasible, hain? May need a few more aerostats etc for communication transmissions so you don't have to bounce off satellites at 10,000 km - too long a signal transit time. I do think that the OOs will have to be US military personnel since their job is to kill - outsourcing that to contractors has a few problems a la Blackwater.

Krishnakji, I think you have walked urself into a corner, bro. Your question was how the Chinese could get a large number of missiles into the air to hit any US mission coming in. If they cannot penetrate into Chinese airspace, shooting down even balloons is not going to be that easy. The advantage is with those who have a large number of low-cost, massively-dispersed, easily deployable systems. Balloons and mobile rocket launchers are such systems, the balloons have essentially infinite endurance. A missile located on a balloon already has gained the precious 10-15 seconds for ascent to that altitude and gained all the potential energy needed, so all it has to do is accelerate and swoop down on the attackers. So at the very first sign of any intrusion, the balloon force will cut loose with a volley of supersonic/hypersonic missiles. And I am saying that this number is already too large for the small number of high-ticket F-35 type craft that the US is putting so much money into. How many missiles can each F-35 carry, anyway? Fire off 8, and it's all over, the F-35 is a naked target with just those wildly vibrating machine guns. Use a $400K missile to shoot down a $200 balloon, and u r into a game with diminishing returns. The Chinese are great at at least 1 thing: mass production.

The actual fielded numbers are going to be in low teens for any given battle theater because of the sheer cost, their approx. location is easily traceable, and the Chinese can afford to send in 100 missiles for every such vehicle. Finis.

[Singha]

Ulan, i meant for india....not usa....back end bpo infra chain is already in place...would not take special training to control a 500gm warhead drone.. front end a local swarm drone produced in low tech mode

We already have 24x7 remote infra mgmt divisions

[NRao]

This is a continuation of the OV-10 Bronco topic, which took place in 2009/10.

Jun, 2015 :: Boeing Looks to Sell Retired A-10 Warthogs Abroad

Market research gone wild?

As the U.S. Air Force pushes to retire its fleet of A-10 attack aircraft, Boeing Co. doesn’t want the planes to waste away in the Arizona bone yard — it wants to sell them abroad.

The Chicago-based aerospace giant has begun discussions with the service about potentially selling the Cold War-era gunship known as the Warthog to U.S. allies, according to Chris Raymond, a vice president at the company.

“There’s been talk about what the international opportunities might be,” he said on Tuesday at the Paris Air Show, held at the historic Le Bourget airfield outside the city. “We’re going to stay close to the U.S. Air Force in this case. They have to make some decisions about what they actually have that they’re willing to declare as excess defense articles and so it’s really not our place to speculate on that.”

No need to copy. Just buy the original - upgraded.

A few squads of the OV-10 and a few of the A-10.

[shiv]

Pakistan has a population of about 200 million. 40% are under 30 - that is 80 million. Every one of them is a potential drone. They are in fact being used as drones. There is great enthusiasm to say that drones can do the work of humans but a curious reluctance to admit that humans can be used as drones. Forget Pakistan - look at Syria, Iraq or Libya. 200,000 willing men are at worst equal to 200,000 autonomous drones. The production lines are there and manufacturing does not require any new infrastructure. Programming tools are well known.

Look at the number of times Pakis refer to "demographic dividend" while others call it a demographic time bomb. Fact is that if you cannot employ 10 million young people in factories you could always train them as soldiers to either take what they want by force or die. That is a perfectly sensible thing to do. Remember the sort of bullshitting we hear about and believe. We say "Humans are equal and must have equal opportunities and resources must be shared". Yeah right. The US has resources and really should share with Pakistan - and now the US is refusing to give Pakistan a measly 700 million that they can print in a jiffy. This means war and Pakistan and other Islamist drones will end up fighting American drones. The US will use drones that it can afford to produce. Pakis and other will use the drones that they can afford to produce. Which set of drones will win is moot. Every two bit nation in the world has produced armies exceeding a million or 2 million in strength. After all - for an uninvolved third party who watches such a drone war - no one gives a damn whether the US expends 10,000 robotic drones in killing 100,000 human drones. What about the remaining 900,000? Just drones killing drones and the force that can afford to keep producing more will eventually prevail - after 30-40 years.

[TSJones]

....Pakistan has yet to experience full scale industrial strength slaughter. Japan has and also Germany.

it's a complete mind f**k.

[KrishnaK]

Krishnakji, I think you have walked urself into a corner, bro.

Maybe so Batoriji. In which case I'll have learnt something.

Your question was how the Chinese could get a large number of missiles into the air to hit any US mission coming in.

Here's my exact quote

How are they going to pick up those planes and well enough to provide a firing solution for a 100 missiles ? If they develop technology to do so, is it going to be any cheaper to field enough planes to fire a 100 missiles at the US plane ?

If they cannot penetrate into Chinese airspace, shooting down even balloons is not going to be that easy. The advantage is with those who have a large number of low-cost, massively-dispersed, easily deployable systems. Balloons and mobile rocket launchers are such systems, the balloons have essentially infinite endurance.

If balloons have infinite endurance they are also relatively immobile. What's to stop the US from just avoiding them ? Float a million balloons all along the Chinese borders for another great wall ? How well have static defenses worked in the past in deterring attackers.

A missile located on a balloon already has gained the precious 10-15 seconds for ascent to that altitude and gained all the potential energy needed, so all it has to do is accelerate and swoop down on the attackers. So at the very first sign of any intrusion

How are they going to pick up that very first sign. What will be the cost of developing that AND then making enough to float them on balloons. Now your scenario has turned into cost to manufacture 1 detection & fire control set x how many ever balloons you need to float around to wall off China + a 100 missiles each to taken on the uber expensive fighter.

[shiv]

....Pakistan has yet to experience full scale industrial strength slaughter. Japan has and also Germany.

it's a complete mind f**k.

It's called "No long term memory". The area that is now Pakistan has seen massive slaughters in the last 1000 years and is now doing fine. That aside even Japan and Germany are doing fine.

Industrial scale slaughters are big but humans tend to be overwhelmed by small numbers like 10 million. Bangladesh lost 3 million in 9 months. No sweat. No one even remembers. Vietnam lost about 2-3 million. Not a problem.

It takes years to build up big casualty figures and how long is any country going to keep on slaughtering someone before something drastic happens to stop the slaughter? If the country survives the slaughter it's no use. They will raise their heads again. Slaughter has to be proper - with occupation subjugation and slavery and re education. Remote control drones just don't cut it.

[brar_w]

This is a continuation of the OV-10 Bronco topic, which took place in 2009/10.

Jun, 2015 :: Boeing Looks to Sell Retired A-10 Warthogs Abroad

Market research gone wild?

There was an effort on in some corridors of power to see and explore whether offloading A-10's to Nation's operating in theaters where the A-10's may be used could help reduce cost on the fleet and allow the USAF to address more urgent priorities for the short-medium term. At the moment Boeing faces a decision point over the next few years on the F-15 production line. If Qatar comes through they'll have the line till the early 2020's but they are going to be also performing some very substantial upgrades to some of the F-15C's and all of the F-15E's (State of the Art EW Suite, AESA, and faster mission computers). There had been rumors of some in the USAF wanting to turn the F-15E into a dual Strike - SEAD ( Wild Weasel) weapon by adopting some of the Navy's Growler systems. While that is unlikely to be funded by the Congress (the alternate being just allot more Growlers to the Navy to cover Joint needs - and that is going to happen since the Navy pretty much has bought all the Growler's it needs for itself) but saving money from the A-10 could allow Boeing to benefit in other ways (more business for further upgrades).

With both the HASC and SASC chairs willing to fund A-10 and still provide extra money for more urgent stuff through OCO, the A-10 isn't going anywhere. The need to retire prematurely will now only come if one of the politicos turns away from funding 'unfunded priorities' either through a budget increase or through OCO. That could be the senate armed services committee boss, as McCain doesn't really look that great as far as holding his seat is concerned (hence is constant rants to appear to be a maverick disruptor to stay in the news cycle).

[UlanBatori]

Reading this dhaga is enough to send someone into total despair. No future in Mass Murder?
Oh, wait! I need to get out the Wasp Killer today and see about launching a covert attack on the nestAir base hanging under the upstairs window.
Isn't all this talk (and action) about demothballing (learning from Brarji ) the A-10 and the OV-8 and the Sopwith Camel, all due to the fact that there are no relevant NEW programs? Depressing in the extreme to read chances of an F-15 retrofit with discarded P-3 or A-8 systems getting funded through COTUS.

And shiv is right of course. MUCH more cost-efficient to give those precision sniper weapons to those Pakis hiding behind windows, under rocks etc than to put them even on OV-8s. Let the Russians take care of the Pakis, after the Pakis kill off the Syrians, either way, new orders for the new weapons. Uplifting. Morale-boosting.

[NRao]

Fighting a politically correct war has always been more expensive.

Kargil would have been much, much cheaper (to India), in all respects, if Indian forces were not restrained.

Which is what we are witnessing in the ME - granted there have been misjudgment on the political front - bad ones.

Also, there was very poor judgment or expectations when the US went into the fight. Recall a Pres landing on a carrier to declare we had won!!!!!

The need for cost is coming up in the narrative because the previous guys did not complete what they started, badly misjudged political situation and expectations, etc. Now the US military is still paying for those mistakes.

Even in the case of India, were India to have taken Kashmir and showed a finger to the UN (not too late), where would we talking of Pakistani under rocks or windows? The longer this BS continues the more Indians would discussing about (not building - which is another matter) about Gnats with two engines, etc.

Solve a problem, don't let it fester. Get rid of that cold, if you let it linger it will turn into something more challenging.

To me there has never been politics in "war". Which is what I meant when I said our past has been very violent. Extremely violent.

[shiv]

Not even a 1st gen jet, with 4 gen weapons
https://twitter.com/WarfareWW/status/734750090313764865

@WarfareWW #Iraqi AF Cessna AC-208 planes carrying 2x AGM-114 Hellfires carried out 3 air strikes.Total cost ~$300k

[UlanBatori]

That cost is still mind-boggling. $300K!!!
How much would it cost to equip one of shiv's Pakidrones to operate a powerd hang-glider and launch the same weapon on a 1-way trip?
Which brings me to another question. So this Cessna fires a Hellfire missile. I wonder how much of the Hellfire's gizmos are needed for this application. Is too much being lost because of the narrow inventory and small numbers of these expensive weapons?

Would a MarkIV Al Ghauri IED in a PVC pipe with a Tenkasi Fireworks and Export Software Inc Mark XIV rocket and a $5 control circuit and a $5 battery to operate flat-plate tin-sheet control surfaces, accomplish the same mission? Maybe not against all targets, like it may not take out a tank. But perhaps they had no option: it was either Hellfires or nothing. Life or death.

Hellfire. Produced 1974–present. In service 1984–present
Manufacturer Lockheed Martin, Boeing (previous second source), and Northrop Grumman (seeker only for AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire)
Unit cost US$110,000.
Weight 100–108 lb (45.4–49 kg)[1]
Length 64 in (163 cm)
Diameter 7 in (17.8 cm)
Warhead High-explosive anti-tank (HEAT); 20 lb (9 kg) tandem anti-armor Metal augmented charge (MAC); 18 lb (8 kg) shaped charge
Blast fragmentation
Engine Solid-fuel rocket
Wingspan 13 in (33 cm)
Operational range 546 yd – 5 miles (500 m – 8 km)
Speed Mach 1.3 (995 mph; 450 m/s; 1591 km/h)
Guidance system: Semi-active laser homing millimeter wave radar seeker
Launch platform: Rotary- and fixed-wing platforms, unmanned combat air vehicles, tripods, ships, and ground vehicles

The radar seeker seems uber-sophisticated, but may be essential.

[UlanBatori]

Copperhead. This was a big thing advertised with full-page ads in Dungo-Space Mongolia in the 1980s.

Apparently, all said and done, only 90 were ever fired in anger.

At 62.4 kilograms (137.6 lb) and 140 centimetres (54 in) long, Copperhead is longer and heavier than traditional 155mm ammunition.[2]
The warhead assembly consist of a shaped charge loaded with 6.69 kilograms (14.75 lb) of Composition B.
For Copperhead to function, the target must be illuminated with a laser designator. Once the laser signal is detected, the on-board guidance system will operate the steering vanes to maneuver the projectile to the target. The Copperhead targeting logic is designed to (1) ensure that the optical system will always be able to detect the target, and (2) that once the target has been detected there will be sufficient time and velocity to maneuver to hit the target. Copperhead must be below any cloud cover at critical parts of the trajectory, and there must be sufficient visibility to ensure that when the target is acquired the projectile will have sufficient time to maneuver.

Copperhead has two modes of operation: Ballistic mode and glide mode. Ballistic mode is used where the cloud ceiling is high and visibility is good. When the projectile is 3,000 meters from the target, the guidance vanes extend, the target is acquired, and then the on-board guidance system adjusts the guidance vanes to maneuver onto the target.

Glide mode is used when the cloud ceiling and/or the visibility is too low to permit the use of the ballistic mode. A glide mode trajectory consists of two phases: a ballistic phase and a glide phase. At a predetermined point along the trajectory, the guidance vanes extend and there is a transition from ballistic phase to glide phase. Glide phase targeting logic is designed to ensure the largest possible angle of fall permitted by the cloud cover and the visibility. The target is acquired when the projectile is close enough to detect the laser illumination or when the projectile emerges from the cloud cover, whichever event occurs later in the trajectory. When a trajectory solution has been obtained, time-to-target and terminal velocity are checked to ensure that there will be enough time to maneuver and that the projectile is aerodynamically stable—that it will not stall while maneuvering.
Initially the laser designation was intended to be performed by the MQM-105 Aquila pilotless drone.[3]
Combat history: Copperhead was used in Operation Desert Storm,[4] with 90 rounds fired against hardened targets.[1] It was also used in the 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom

I think they lost interest after the Aquila's primary purpose of doing scaled flight tests for the B-2, was over. From globalsecurity.org:

The trajectory of the Copperhead projectile is similar to that of a conventional round. Only when the projectile reaches a point on the descending branch of the trajectory does it differ. At that point, on the basis of the two-digit timer setting included in the fire commands, the guidance and control systems are activated. This enables the projectile to alter the remainder of its trajectory.

At 20 seconds from impact, the laser designator operator begins designating the target. The ground laser operator may use a G/VLLD, a laser target designator (LTD), or modular universal laser equipment (MULE). Airborne systems include the AH-64, OH-58D, and unmanned aerial vehicles. The Copperhead projectile acquires the reflected laser energy and initiates internal guidance and control, allowing it to maneuver to the target.

The ground surface area in which the round can maneuver is limited. The size of the footprint is determined by the range and the shape of the trajectory, but it can also be affected by cloud height. The ballistic aimpoint is usually short of the target location sent by the laser designator operator. The distance that the ballistic aimpoint is short of the target location varies and is called the offset correction. This offset distance is used to ensure that the maximum probability of hit occurs at the original target location sent by the observer.

From Wikipedia:

the Copperhead average unit production price was about $30,000

This must have been marginal cost of production only: development must have been say $200M? But its lo-lo marginal production cost, comparative re-lie-ability and accuracy etc. caused cancellation of the later Extended Range Guided Munition - IOW, another $20M must have been spent on the lobbying for that. So a cool $2.44M per shell actually fired in war.
*************************
Added:

Point is that one could easily strip out the shaped charge that blasted it out of the artillery gun and replace that with a Tenkasi Mark XIV to boost it to Mach 1.5, and let it coast down under laser pointer guidance. Much cheaper than the $110K per item radar-guided mijjile, but requires a Spl Forces person or a drone to keep that laser pointer pointed. You COULD use a 6th gen F-35 for that, it could use its 35 onboard cellphones to keep 35 laser pointers pointed at the same time. May even call the Abduls individually on THEIR cellphones to provide GPS coordinates

AoA Abdul! U r about 2 rise 2 Houristan as a cloud of carpon barticles and boo

(sorry..)

[TSJones]

which proves nothing. none of the Iraqi armor was massed for attack due to an extensive precursor air campaign against them. why use copperheads if the armor isn't massed? please spare me wildly improbable scenarios.

somebody remind me of the relevancy of 1000 years ago and doing fine now? this is a serious assertion? when the resulting culture won't even allow eradicating polio? practicing full scale begging from other nations?

[shiv]

somebody remind me of the relevancy of 1000 years ago and doing fine now? this is a serious assertion? when the resulting culture won't even allow eradicating polio? practicing full scale begging from other nations?

Survival.

Those guys don't give a damn if millions are killed as long as some of their kind and the ideology survives. They survived 1000 years with polio and don't care because if they don't eradicate polio its your problem, not theirs. The US does not have such a long term vision. You might not understand where those guys are coming from.

[UlanBatori]

shiv, can ur pakidrones do all THIS, hain?
TSJi, over the past decade+, the US Army in particular has been redirecting efforts towards urban warfare, asymmetric warfare etc. and away from the conventional massed-force infantry/artillery/tank assault modes. The Air Force has been more about fighting Space Aliens and microbes, while the Navy has been into Stealth Littoral Combat Ships that look suspiciously like cruise liners. The Marines, I have noo idea, they get shafted in the budget wars by the more sophisticated lobbies.

So step back for a moment and look at these pictures of Vietnam-era aircraft firing modified Vietnam-era weapons, while the ISIS with their natty outfits, and the Taliban in baggy pajamas run all over the US' allies while under supposed USAF/USN/USA air cover and close-in CAS and helicopter capabilities. You have to ask what happened to all the Modernization money. Looks like a massive DeMothballing Program is needed. Sherman tanks? Horse cavalry? "Monitor" class submarines? P-51s?

Expending a $110K missile on an ISIS combatant/ captured Humvee seems like a losing war esp. against Petrodollar-funded enemies - or enemies funded by COTUS (i.e., Paki Talibans). The signs are all pointing towards the Mother of All Defeats - think Yalu + Dien Bien Phu + Hue + Saigon. Both in Afghanistan and in Eyerak. It's going to hit all of us, the consequences of this defeat.

[TSJones]

whut you are ascribing to military problems are in fact political problems which rest squarely on the c in c, Barack Obama and the way he wants to conduct this war.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pakistan and Afghanistan are corrupt and treacherous and use religion to achieve their aims.

however, they are not invincible. they are playing on speculation that the US is too stupid and nice to do anything serious to them.

when actually they are not worth the effort for anything other than a continuing program of drones and special forces and doling out of charity and second hand military equipment.

the US has been in Afghanistan since 2001 and will continue to be there for quite some time. probably be just like south korea. only much smaller.

[brar_w]

TSJi, over the past decade+, the US Army in particular has been redirecting efforts towards urban warfare, asymmetric warfare etc. and away from the conventional massed-force infantry/artillery/tank assault modes. The Air Force has been more about fighting Space Aliens and microbes, while the Navy has been into Stealth Littoral Combat Ships that look suspiciously like cruise liners. The Marines, I have noo idea, they get shafted in the budget wars by the more sophisticated lobbies.

There is a small problem with that narrative in that the USAF and others have spent a ton of money, committed a ton of resources to becoming much better at the sort of challenges that they have had to encounter in Afghanistan, Iraq etc unless one totally wants to ignore the USAF's RPA investment (which is practically useless in a high-threat fight/environment) and what it has had to offload in terms in terms of capabilities and programs to get there. The Navy's LCS is actually something driven by PRESENCE and the need for it and not to fight the uber battle. If it were the latter they wouldn't even consider the class and they'd continue to buy the more expensive destroyers and cruisers.

One would also benefit if one looked into the advances made by the USAF and NATO in targeting, Close Air Support, Troop Support, and buying huge inventories of PGM's often at the risk of funding programs that would have benefited the high end fight. Again, look at the programs that got the chop to pay for all that capability.

Expending a $110K missile on an ISIS combatant/ captured Humvee seems like a losing war esp. against Petrodollar-funded enemies

Depending on what the target is you can get precision guided strike for much less. You can buy 3-5 JDAM's for the price of one Hellfire if thats a weapon that can do the job, or you could go for roughly 3 SDB I's for the same price. Then there is the option of using the gun attack helicopters, and aircraft (A10) in addition to cheaper rockets.

Another weapon gaining favor for such missions (and is one of the most sought afters in the FMS route) is BaE's APKWS..Again, you could probably by 4 of these for the price of one Hellfire and the cost curve should bring this down further over time given the demand.



https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... oc-417758/

[UlanBatori]

No argument with any of that - programs have been scrapped. E.g., the poor F-22, after only 165 aircraft - what a waste of an air superiority fighter program!
But the fact remains - there **ARE** wars in progress. And the US is not winning them. The opposition is rising in strength as the years pass, not getting weaker at all. Let's see:
1. Somalia: US is essentially out of there, and the place has been taken over by pirates and warlords.

2. Afghanistan: US and allies won a sweeping campaign in 2001/2002, like an uber Blitzkrieg. But in the 14 years since, the Pakis have fought back, and like Napoleon's army in Russia, or Hitler's in Russia, the US is slowly but very surely being driven out of there.

3. Iraq: US and NATO won Desert Shield and Desert Storm and DubyaKrieg. In the 13 years since, the Islamists have essentially overrun the whole country, and the US and its allies are besieged in the Green Zone in Baghdad, and that only because the ISIS doesn't feel like invading there yet.

So I ask the same question: Exactly who are the USAF and USA and USN ***preparing*** to fight? They sure aren't serious about winning in any of these places. The US efforts in both Afghanistan and Iraq over the past 2 years has been nothing short of pathetic.

Meanwhile, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Chad, Central African Republic, Mali, Nigeria, Kenya are all teetering on the verge of collapse - falling to the enemies of the US. Liberia, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Congo, Guinea-Bisseau, Rwanda and Sudan - and then Egypt - cannot be far behind. Pretty soon Rhodesia and South Africa will be trying to fight off the Other side.

And then of course, the US no longer seems to be able to do diddly to stop the expansion of the PRC across the sea lanes around Japan and the Phillippines and Taiwan.

Any day now we will find out that the ISIS has occupied all of Antarctica.
So what are all these shiny toys for? Meanwhile, the Russians with their 30-year-old Cold War hardware, are beating the pakistan out of the terrorists.
Maybe the weapons strategy is completely wrong?

[brar_w]

The picture you are painting is POLITICAL and has very little to do with the kit. Russia put in Su-30's into the theater? 30 year old? What about the Su-35's? They must be what, a few months to a few years old air-frames? The -35's are the most advanced combat aircraft in RuAF service at the moment.. S400's..30 year old? Bombers with cruise missiles with XXXX Km range. 30 years old capability? How many $ per shot were those cruise missiles flying off of their Navy Ships? $5? If you look at the platforms put into Iraq, and Syria, barring the F-22's and the RPA's practically all of the rest (US) were either as old, or much older than the stuff Russia has put in. You fight today's war with yesterday's weapons as has been the case for a long time and you can go and look at the strike complex for such warfare that has been built up. Whether it is the response time for calling in strikes, the precision of those strikes, or the ability to trade it for lower cost options or taking the man out of it at all, from a weapons systems point of view they are much better off than 15 years ago.

Interestingly the Flankers in the Su-30, 35 and 34 were significantly younger than the USAF aircraft over Syria barring the F-22.

http://www.ainonline.com/sites/default/ ... tu-160.jpg

What would be a cost of the weapon above? More or less than a Hellfire? What about the cost vis-a-vis the target it was meant at? How many air defenses did the cruise missile have to circumvent to take out ISIS?

How about This? How does this compare from a cost stand-point to a Reaper armed with a $100K Hellfire?

One has to be really 'not looking' if one wants to paint the Russian mission in Syria as that using 30 year old kit across the board. They have virtually put in all their latest and greatest kit and capability, barring the really really new stuff (thats still in prototype stage such as the PAKFA) and this includes aircraft, air-defense systems (how much did that deployment cost?) , Ships, Cruise Missiles and other munitions. But politics, and world events and how they are likely to be 5, 10 or 15 years from now is not something that really interests me so I'll stick to talking about the other aspects ...The point about the other end is that one would really have to try to avoid some of the lower cost options if one were to think that a $100K weapon is the only choice they have in a low-intensity conflict where they want to use PGM's. Those same reapers can launch other weapons that were bought for closer to a 5th if not a 6th of that cost. Similarly, they have created niche weapons within unguided rockets and expensive PGM's such as the Hellfire that come in at a 3rd or 4th of the cost of the more expensive mission but replicate a lot of the capability against a particular target set (where the hellfire is an overkill). One would have to completely ignore all this, especially since the most numerous PGM in the USAF inventory is the JDAM family which was bought at about $18K to $24K per kit for most of its purchase. If even that is too expensive then use unguided munitions and rockets, something they also can leverage (virtually all operating in the area) or send in your attack gunships with just the gun.

[UlanBatori]

When wars are won it is because of the brilliant jarnails and the spectacular weapons. When they are lost it is all because of the politicians. That is usual.

But.. the politicians typically take the plunge because they are convinced/hopeful/delusional that the capabilities bragged by the jarnails are more than enough to win the war. Unique Opportunity, Use It Or Lose It, Strike While The Iron Is Hot, Sneak in B4 The Window Closes, Make Hay While The Sun Shines etc.

Evidently that does not work out for the US any more than it did for Napoleon and Hitler. So isn't it appropriate to ask why?

The Russians used Backfire supersonic bombers- which was total overkill in wasted fuel, and surely meant to advertise long-unused capabilities before they were chopped up and melted down. I think this is because they have no real capability for sustained massive bombing campaigns any more. Never did, come to think of it. Which is surprising, come to think of it - how did they ever expect to stop a Chinese invasion short of nukes?

But I am saying that the US has been pouring money into urban/asymmetric warfare (precisely this situation - where there is no need to fight for air superiority or defend against massive air raids). Yet when the fat is in the fire, there is no serious sign of moving to win the war rather than conduct the odd missile strike against this SUV or that Mercedes car or that mud hut with a terrorist sleeping on the terrace.

Most pointedly, why has the AC-130 gunship not seen extensive use against the ISIS? Against the oil tanker convoys? Where are the Apaches as the ISIS runs tanks with impunity? Why is the US just not winning against the ISIS, or the Taliban? You'd think that not a spider moves in Iraq without US air/space assets knowing about it, but look at the realities. So I have to conclude that the weapon capabilities are HUGELY overstated. I'll take DRDO claims about HyperPlanes any day over these, thank you!

For instance, ppl didn't find out until way into the Korean War, that the AAM was not the miracle weapon advertised - the enemy fighters were escaping most of the time, the missiles often did not explode even when they actually went straight into the tailpipe of an enemy plane (OK, constipated the engine, no doubt..) The missile-armed supersonic fighters could not compete against the slower, more maneuverable subsonic fighters with guns.

OK, so you argue that there are all these smart derivatives of the expensive weapons, suitable for cost reduction and hence large enough numbers to win wars. Well... OK, but where are they on the battlefield, why are they not proving effective? Here I do think the Russians have managed to field their systems effectively, yes, they have used pretty-much everything except the PAFGA or whatever, and the Buran. Updated combat helicopters, updated missiles, updated software.

So I ask why today's US situation is so pathetic, before we all find ourselves trying to fight off the ISIS from our homes with stones and brooms. Seems like all out money has been sucked up by 1 or 2 lobbies to waste on utterly asinine gizmos, that were totally impotent while the ISIS raped and murdered thousands right under our amazing Air Superiority in Iraq which was basically under our 'protection'. Think about it - today BBC has published images from STRATFOR showing exactly what ISIS did to some airbase in Syria - don't u think the same satellites saw what the ISIS did in those Yazidi villages under US air 'protection'? Any US generals / corporate execs lose any sleep over that?

The Navy has these shiny Littoral Combat Ships, but the ISIS owns the Euphrates River, probably the Tigris too. Boats that John Kerry would have found to be too old for his Vietnam buddies.
Where are the questions about the real relevance of these weapons?

It is an utter failure of the US/western media that there is not even a peep of introspection as more of the taxpayer's money gets poured into the pockets of these gizmo-peddlers.

I realize that this is a thread for fawning enthusiasts to admire shiny weapons, but where else can one ask why they are so pathetic in reality, hain? Maybe they are weapons that Work Per Specifications, but completely wrong specifications? Like, many US fighter planes were designed for supersonic 30-min interceptor missions (and 100 hours total life expectancy), so they started falling apart once the ICBM / supersonic bomber threat receded. Now the F-35 is a GREAT weapon for (whatever, I don't know) conditions where there is no air superiority and the runways are gone in the first strike, but is that any more the relevant scenario? Apparently the F-22 is already considered irrelevant, since production was abandoned at 160 planes (about 60 may be actually functional any given day) and there is no export market.

One more point: The Russians seem to have learned some lessons from their Afghanistan experience. Firstly, more caution against NATO. Secondly, so far, refrained from large ground force infusion (though the lack of a land border with Syria and long and vulnerable logistics path may have a lot to do with that, the Bosporus is far worse than the Salang Tunnel). But despite those things, they DO act decisively.

(Anyway, Brarji and TSJi, I am scooting from here like the ISIS - need to infest the Econ forum for a while.)

[vishvak]

Not appropriate to discuss Syria here since USA refused to send boots on ground when IS broke lose. On the other hand Iranian sukhois were the first to hit ISIL. Russia got in late by years after request from Syria and didn't have a lot of time to prepare I think though no taking credit any which way from Russia in how well the RuAF got results in 5 months.

[Singha]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/26/us/pe ... index.html

Amrika is still using 8" floppy disks (!!) in its NORAD/SAC computers per a GAO report and will get more modern kit in 2017.

it seems $60b is being spent annually to keep in shape such old IT systems on special order for spares and support.

[member_22872]

High-Tech Railgun Promises New Military Advantage

[brar_w]

Interesting. Raytheon will be demonstrating the capability on an AC-130 later this year :

DARPA Background:

Video Synthetic Aperture Radar (ViSAR)

Cloudy skies, dust and other vision-obscuring conditions often limit the support capabilities overhead aircraft can provide warfighters on the ground. Airborne weapon systems that use electro-optic and infrared (EO/IR) sensors during support missions can’t “see” through clouds, and current synthetic aperture radar (SAR) technology can’t provide high-resolution video imagery of moving ground targets through clouds.

DARPA’s Video Synthetic Aperture Radar (ViSAR) program seeks to develop and demonstrate an Extremely High Frequency (EHF) targeting sensor which operates through clouds as effectively as current EO/IR sensors operate in clear weather. The program seeks to develop and demonstrate a cloud-penetrating EHF sensor in a moveable gimbal that could be mounted on a variety of aerial platforms to provide high-resolution, full-motion video for engaging moving ground targets in all weather conditions—cloudy or clear.

The program seeks technology innovations in four technical areas: Compact flyable EHF-band exciters and receivers; compact flyable EHF-band medium-power amplifier; EHF-band scene simulation; and advanced algorithms for EHF-band operation.

Compact flyable EHF-band exciters, receivers and medium-power amplifier should have size, weight and power characteristics to enable the ViSAR sensor to operate using an existing EO/IR gimbal. The EHF-band scene simulation technology effort seeks to develop a synthetic scene model for generating synthetic raw data sets that simulate realistic EHF-band radar data sets. These raw data sets will be used by the system developer to test image formation, autofocus, detection, and geolocation algorithms. Advanced algorithms for EHF-band operation aims to develop and characterize new algorithms that may be enabled by the development of EHF-band SAR, and which have the potential to provide new sensor capabilities or enable more efficient processing.

Technology developments in the four technical areas are expected to support a system demonstration program which will be solicited in fiscal year 2013.

Raytheon To Flight Test Video SAR Sensor For Gunships

Flight tests of an extremely high frequency (EHF) through-weather targeting sensor developed by Raytheon are planned for late this year under Darpa’s Video Synthetic Aperture Radar (ViSAR) program, according to a notification by the Pentagon advanced research agency.
ViSAR is a synthetic aperture radar that operates in the 231.5-235 GHZ radiolocation band and generates imagery at high frame rates to enable aircraft to engage stationary and moving targets through clouds.

Electro-optic/infrared imaging sensors cannot penetrate clouds, forcing aircraft to descend below weather to detect and locate targets. The technology is intended for transition to U.S. Air Force special-operations AC-130 gunships.

Conventional airborne SAR sensors operate in X-band, at 8-10 GHz, with slow frame rates. These include Raytheon’s ASARS-2 radar on the Lockheed U-2, Northrop Grumman’s APY-7 on the E-8C Jstars and the Northrop/Raytheon MP-RTIP on the RQ-4 Global Hawk. Strike-fighter radars with SAR modes are also X-band.

After completing Phase 1 of the effort to design, develop and demonstrate a prototype ViSAR, Raytheon was selected over Northrop to build and test the system. Details of the program have emerged in a justification and approval document posted by Darpa in May.

The document explains the agency’s decision to award Technology Service Corp. (TSC) a sole-source contract to continue the development of algorithms to detect and locate targets in ViSAR data. TSC was one of four algorithm developers in Phase 1, but the only one selected as a subcontractor for Phase 2

Darpa says TSC has developed the infrastructure that takes data from four receive antennas, processes it and publishes it for exploitation. The company also has developed two types of targeting algorithm to detect the skin returns and shadows from moving targets, both vehicles and dismounted individuals.

TSC also developed techniques for imaging the stationary background and using digital terrain data to improve focusing of the sensor. The algorithms developed were implemented in an end-to-end processing architecture and validated using synthetic raw data from a ViSAR scene simulators.

The justification document reveals some of the peculiar challenges with a sensor operating in the EHF band. These include overcoming the impact of accelerating vehicles defocusing the returns, and rejecting false alarms from the rotation of building shadows caused by radar platform motion.

TSC also has developed a technique to fuse detections from the shadow-tracking and skin-return algorithms to provide a more accurate and robust estimate of target location, Darpa says. The ViSAR program is scheduled to finish early in 2017, the document says.

[Prem]

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/u-special-fo ... 30637.html
U.S. Special Forces will soon have a new weapon at their disposal: Stealth motorcycles

A few years ago, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) sponsored a competition where companies were challenged to come up with a compelling stealth motorcycle design.The underlying goal? To provide ground troops with the ability to navigate through tough terrain quickly and without detection. Such a bike could also airdropped down to troops on the ground whereupon they could use it and subsequently hide it "for later retrieval."One bike -- The Silent Hawk -- was developed by Logos while the other bike --dubbed Nightmare -- was developed by LSA Autonomy. Not surprisingly, both are hybrid bikes.The Silent Hawk in particular weighs 350 pounds, has a range of 170 miles, can reach a top speed of 80 mph and can store as much as 75 pounds of equipment. More importantly, when the bike is in "quiet mode", the noise it emits is less than 55 decibels, which is to say about as loud as a normal conversation.Troops attempting to maneuver with equipment during field operations face a number of challenges. Conventional transport vehicles can move people and cargo fast, but they have trouble negotiating extreme terrain. Likewise, the size and weight of these conventional vehicles is designed to make them difficult to airdrop.With its thin profile and innovative two-wheel drive, Silent Hawk makes easy work of thick forests, narrow mountain paths, and rocky landscapes. The military bike is lightweight and is made for easy deployment—its large cargo capacity, auxiliary power ports, and interactive user interface support deep-penetrating operations.The Nightmare sports specs similar to the Silent Hawk, though it weighs about 50 pounds more and can generate just a bit more horsepower.