Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

US military, technology, arms, tactics

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.
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8439
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby UlanBatori » 15 May 2017 22:03

The ransomware that hit computers across the world could backfire on its creators, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in Beijing, adding that the implications of the global hack attack need to be discussed on a political level.
The ransomware was apparently developed in the US, Putin said. “Microsoft’s management has made it clear that the virus originated from US intelligence services,” the Russian president stressed. Putin added that launching cyber-viruses is “lifting a lid” that "could backfire on those who developed and created them," including intelligence agencies.

The outbreak of the virus, dubbed WannaCry, began last Friday. According to some cybersecurity experts, it is based on an NSA-developed tool that was leaked to the public by a group called Shadow Brokers. The virus, which is ravaging computer networks worldwide, encrypts user files and demands a ransom in cryptocurrency Bitcoin to release them.

READ MORE: ‘Like letting Tomahawk missiles get stolen’: Microsoft slams NSA mishandling of exploits

Microsoft, which has criticized the American spy agency for its alleged role in creating the situation, released a patch for its no longer supported Windows XP operating system to prevent computers still running it from being infected. The tech company patched a vulnerability in its newer supported software last month after the leak was made public, but operating systems that were not updated are still vulnerable.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17219
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Philip » 18 May 2017 13:56

So much for the alleged Russian hacking of US sites,etc.! This massive global attack affecting around 100 nations was the result of an NSA programme that escaped! Now the boot is on the other foot.EXpect this to be more widespread in the future and casts a grave dpubt about the security of banking,etc. in India.Yetserday all ATMs at my bank were KO's becos of the attacks.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... orth-20667
How the U.S. Navy Plans to Kill Submarines from Russia, China and North Korea

Kris Osborn
May 15, 2017
TweetShareShare
Printer-friendly version
The Navy's helicopter-like Fire Scout drone will soon operate an advanced sensor giving it increased ability to detect and destroy enemy mines and submarines from a Littoral Combat Ship, service officials said.

The new sensor, designed for combat and surveillance missions in littoral waters, is called the Coastal Battlefield Reconnaissance and Analysis, or COBRA.

"COBRA is currently in Initial Operational Test and Evaluation on the MQ-8B and is projected to reach Initial Operational Capability this year," Capt. Jeff Dodge, Fire Scout program manager, told Scout Warrior in a written statement.

COBRA’s primary function is detecting mines and submarines while keeping the LCS and its crew at a safe distance.

Given that the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship is engineered to use its shallow draft, speed and maneuverability to conduct combat operations in littoral waters near enemy coastlines, having an improved technological capacity to find and detect enemy mines and submarines near the surface expands its mission envelope and provides needed protection for offensive ship operations.

Having a small helicopter detachment able to launch and land off the back of the LCS is a key part of the Navy's emerging strategy for surface warfare, countermine warfare and anti-submarine warfare.

New Radar for Larger Fire Scout MQ-8C:

The Fire Scout has been both deploying and conducting training missions on board Navy Littoral Combat Ships for several years.

The Navy is also integrating a new maritime search radar to its larger Fire Scout variant - the MQ-8C in order to extend its ISR capacity and provide better targeting support to nearby offensive operations.

The existing electro-optical and infrared cameras on the Fire Scout have a range of six-to-ten miles, whereas the new maritime radar can find targets at ranges out to 80 nautical miles, service officials explained.

The Navy recently awarded Fire Scout-maker Northrop Grumman a $32 million contract modification to conduct systems engineering, technical review and extensive testing of the new radar.

"The effort covered in this contract will integrate a maritime radar onto the platform to provided increased situational awareness for surface combatant ships. The radar is already mature since it is in production for other platforms and represents a lower risk pathway to bring this capability to the Fleet," Dodge added.

The Fire Scout is engineered to work in tandem with MH-60R helicopters to identify and destroy targets as part of a maritime strike squadron.

The helicopter and unmanned aircraft system, working with one another, are designed to extend the range of the shallow-water LCS. They provide ISR, targeting and threat-detection technologies miles away from the ship and its crew, using a data link to send information back to a control station on-board the ship.The Fire Scout’s flat-panel electronically scanned array radars ad Link 16 network integration.

The helicopter squadron provides a persistent over-watch for shipping traffic, threats and other potential targets. The MH-60 provides initial surveillance and situational awareness. Once something of concern it discovered, the Fire Scout can provide persistent surveillance capability to the ship and to the squadron, service developers explained.

Various training exercises have consisted of launches, recoveries, mock firefighting scenarios and visit board search and seizure operations.

The 31-foot long Fire Scout can fly at airspeeds up to 110 knots and reach altitudes of 20,000 feet; the aircraft weighs 3,150 pounds at its maximum take-off weight and is powered by one Rolls-Royce heavy fuel turboshaft engine, Navy officials said.

The Fire Scout has an electro-optical/ infrared sensor called Bright Star 2, which has laser range-finding and laser designation, Navy developers said.

The MQ-8B Fire Scout can stay up on a mission for up to five hours and also uses Automatic Identification System, or AIS, technology to help locate and identify ships.

The Navy currently has more than 20 MQ-8B Fire Scouts in the inventory, service officials said.

Also, in recent years, the Navy has armed the Fire Scout with laser-guided precision rockets as part of an assessment for future integration. The weapons tested on the Fire Scout laser-guided 2.75 inch, folding-fin rockets called Advanced Kill Precision Weapons System, or APKWS.

Using laser guidance to paint and pinpoint targets for the Fire Scout, APKWS was able to conduct successful land-based test firings, Navy weapons and drone developers said.

This first appeared in Scout Warrior here.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9103
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Aditya_V » 21 May 2017 00:49

Don't know which thread to put this. WTF is the US selling to Saudis for 110 billion which could amount to 350 billibillion in 10 years?

abhik
BRFite
Posts: 1987
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby abhik » 21 May 2017 00:56

^^^
It's just reverse jizya or protection money all oily GCC countries pay to the US and​ the euros. Quit standard stuff.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 21 May 2017 02:59

Aditya_V wrote:Don't know which thread to put this. WTF is the US selling to Saudis for 110 billion which could amount to 350 billibillion in 10 years?


A lot of stuff but this is an announcement of a large package which will only trickle in through FMS notifications to Congress over the next many years. A lot of these things have been under negotiations for a couple of years. They are getting an upper Tier BMD system in the THAAD. Likely 4-6 batteries. Patriot Air Defense System modernization including a new Command and Control system linking their air-and missile defense capability. Abrams tanks are likely in the mix as well. $5-$6 Billion for a custom Frigate order with Lockheed Martin.

A large munitions deal package that had been held up by Obama is probably also being clubbed into this (Something like 3000 JDAM kits among other munitions). Chinooks from Boeing, and a deal to locally assemble Black Hawks from Lockheed. There is also a large munitions deal with Raytheon that entails a joint Venture or some sort of co-production of weapons in Saudi Arabia. These are just the things that have been in the works or have had their FMS cases advanced..there may be stuff that they are only now beginning to negotiate so we will likely hear about them over the next months to years.

I think the larger package ($300+ Billion over 10+ years) includes defense and other economic deals over this time period and not just the weapons package.

EDIT:

# From LM's press release

The announcement includes:

Letters of Offer and Acceptance and a Memorandum of Intent covering government-to-government sales of Lockheed Martin programs to include integrated air and missile defense systems, multi-mission surface combatant ships, radar systems, surveillance systems, tactical aircraft and rotary wing programs.

A Letter of Intent, between Lockheed Martin and Taqnia, to form a joint venture to support final assembly and completion of an estimated 150 S-70 Black Hawk utility helicopters for the Saudi government.

A Memorandum of Understanding between Lockheed Martin and Saudi Arabian Military Industries for the parties to work together to build defense capabilities in the KSA to support Vision 2030 and provide for localization efforts associated with Multi-mission Surface Combatants and Aerostats.
Last edited by brar_w on 21 May 2017 16:49, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15760
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby NRao » 21 May 2017 03:29

Some 100 odd Apaches to be built in SA. Start of a local MIC.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3299
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Cosmo_R » 22 May 2017 00:47

I'd be surprised if this has not been posted before but here goes. Five F-15s against one F-22:

https://youtu.be/EQ7MwfcjCa0

Assuming this is not hype/fake news etc, it's pretty awesome.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14368
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Karan M » 22 May 2017 02:20

No problem, say the opponents. The F-22 knocks out its own pilots.

https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-reas ... -22-pilots
https://www.rt.com/usa/air-force-stealth-cough-699/

Guess time will tell if the USAF fix worked.

Gets even better. The F/A-18 has it too.
https://theaviationist.com/2017/03/29/a ... on-issues/

Take that F-22. The F-18 can match you.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14368
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Karan M » 22 May 2017 02:42

On another note, the F-22s lopsided results against F-15s and F-16s which have X-Band radars point to exactly why J-20 style opponents will be a challenge for the IAF as well, unless it has large aperture AESAs on all its fighters (assuming that the J-20 is no F-22 and is LO, not true VLO).

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3299
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Cosmo_R » 22 May 2017 05:49

Karan M wrote:On another note, the F-22s lopsided results against F-15s and F-16s which have X-Band radars point to exactly why J-20 style opponents will be a challenge for the IAF as well, unless it has large aperture AESAs on all its fighters (assuming that the J-20 is no F-22 and is LO, not true VLO).


Exactly. So what's the 'gap filler' until AMCA comes along?

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4071
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Neshant » 22 May 2017 07:27

^^ Hopefully incremental improvements and upgrades of existing 4/4+ gen aircraft.

Its only practical if India has IP ownership that comes with building its own plane (e.g. Tejas).

Foreign manufacturers will be less than willing to provide detailed aircraft information needed for improvements/upgrades without handing the IAF a big bill.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2199
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby darshhan » 22 May 2017 11:56

Cosmo_R wrote:
Karan M wrote:On another note, the F-22s lopsided results against F-15s and F-16s which have X-Band radars point to exactly why J-20 style opponents will be a challenge for the IAF as well, unless it has large aperture AESAs on all its fighters (assuming that the J-20 is no F-22 and is LO, not true VLO).


Exactly. So what's the 'gap filler' until AMCA comes along?


and how exactly will amca detect and take on J20 ?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60263
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Singha » 22 May 2017 14:30

We will need pervasive datalinks and 3rd party picture from S L and vhf band flying and ground platforms.

Fighter nose x band is not going to hack it.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60263
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Singha » 22 May 2017 14:33

abhik wrote:^^^
It's just reverse jizya or protection money all oily GCC countries pay to the US and​ the euros. Quit standard stuff.


Saudis need jobs for local people ...this is one way local assembly

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33452
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby shiv » 23 May 2017 07:38

Who wrote this article? Why? It is an exaggeration? Is it politically motivated?

I am interested because this "kool aid" of bad guys dying at standoff ranges has become general knowledge on BRF where people are saying "Don't risk men. Don't risk aircraft" as a strong but possibly erroneous American wind blows across the biggest sources of information of English speaking Indians. Read the quote below to see what I mean..

How Desert Storm Destroyed the US Military
The day Desert Storm ended, the death of the US military commenced.

The Pentagon, basking in glory and bowing to pressure from the public and crackpot feminists like Patricia Schroeder, started drinking the Kool Aid and they’ve never stopped. The war was a video game, a clean, quick rout. Modern war was now sanitized, where the bad guys would die at stand-off ranges of a mile or two and explode in little black and white pixels on Pentagon TV screens. In fact, war was now so quick and so easy that women should be allowed to serve in the combat arms and Special Forces.

Our victory in Desert Storm became the catalyst for every left wing wacko to hack at the military with a meat cleaver.

Since, 1991, the US military has been slowly coming apart at the seams. Stress cards, open homosexuality, transgenders on active duty, sensitivity training, pregnancy simulators for male troopers, lactation stations in the field, babies born on US ships of war, female graduates of Ranger School, including a 37 year old mother (it’s funny how the women looked so well fed), women in the SEALs, women in Marine infantry units and females in the field artillery (even though most cannot carry a 155mm round) are just some of the insanity that has taken place in the last 26 years, but which snowballed into hell under the Obama administration.

A social revolution engulfed the military, starting with Tailhook and continuing to this day. Warriors were forced out and feather merchants and PC flag bearers were promoted. Girl power was in and masculinity was out. The warrior culture was buried and a new culture was reborn that resembles corporate America, not the US military of yesteryear.

abhik
BRFite
Posts: 1987
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby abhik » 23 May 2017 18:21

Singha wrote:
abhik wrote:^^^
It's just reverse jizya or protection money all oily GCC countries pay to the US and​ the euros. Quit standard stuff.


Saudis need jobs for local people ...this is one way local assembly

Torquing screws on a shop floor is beneath most aam Saudis​ dignity no? I was thinking it will mostly be Indians, Pakis and the like with some fake "supervisor" roles reserved for the citizens.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 14 Jun 2017 14:41

US Air Force Range capabilities being upgraded specifically focused at providing improved training and range support to 5th generation fighters. This follows some unique, unspecified number (and features) of threat replicating radars that were acquired by the Air Force Red Team (also from Lockheed) in the late 2000s as per budget documents of the time.

Unlike the current contract those are unlikely to be training and support but more likely to have been used for test and validation activity for current and future designs.

Lockheed To Develop SAM Radar For Fighter Training


Lockheed Martin has been chosen by the U.S. Air Force to develop a “threat radar” capable of mimicking foreign-made “medium-range, double-digit” surface-to-air missiles (SAMs).

The Advanced Radar Threat System-Variant 2 (ARTS-V2) will replicate the physical shape, mobility, radio frequency signals, self-protective countermeasures and tactics, techniques and procedures of adversary air defense weaponry employed by states such as Russia, China, Iran or North Korea. The range training device will complement a long-range variant called ARTS-Version 1, which is being developed separately.

The Air Force says in a June 12 contract notice that it has awarded Lockheed Martin Missiles & Fire Control of Grand Prairie, Texas, a contract valued at $108 million for the development and test of ARTS-V2 with options for production of up to 20 units.

The firm beat out one unnamed contender for the contract, probably Northrop Grumman. The government committed $25 million at the time of the award.

It is perhaps fitting that Lockheed, which developed the world’s first operational fifth-generation, low-observable fighter aircraft, the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II, would also develop the SAM fire control radars that those aircraft will train against.

The Air Force says it has a “fifth-generation aircrew training gap,” because the legacy range apparatus that its most modern warplanes currently train against is not as stressing and sophisticated as the real-world threats entering operational service around the globe. Those include domestic, exportable and derivative versions of the Russian S-300/S-400 and Chinese HQ-9 integrated air defense systems.



ARTS-V2 Fielding Locations:

• Nevada Test and Training Range, Nevada

• Utah Test and Training Range, Utah

• Poinsett Electronic Training Range, Shaw AFB, South Carolina

• Barry M. Goldwater Range, Luke AFB, Arizona

• Yukon/Oklahoma Training Areas, Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex, Alaska

• Savannah Combat Readiness Training Center, Georgia

• Smoky Hill Air National Guard Range, Salina, Kansas

• Volk Field Combat Readiness Training Center, Wisconsin



The device, which is essentially a collection of radar dishes mounted on a trailer, is a so-called high-fidelity threat emitter designed to replicate “anti-access/area-denial environments” for live aircrew training. “It will provide threat-accurate radar tracking and reactivity to include acquiring, tracking and engaging multiple aircraft simultaneously with representative receiver/processor and electronic counter-countermeasures,” the Air Force says in an ARTS-V2 contracting document.

A draft schedule released last year sought 15 units, with initial operational capability slated for fiscal 2021/22 and full operational capability by fiscal 2024/25. But the contract awarded to Lockheed this week seeks 20 units by June 2027, with the first step being development and assembly of a production-representative unit.

The performance specifications of the ARTS-V2 are classified, according to government contracting notices. Version 1 (long range) and Version 2 (medium range) appear to be the most pressing need for the Air Force, but the service’s fiscal 2018 budget request includes funding for Versions 3 and 4.

The Air Force ARTS-V2 will be installed at eight ranges initially and potentially more, given the increase in quantity. The first two sites are the service’s premier training ranges in Utah and Nevada. The multinational F-35A training base at Luke AFB in Arizona will also receive some number of ARTS-V2s.

Development and upgrade of the radar system will be done in close collaboration with U.S. intelligence organizations such as the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Missile and Space Intelligence Center in Huntsville, Alabama.



From Jane's Article on the same :

USAF moves forward with Advanced Radar Threat System Variant 2 acquisition



Under a USD108.3 million firm-fixed-price contract awarded by the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control will undertake the development and test of a single Advanced Radar Threat System Variant 2 (ARTS-V2) production representative system. The contract includes options for the follow-on manufacture of up to 20 production systems.

The ARTS programme, formerly named Joint Threat Emitter Increment 2, is intended to develop, design, build, and test threat system simulators based on advanced foreign-fielded surface-to-air missile radar threat systems for use on US Department of Defense training ranges to support aircrew training and tactics development. Various aircraft platforms may train against ARTS, but the most stringent requirements placed on ARTS design come from fifth-generation aircraft.

According to the USAF, ARTS-V2 is a ruggedised, mobile system intended to develop and field a high-fidelity threat emitter, focused on tactical, mobile, short/medium-range radar threat systems, for live aircrew training for anti-access/area denial environments. As such, it will replicate RF signals and waveforms to create a realistic electromagnetic environment in which to train aircrew "in the employment of fifth-generation aircraft against foreign fielded live double-digit surface-to-air missile threat systems".

Functionality will include the generation of "threat accurate radar tracking and reactivity" to include acquiring, tracking, and engaging multiple aircraft simultaneously with representative receiver/processor and electronic counter-countermeasure capabilities (the system radar signal will meet threat representative parametric data of the actual threat). ARTS-V2 will also provide multispectral threat representation.

Additionally, the ARTS-V2 system will provide threat representative full effective radiated power, replicate threat signals, antenna patterns, operational modes and threat tactics capabilities, and the capability to send real-time radar data to the Range Control Center in conjunction with the range's Digital Integrated Air Defense System-controlled threat environment for processing and analysis.

A sources sought synopsis for the ARTS-V1 system, intended to emulate the capabilities of a strategic, long-range, relocatable surface-to-air missile system, was released by the Air Force Materiel Command in January this year. According to the solicitation, ARTS-V1 is envisaged as "a robust and ruggedised Passive Electronically Scanning Array [PESA] system that is transportable, tracks, and/or engages multiple targets simultaneously, and is reactive to aircrew/aircraft defensive measures". An acquisition effort is expected to start in fiscal year 2020.

ARTS-V1 Engineering and Manufacturing Development is being completed under the Navy Closed Loop PESA System (CLPS) Program, on contract with Georgia Technical Research Institute (GTRI) and Electronic Warfare Associates: the USAF anticipates receipt of a production Technical Data Package, all relevant and required configuration control documentation, and a production representative article from the CLPS programme.


While the Advanced Radar Threat System-Variant 1 and Advanced Radar Threat System-Variant 2 are separate programs with separate contracts, they are to be linked together to form a seamless string of long and medium range sensor replicators. Here's a short passage from a Journal of Electronic Defense (Association of Old Crows) article on the Advanced Radar Threat System-Variant 1 from 2013.

"ARTS-Vl is a robust, ruggedized, mobile system. It will provide threat-accurate radar tracking and reactivity, to include tracking and engaging multiple aircraft simultaneously with representative receiver/processor and electronic counter-counter-measure capabilities. The ARTS-Vl System Performance Specification (SPS) outlines the parameters and requirements the ARTS-Vl must meet.

In addition, the system radar signature will meet threat representative parametric data of the actual threat as defined in the Integrated Technical Evaluation & Analysis of Multiple Sources (ITEAMS) reports associated with the threat and the Electronic Warfare Integrated Re-programming (EWIR) database. The system will provide threat representative full effective radiated power (ERP), replicate threat signals, antenna patterns, and threat tactics capabilities.

ARTS-Vl will also connect to the range integrated air defense system (IADS)-controlled threat environment and will communicate with range network systems." The most pressing requirement is to develop a realistic threat emitter that can provide training for pilots flying fifth-generation fighter aircraft.


There was a similar, smaller scale program that sought to replicate the IR spectrum threats as well and that included dummy SAM launches, and replicated TEL visual, IR and RF signatures for realistic training but that seems to have disappeared, possibly transferred over to the synthetic/virtual side of the equation although stressing IR sensors will be a training concern especially with the F-35's 360 degree multi-spectral (EOTS-NG) capability that will be fielded in the hundreds.

Similarly, the T&E efforts have also leveraged the UHF AESA Long range Surveillance radar that has been present at White Sands for around 5 years now.

Image

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 15 Jun 2017 19:37

A lengthy article on the characteristics and test-bed integration of the Increment-1 Next Gen Jammer (Mid-Band) from the Phased Array Systems and Technology (PAST), 2016 IEEE International Symposium. LINK

Do note that these are Technology Development and Risk Reduction pod flights and involve a partially populated prototype pod. Since then the program has transitioned from tech development to full scale EMD (Increment-1 passed its Critical Design Review earlier this year) with IOC expected in 2021 for the Mid-Band Increment-1 program, while it is expected in the Mid-2020s for the Low Band Increment-2 program which is going into competition for source selection later this year or early next year.

INTRODUCTION

The next generation of Electronic Warfare (EW) systems requires significant enhancements in a wide range of technologies, synergistically integrated, to remain relevant against evolving future threats. Threat systems are becoming more adaptable, networked, agile in time, and have capabilities across the spectrum.

EW systems must evolve with these threats to maintain effectiveness in all the warfighting domains: land, air, sea, space and cyberspace. The electromagnetic spectrum (EMS), an emerging sixth domain, is a battle space that offers opportunities for high tech dominance. It also presents an opportunity for low budget bad actors to operate effectively. We must be able to counter any adverse use of the spectrum.
Therefore our ability to maneuver in the EMS with systems that have an extremely wide operating frequency range, adjustable high efficient power, and fully arbitrary waveforms for radar, communications or EW is a must.

Enabling EW technologies for current and future threats must provide the ability to be RF-agile, adaptable, and for many missions high power. The system must have the ability to maneuver within the spectrum, monitor it and deliver a precise waveform where and when it is needed.
Key attributes include wide operating bandwidths, rapid switching, directive electronically scanned beams, full polarization diversity, and adaptive waveforms for superior spectrum maneuverability and manipulation. Raytheon has developed many unique Active Electronically Scanned Arrays (AESAs).

The AESA presented here is unique in that it is designed for EW application. The MFIRES software defined receiver/exciter also described here has the capability to deliver any EW technique within the EW mission space. Core technological advances are not limited to the RF sub-systems but are also needed for power generation and thermal management. Advances in efficient prime power generation and power handling are needed to deliver sufficient power for future secure standoff ranges.

ADVANCED TECH NOLOGY EW SYSTEMS REQUIRED

There are many applications of EW. One motivating mission is shown in Figure 1. An initial phase of an air battle is the ability to achieve air superiority by degrading an enemy's Integrated Air Defense System (IADS). This is accomplished by breaking the kill chain of the enemy's IADS. An IADS system is composed of many radar systems each designed for a specific function and related communication systems for command and control. Each type of radar, (early warning, target acquisition, ground control intercept, or fire control), operates at a different frequency band with unique waveforms.

The total frequency band can range from UHF to X Band. Therefore, an effective EW system must have a significantly wider operating frequency bandwidth than any one radar requires. The RF communications networks need to be addressed in addition to the radars. This adds a significant waveform flexibility requirement to the EW system.

The US military has suggested that the EMS is a critical warfighting domain [2]. The US Navy has initiated the Electromagnetic Maneuver Warfare (EMW) concept [3]. EMW must be enabled by Advanced Technologies that are capable of RF-agility over a very wide bandwidth, adaptable waveforms, and for many missions high power. Technologies are under development that will provide all the key elements
required to enable EMW. The most important technology development is the AESA. An EW AESA is very different from any existing radar or communication AESA. Radar arrays have much lower frequency bandwidth requirements.

They usually only need to be single polarization: vertical or horizontal. And do not require 100% transmit duty cycle. The duty cycle reduces the average power output and therefore reduces the prime power and thermal management requirement. Communication systems do require dual polarization; however, the array usually requires less power output. The transmit and receive functions can also be separated into two antennas; one for transmit and one for receive. The wide bandwith and dual polarization requirement of an EW system stresses aperture design as well as the mechanical and thermal density of the T/R module elements.

One of the key enabling technologies is the development of the GaN power amplifier for it's high power and efficiency. The dual polarization is essential because the EW system must match the polarization of whatever system it is encountering. Having dual orthogonal radiating elements enables a system to become polarization selectable.

The other key technology is the receiver/exciter. This is the heart and brains of the system. With the tremendous flexibility and adaptability required, the receiver/exciter must be programmable and have enormous throughput. The function of the receiver/exciter is to complement the RF front end with the ability to receive, to process and to transmit any signal of interest (SOI). The receiver/exciter must be capable of processing waveforms for Electronic Support (ES), Electronic Protection (EP), Electronic Attack (EA), & Communications Waveforms. Frequency selection, bandwidth adaptation, detection and demodulation are required. In addition to all the processing capabilities customers usually require that the processor be a Modular Open Scalable Architecture (MOSA). The IADS mission is just one of many EW missions, but it adequately depicts the rationale for the enhanced technology requirements of EW over traditional radar and communications systems.

“FIRST FLIGHT” SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

A photograph of the "First Flight" Pod is shown in Figure 2 being mounted on a Gulfstream-III aircraft, under contract with Calspan Aerospace. The pod is securely seated on a low profile carrier that is wheeled in place under the MAU-40 mounting pylon under the G-III. The interface cables are connected; then the pod is raised in place and securely mounted to the pylon. The installation is quick and uncomplicated. There are four electrical cables that provide the electrical interface: the signals contain RF, digital control, data, and voltages.

Image

"First Flight" Pod being loaded onto the Gulfstream-III test bed.

The pod is an aluminum structure with a wideband radome in the front and rear of the pod. Both radomes are identical. The equipment internal to the pod includes the AESA (located in the forward radome), the array power supply (APS, located just behind the AESA), a submerged Ram Air Turban- Generator (RAT-G), a liquid cooling system (LCS), and an instrumentation system. The AESA meets all of the requirements mentioned above for EW missions. This array is uniquely capable of operating full power continuous wave (CW) (100% duty cycle) for transmit. It is also capable of pulsed operation, switching very rapidly between transmit and receive at any duty cycle.

The AESA is very wide band with active transmit-receive (T/R) modules in tile configuration that contain efficient highpower GaN amplifiers in the transmit path, and low-noise amplifiers in the receive path. Both paths contain phase shifters and gain control elements. The wideband array enables the spectrum agility and access needed for Spectrum Maneuver Warfare. The array is mounted on the front of the pod. The dual-polarized aperture elements enable the system polarization to be selectable. The array contains a digital controller that communicates with the MFIRES software defined receiver/exciter unit (SDREU) and sends digital signals to each module setting up the parameters that control the AESA beam (beam pointing angle, polarization, frequency, etc.)

The MFIRES SDREU, shown in Figure 3, is located in the cabin. This configuration was most convenient for the First Flight system. However, future demonstrations would likely locate the MFIRES SDREU in the pod. Both the timing and control and the RF signal are generated in the MFIRES SDREU and sent to the array. The RF system is under the control of the System Director operating one of the system workstations.

The System Director workstation receives the navigation (NAV) data; computes the desired beam pointing angle; and sends it to the AESA digital controller directly. The beam steering information is applied to all the AESA modules when the MFIRES SDREU triggers a beam change. The timing and synchronization between the AESA and MFIRES SDREU is very critical; and is a key requirement for the successful operation of the EW RF system - they must operate as one.

Figure 4 shows the First Flight operations center in the GIII cabin; where there are 4 operator seats. The functions of the 4 seats are System Operator, Pod Operator, Test Director, and RF signal monitor. The pod operator is responsible for bringing up the power generation system after the G-III enters the test range. The pod operator also has control of the liquid cooling system and the instrumentation system.

Image

Fig. 4. View of G-III Cabin showing the 4 seats with computer monitors.

The instrumentation system provides feedback status of all the pod systems. The feedback provided for the servo operation of the doors and the conditions of the power generation system is critical for assurance that the system is working correctly and all is safe. When the pod operator is satisfied the system is ready for RF radiation, the System Operator brings up the RF system. The system operator controls the RF system which includes the AESA, the APS, and the MFIRES SDREU. It is the system operator that selects the EW techniques to be generated. The test director is responsible for conducting the test and has a display of the target and aircraft location overlaying the test range and the location of the emitters. He is responsible for monitoring the flight path and communicating with the aircraft operators and ground systems to determine when radiation begins and the different techniques are to be generated. The engineer in the RF signal monitor seat is responsible for making sure the RF wave forms intended are being generated and sent to the AESA in the pod.

Figure 5 shows the system Functional Block Diagram describing the connectivity between all of the subsystems discussed above. The Pod Operator work station connects to the Speed Control Servo system via the Ethernet which controls the door actuators and the power generation system. The door control system adjusts the flow of the airstream to maintain proper RAT-G speed and power generator output to the Generator Control Unit (GCU). The GCU controls and limits the DC voltage to the APS. The APS converts the input power to all the different voltages and currents required by the AESA. The Speed Control System also responds to the instantaneous power input required by the APS/AESA. The System Operator work station communicates and controls the MFIRES unit and the AESA via Ethernet connections; the MFIRES in turn controls the AESA beam state triggering through the cabin to pod interface.

Image
relationship between the subsystems. Pod hardware is located above the “Pod to Cabin Cabling.” Cabin hardiware is located below.

The MFIRES SDREU operates over the full AESA operating bandwidth. It contains multi-channel up and down converter cards, a general purpose computer, and signal processing (SP) cards. The ADCs and DACs in the SPs are high dynamic range and sample rate. Therefore the SP cards operate via Direct Digital Synthesis (DDS). The SP cards derive their signal processing power form the programmable FPGAs and DSPs. The architecture of the MFIRES SDREU is modular so that the number of receiver/exciter processing channels is configurable for the application. This multichannel processor enables passive detection and tracking of signals of interest (SOIs). It processes the data, selects the frequencies, and provides the match filtering. The system then generates the desired wave form that is sent to the AESA and is radiated to the target. Since the AESA is electronically steerable, the transmit energy is focused on target with maximum Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP).

The Instrumentation unit collects the data from each subsystem in the pod and sends it back to the pod operator work station via the Ethernet. The instrumentation unit is shown in Figure 6; it provides a wealth of data. Status of the power generation, door control system, APS, and LCS are displayed and monitored by the Pod Operator. Figure 6 also shows one of the instrumentation displays. Vendor supplied software collects and logs instrumentation data for post flight analysis.

FLIGHT TEST

The "First Flight" advanced jammer pod design and development was intense, rapid and involved many different Raytheon organizations. The completion of the integration and test commenced on October 7, 2014 with the successful Airworthiness flight that included mechanical checks, aircraft handling and vibration monitoring (see Figure 6). With a completely successful Airworthiness test, the final pod, cabin equipment, and aircraft integration testing was completed. On October 9, 2014 the ground based Electromagnetic Interference/Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMI/EMI) and Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) system checks were successfully completed at the edge of a remote runway at our operational airport.

Then on October 16, 2014, the Gulfstream III test bed roared to life as it sped down the runway on its way to the test range. The mission was to demonstrate successful system integration, array transmit power, jamming techniques and jammer management. This "First Flight," as it is now so named, was 100% successful. High-G Productions was contracted to photograph the "First Flight" mission. Figure 7 is one of the photographs taken of the First Flight mission.

Image

Power Measurements.

The first test was to measure the system EIRP. The flight path is shown in Figure 8. Raytheon's Mobile Range (RMR), an RF power measurement system, was located at the edge of a remote runway at our operational airport (approximately point B on Figure 8). The system radiated RF power as the G-III flew from point A to point B. With the range from G-III to RMR taken into account, the pointing angle, beamshape loss, and the RMR dB budget, it was determined that the expected EIRP was being generated.

Electronic Attack (EA) Demonstration and Flight Test
against the first emitter


The G-III then proceeded to the flight path shown in Figure 9. The view shed area that an aircraft flying at 20 Kft can be seen by this emitter is somewhat limited because the surrounding terrain. The G-III therefore needed to fly within a tighter region. When other restrictions to the allowed flight path are taken into account the flight pattern shown in Figure 9 is the result. The emitter is located just below the center of the flight path. The system was in CW transmit mode only for this test. More than a half dozen techniques were transmitted. The best techniques, created completely white PPI displays.

EA Demonstration and Flight Test against the second
emitter.


The second emitter was better located and provides a much larger view shed area. The flight path for this test is shown in Figure 10. Both transmit and receive modes were utilized for this test. The system was transmitting most of the time and proved to be very effective. The second emitter can perform with the operator choosing any one of a number of selectable frequency pairs. The initial flight test operated in receive only mode to verify that the First Flight system was acquiring and tracking the emitter waveform.

The next test was the desired EA technique during which the test director selected (via radio to the control center) the frequency pair. The emitter operator would announce the effect then the next frequency pair was requested until all frequency pairs were completed. Every frequency pair resulted in the announcement that the PPI displays were completely "white." A white display means that the screen is full of targets and the operator cannot find the real target (i.e., the GIII).

The final test instructed the emitter operator to manually change frequency pairs at will as fast or slow as desired. Again the PPI displays were called out to be white. The system was rapidly detecting the emitter pulses at the new frequency and tracking them. This test was repeated by adding noise to the transmitted waveform. There was no change in the outcome; the display was white in every case….

Image
Image

SUMMARY
First Flight was enormously successful. All of the planned EW missions were completed. Effective jamming of two different emitter systems from the G-III shows the maturity of the system in a relevant airborne environment. The pod generated and controlled its own prime power from the air stream under varying electrical loads. The test demonstrated performance from an end-to-end integrated system.

The AESA utilized Raytheon’s Gallium Nitride (GaN) technology in a high power, high gain, agile beam antenna. Both Transmit/Receive jamming and transmit only jamming was demonstrated through a single aperture. And most importantly, synchronized timing and rapid switching between the MFIRES SDREU and the AESA was demonstrated. The AESA beam was dynamically steered and controlled in-flight. The First Flight pod successfully demonstrated the submerged RAT-G that exclusively provides the prime power to the complete RF jamming system within the pod. And rapid reprogramability was demonstrated with the Polarization Diversity flight test.Future testing is anticipated to demonstrate the ability to conduct both EA and Communications EA since the RF system is designed to meet EW requirements for both radar and communication systems.

The First Flight system is capable of Comm, and radar EW, enabling EA/Multifunction convergence.





UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8439
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby UlanBatori » 17 Jun 2017 06:59

New Naval Tactic: Stop a Merchant Ship by tripping her up with a destroyer.

I mean, how the heck does that collision occur on a ship equipped with radar that can see 100,000 m away? Looks like the bow of the merchant ship smashed right into the Bridge structure?

Prithwiraj
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 57
Joined: 21 Dec 2016 18:48

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Prithwiraj » 17 Jun 2017 07:38

UlanBatori wrote:New Naval Tactic: Stop a Merchant Ship by tripping her up with a destroyer.

I mean, how the heck does that collision occur on a ship equipped with radar that can see 100,000 m away? Looks like the bow of the merchant ship smashed right into the Bridge structure?


I had the exact same question. How come they could not spot a giant container ship with all the futuris sensors and radars? More of then not USN ships have the habit of colliding with merchant vessels over the years including the submarine incident with japanese fisheries boat

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60263
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Singha » 17 Jun 2017 09:43

It was at night 2.30am

Iirc one of the talwar class had a collision with merchant ship at night off mumbai though not as severe.

At the time one theory was both ships had the navigation radar off or not functioning.

Apart from the hit by bow the bulging underwater nose of the container ship holed it underwater so pumps can be seen at 3 places

7 ppl are missing probably overboard without life jackets ..not good. This will be a court martial for officers on deck and end of captains career

Also note a merchant at 18knots will need about a couple of miles to stop using full astern props and hundreds of meters to turn 90'

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19583
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Austin » 17 Jun 2017 10:38

Some of the merchies folks told me the surface surv radar are not reliable under bad weather , so you need a watch guy on deck and some one looking at scope to make sure you don't end up hitting any one

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17219
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Philip » 17 Jun 2017 11:41

Subs with their anechoic coatings on the hull make it virtually impossible for merchant vessels,fishing boats to spot. In ther intl. Navy td. I've put forth some points. One extra point is whether the DDG had some of its EW warfare eqpt. on,"blinding" the merchantman. However,there is no report about weather being bad,poor visibility etc.,and the container ship's port and starboard navigation/running lights would've indicated to the warship her course,position,heading,etc.,which would've indicated to the warship that she was on a collision course.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60263
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Singha » 17 Jun 2017 12:37

1000s of japan fishing trawlers armed only with a 15km range navigation radar ply the same waters

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17219
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Philip » 19 Jun 2017 11:03

It is most surprising that F-18 pilots are dying due to faulty oxygen systems,on an aircraft that has served the US for decades.57 incidents prior to 2017!
F-35 oxygen issues have also cropped up delaying the full induction of that fighter.
This has been an issue for far too long.I can't understand why the USN seek other western OEMs for their help.Nothing wrong to seek assistance from one's allies.Even some Ru civilian airliners use western engines which are more fuel efficient.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/16/polit ... index.html
US Navy fighter pilot deaths tied to oxygen issues
Zachary Cohen-Profile-Image
By Zachary Cohen, CNN
Updated 0920 GMT (1720 HKT) June 17, 2017
Navy says over half of its air fleet can't fly
Now Playing Is the A-10 headed for...

Trump says fighter jet is too expensive (2016)

Story highlights
Released on Thursday, the Navy report details findings of an investigation that was launched in March
Pilots reported physiological episodes resulting in dizzyness or even blackouts
Washington (CNN)The US Navy has linked the deaths of four F/A-18 Hornet pilots to "physiological episodes" that occurred while the aircraft was airborne, according to an in-depth review of oxygen system failures that are plaguing the service's primary fighter jet and T-45 training aircraft.

Released on Thursday, the Navy report details findings of an investigation that was launched in March after more than 100 T-45 instructional pilots refused to fly in protest at continuing issues with the aircraft's oxygen system. :(
That protest occurred just days after Navy officials described a rising rate of "physiological episodes" (PEs) affecting pilots who fly all models of F-18 aircraft, especially the Boeing-built Super Hornet, during testimony on Capitol Hill.

Navy puts 'safety pause' on trainer jet fleet
Pilots reported that physiological episodes resulting in dizzyness or even blackouts have been caused by oxygen contamination, human factors -- including air sickness and vertigo, failure of the on-board oxygen generation system and the failure of other key systems -- according to March testimony from Rear Adm. Michael Moran.
According to the Navy, the four F-18 pilot deaths, which occurred over a span of 10 years, are not all the direct result an oxygen system failure but are linked by the fact that pilots experienced various symptoms that fall within the scope of what is described as a physiological episode.

Navy fighter jets depriving pilots of oxygen

Although FA-18 aircrews have experienced PEs attributed to breathing air problems, the majority of recent serious incidents have been attributed to issues related to the aircraft's environmental control system, which supports air quality in the cockpit and cabin pressurization malfunctions, according to the report.
Physiological episodes in T-45 pilots have not led to a fatality, according to the report but a recent spike in symptoms reported by training pilots mirrors the troubling trend observed among F/A-18 Hornet pilots.
Investigators have documented a steady rise reports of physiological episodes among T-45 and F/A-18 pilots since 2012. T-45 incidents rose from 13 in 2012 to 38 in 2016 while reports among F-18 pilots increased from 57 in 2012 to 114 in 2016.

F-18 pilots have already reported 52 incidents to date in 2017.
F-35 fighters grounded over oxygen problems


While investigators were able to offer several steps to mitigate the risk of physiological episodes, they were not able to identify the root cause of a problem that has also been observed in Navy pilots who fly EA-18G Growlers and at least five members of an Air Force F-35 fighter airwing.
"To date, finding a solution ... has proved elusive," the report said.
"The complexity of aircraft human-machine interfaces and the unforgiving environment in which aircrew operate will continue to generate PEs whenever systems do not operate as intended or human physiology is a factor."
According to Moran's March testimony, determining the cause of these incidents has been complicated by the fact that "symptoms related to depressurization, tissue hypoxia and contaminant intoxication overlap."
Hypoxia results from deficiency in the amount of oxygen delivered to cells and can induce potentially fatal complications.
The exact causes of the four F/A-18 deaths are redacted in the Navy's review, but it does note that the service has now implemented mitigation procedures that could prevent similar incidents from resulting in fatalities going forward.
"Subsequent to these mishaps, training to recognize the symptoms increased and procedures now stress the importance of selecting emergency oxygen as a first step. Correct application of emergency oxygen would have likely prevented these mishaps," according to the investigation report.
The Navy has also implemented several training and procedural actions for the T-45.
These risk mitigation procedures are intended to ensure aircrew safety while the Navy continues to investigate the root cause of the problem within both aircraft, the report said.
Often described as the backbone of naval aviation, the various F-18 aircraft make up most of the service's strike fighter fleet.

The military has a wish list for Congress -- and it's more than $31 billion long

The F/A-18 Super Hornet is the newest model and was designed to have a lifespan of roughly 6,000 flight hours. But today, jets are being stretched to fly between 8,000 and 9,000 hours to fulfill mission expectations as a result of fewer operational aircraft, budget restrictions and delays to the fifth-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
Boeing, which has continuously updated the Super Hornet with new electronics, bigger fuel tanks and new stealth features, has pitched the Navy jet as a more affordable alternative to the F-35.
The Navy included funding for 14 Super Hornets in its initial 2018 budget and has asked for an additional $739 million as part of its "unfunded requirements" list to add another 10 aircraft.
The Navy estimates a portion of their current F/A-18 fleet will remain in use through 2030.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 19 Jun 2017 14:50

F-35 oxygen issues have also cropped up delaying the full induction of that fighter.


Tried hard to sneak that one in? The F-35 issues are not delaying induction. The F-35B and A have declared IOC and are operational with the two respective services. F-35As are flying in the US, Europe, Middle East and even Pacific. F-35Bs are operational with the USMC are are currently deployed in Japan. F-35C is going to IOC next year when full capability with block 3F is delivered. That is a minimum USN requirement and the only thing that is 'holding them back'. There is no 'induction' being delayed because of this. It is an ongoing issue that has increased and cropped up at one air-force base with one type of aircraft resulting in a precautionary grounding of aircraft at that air force base. Rest of the aircraft at other bases are flying, and the F-35A will be performing at the Paris Air Show later today. Issues with systems or sub-systems occur at various stages of a weapons systems life as has been seen with the Hornets, Raptors and Flanker series etc.


Note here that there are more F-35s currently flying around the world then their are F-22s or Rafales. It is a post induction issue and appropriate precautionary steps will be taken as is the case with any issue that occurs on a military system at any stage of its life. If something needs investigating, it will be investigated, appropriate groundings issued etc as has happened at Luke AFB. It will not stop or change the path to induction or FOC. USMC still FOCs with full block 3F and USAF's FOC is squadron strength and manpower dependent and has nothing to do with capability of software or any issues.

Physiological issues have occurred with Hornet, Super Hornet, and Growler fleets among others including the trainers but have not resurfaced on the F-22 fleet after corrective measures were taken with the vests and CO cleaning processes there. Yes it is strange with the Hornet since its decades into induction but it could very well be a process thing for all we know. As I had explained in the other thread, unlike the F-22, where their was no bakup initially, the F-35's system has backup O2 in case their is an OBOGS issue and as has been reported it has kicked in when required.

Most western fighter aircraft (F-22, Typhoon, F-35, Gripen) share a common OBOGS supplier, including IAF's BAE Hawk. Long term, various measuring sensors are currently being tested or further developed to further enhance the ability to detect physiological episodes. Both Elta and Cobham have demonstrated such face_mask based sensors to the US services of late.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19583
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Austin » 29 Jun 2017 11:40

Amazing missile test : How to Sink Warships: U.S. Navy Reveals Anti-Ship SM-6 Missile


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19583
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Austin » 29 Jun 2017 11:41

Any information on latest variant of SM-6 in terms of Top & Avg Speed , Range and Guidance of SM-6 missile.

Seems like SM-6 is dual purpose anti-ship and anti-air missile from little info I read

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 29 Jun 2017 15:09

I have not come across the speeds of the SM6, but it is required to and has intercepted MRBM class missiles/targets (1000-3000 km ranged missiles as per MDA classification) at medium altitudes so one could work out a range of requirements in that department if one does the some math around that.

Maximum reported range is 200nm/370km (more have also been reported but most analysts believe it to be a 200nm class weapon) for an appropriate target but they have one body bump ( moving from 13.5 inch to a 21 inch main body) that they can add to increase it closer to if not beyond 300nm/550km but more importantly create a variant capable of doing terminal IRBM intercepts as US Navy doesn't own THAAD and won't allow a liquid DACS weapon on its ships).

The front end borrows the architecture from the AMRAAM program, scales up the antenna, adds a new digital processor, and other SM6 specific components (AMRAAM is now getting upgraded with the same signal processor technology). It still fully retains the SM2s Semi-Active mode on top of active modes and intercept strategies. This is a key USN requirement since even the Block II ESSM is required to fully retain the block Is Semi-Active mode on top of the RF active seeker it is being upgraded with. The SM6 however lacks the dual RF+IR approach of the SM2 Block III B, something the USN was able to do away with because they were going to keep the SM2 for a long time since there is a new digital active seeker in development for it.

That the SM6 has a dual mode capability of air to air and anti surface is no surprise. The SM2 has that too. The SM6 is also fully networked from the block 1 onwards (the 200-300 missiles delivered in the pre block 1 configuration will be upgraded) which means that it can be launched on remote, or forward pass mode with the cues coming from any aircraft or sensor currently tied to NIFC-CA. The Marines just tested an F-35B to target a cruise missile using the SM6 where it was the AN/APG-81 radar that provided the track, and the target was never detected by the AEGIS radar (horizon).

The active-radar seeker gives the SM-6 an over-the-horizon capability using target data obtained from remote sensors via the Co-operative Engagement Capability. Its maximum range of 200 n miles (370 km) is intended to allow deep inland control of airspace, particularly against manoeuvring targets. ~ Jane's Missiles & Rockets, November, 2013


Here is the concept of deployment. Baseline-9 Ships (current AEGIS standard) will utilize both Active and Semi-Active modes, while those below the current baseline will use its Semi Active Mode until they are upgraded to Baseline-9. BL9 also is the first iteration where NIFC-CA is enabled on AEGIS. It adds the composite track capability to the AEGIS Radar for data-linking directly to the missile hence opens up longer ranged fully active modes.

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 03 Jul 2017 17:28

This is an interesting development. At the moment, the two non-classified Hypersonic developmental programs, HAWC and TBG have an R&D investment of $1.2 Billion and are being run by DARPA with AFRL as the junior partner. A couple of weeks ago, the US House of Representatives added language into the 2018 defense budget that would give 100% operational control of these programs to the USAF which was a complete 180 degrees to the ways the programs were set up where DARPA would do the heavy lifting until flight demonstrations at which point the DARPA programs would end and the capability transitioned to the USAF (typical of all "DARPA hard" efforts).

Then this pre-solicitation drops and has specific language in it that speaks of "Rapid fielding". If I were to guess I'd guess that there has been some classified breakthrough at AFRL that has high TRL which signals moving it through the acquisition cycle and rapidly fielding it. It doesn't necessarily have to be with he two technologies being developed by these particular program but it is significant enough to warrant rapidly fielding it.

USAF issues Sources Sought notice for rapid fielding of hypersonic strike weapon



The US Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) on 29 June issued a Sources Sought notice for a rapidly-fielded and developed hypersonic, conventional air-launched strike weapon.

According to the notice, capabilities statements are being sought from potential sources "that are capable of accomplishing systems integration of all the elements of a hypersonic, conventional air-launched strike weapon from existing fighter/bomber aircraft and all respective operations/mission planning and sustainment efforts, to include operational safety, suitability, and effectiveness".

"Qualified vendors must be skilled in design, qualification, and component/subsystem testing of the critical elements of the hypersonic missile in representative operational conditions. Qualified vendors must be capable in the following fields: hypersonic aerodynamics, aero-thermal protection systems, solid rocket motors, warhead/missile integration, advanced hypersonic guidance, navigation and control, and aircraft integration."

The notice underscored that the "new weapon system must be designed and analysed for rapid development and fielding". Responses to the notice are required by 14 July 2017.


Updates on the activities on the two non-classified DARPA run (for now) Hypersonic programs -

Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC)

Description: The Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC) program is a Joint DARPA / Air Force effort that will develop and demonstrate technologies to enable transformational changes in responsive, long-range strike against time-critical or heavily defended targets. HAWC will pursue flight demonstration of the critical technologies for an effective and affordable air-launched hypersonic cruise missile. These technologies include advanced air vehicle configurations capable of efficient hypersonic flight, hydrocarbon scramjet-powered propulsion to enable sustained hypersonic cruise, thermal management approaches designed for high-temperature cruise, and affordable system designs and manufacturing approaches. HAWC technologies also extend to reusable hypersonic air platforms for applications such as global presence and space lift. The HAWC program will leverage advances made by the previously funded Falcon, X-51, and HyFly programs. This is a joint program with the Air Force, and HAWC technologies are planned for transition to the Air Force after flight testing is complete.

2016 Accomplishments:

- Completed preliminary design of hypersonic air-breathing missile flight demonstration system. - Completed full-scale freejet propulsion system testing.
- Began fabrication and testing of thermal protection.
- Began detailed design of the hypersonic air-breathing missile flight demonstration system.
- Began creating test-validated performance databases to anchor demonstration vehicle design. - Continued detailed plans for flight testing of the air-breathing missile demonstration system.

2017 Plans

- Update test-validated performance databases to anchor demonstration vehicle design.
- Begin subsystem critical design of hypersonic air-breathing missile flight demonstration system.
- Conduct preliminary traceability assessment between the HAWC demonstration system and the HAWC operational system. - Conduct software architecture and algorithm design.
- Begin software-in-the-loop testing for the demonstration vehicle.
- Begin procurement of long lead hardware for hypersonic air-breathing missile flight demonstration vehicle.
- Initiate flight certification reviews with the test range.
- Begin hardware-in-the-loop testing for the flight demonstration vehicle.
- Initiate full-scale flight-like freejet engine testing.

2018 Plans

- Continue updating test-validated performance databases to anchor demonstration vehicle design. - Complete system critical design of hypersonic air-breathing missile flight demonstration system.
- Continue software-in-the-loop testing for the demonstration vehicle.
- Continue procurement of hardware for hypersonic air-breathing missile flight demonstration vehicle. - Continue flight certification reviews with the test range.
- Continue hardware-in-the-loop testing for the demonstration vehicle.
- Continue full-scale flight-like freejet engine testing.
- Continue detailed plans for flight testing of the air-breathing missile demonstration system.
- Begin full-scale thermal-structural testing.
- Begin procurement of test assets and test support equipment.
- Begin assembly, integration, and test of the air-breathing missile flight demonstration vehicle.


Tactical Boost Glide

Description: The Tactical Boost Glide (TBG) program is a Joint DARPA / Air Force effort that will develop and demonstrate technologies to enable air-launched tactical range hypersonic boost glide systems, including flight demonstration of a vehicle that is traceable to an operationally relevant weapon that can be launched from current platforms. The program will also consider traceability to, and ideally compatibility, with the Navy Vertical Launch System (VLS). The metrics associated with this objective include total range, time of flight, payload, accuracy, and impact velocity. The program will address the system and technology issues required to enable development of a hypersonic boost glide system considering (1) vehicle concepts possessing the required aerodynamic and aero-thermal performance, controllability and robustness for a wide operational envelope, (2) the system attributes and subsystems required to be effective in relevant operational environments, and (3) approaches to reducing cost and improving affordability for both the demonstration system and future operational systems. TBG capabilities are planned for transition to the Air Force and the Navy.

2016 Accomplishments

- Completed operational analysis of the Phase I performer TBG operational systems.
- Completed baseline operational analysis of evolved Government Reference Vehicle (GRV). - Selected TBG demonstration test range.
- Completed Phase I aerodynamic and aerothermal concept testing.
- Completed first generation aero databases.
- Continued risk reduction testing.
- Developed initial flight test plan.
- Updated Technology Maturation Plans (TMPs) and Risk Management Plans (RMPs).
- Completed Preliminary Design Reviews (PDR).
- Completed initial range safety documentation.

2017 Plans

- Conduct All-Up Round (AUR) aerodynamic and aerothermodynamic testing.
- Conduct glider aerodynamic and aerothermodynamic testing.
- Conduct material arcjet testing.
- Complete second generation aero databases.
- Prepare for Critical Design Review (CDR).
- Begin procurement of hardware for demonstration vehicles.
- Begin hardware in the loop (HWIL), software in the loop (SIL), and qualification testing.
- Continue detailed flight test and range safety planning, coordination, and documentation. - Begin advanced operational analysis using GRV to assess new systems and technologies. - Update TMPs and RMPs.

2018 Plans

- Complete Critical Design Review.
- Conduct aeroshell thermo-structural testing.
- Conduct component aerothermal testing.
- Continue procurement of hardware for demonstration vehicles.
- Continue hardware in the loop (HWIL), software in the loop (SIL), and qualification testing. - Begin Assembly, Integration, and Test (AI&T).
- Continue detailed flight test and range safety planning, coordination, and documentation. - Update TMPs and RMPs.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19583
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Austin » 04 Jul 2017 18:09

Tomahawk Upgrade

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 04 Jul 2017 18:22

The graphic above seems to be dated. Raytheon delivered the 3000th Block IV Tomahawk some 4 years ago. It should be closer to 4000 at this point. The original Program was to sunset after delivering around 3800 missiles but that is not going to be the case. They will keep on adding missiles and I wouldn't be surprised if it ends at something like 4500 delivered weapons before they transition into the NGLAW.

The images below show the roadmap for the TLAM (TACTOM and beyond) all the way till its ultimate replacement weapons program which secured initial developmental funding this year, as well as the weapon configuration that will ultimately go head to head against the JASSM/LRASM-XR based longer ranged anti-ship/dual use weapon.

Image
Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19583
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Austin » 05 Jul 2017 14:52

^^ Good Stuff , Thanks

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33452
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby shiv » 11 Jul 2017 09:03


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 11 Jul 2017 15:46



AWIN has this in a lengthy article. Will post it on the stealth thread in a bit.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 25 Jul 2017 19:02

All of the active GaN programs -

Image

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33452
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby shiv » 12 Aug 2017 09:53

http://aviationweek.com/defense/light-a ... c46e7e6e78
aviationweek.com
Light Attack Contenders Square Off For USAF Demo
Lara Seligman
5-6 minutes

HOLLOMAN AFB—The U.S. Air Force is evaluating four off-the-shelf aircraft this month at Holloman AFB, New Mexico, putting each through a series of exercises designed to test its capability in the light attack realm.

The Air Force insists the experiment is not a competition, but rivalry between the four contenders was on full display during the Aug. 9 media day, which drew interest from the highest reaches of the U.S. service, mainstream media like Fox News, and other air forces around the world. The aircraft—Embraer/Sierra Nevada’s A-29 Super Tucano and Textron’s AT-6 Wolverine, both turboprops, as well as Textron’s Scorpion jet and L3-Air Tractor’s AT-802T single-engine Longsword—were positioned side by side under the hot New Mexico sun, as reporters and distinguished visitors clambered to get a better look.

The A-29, which is already flying counterterrorism missions with the Afghan Air Force, and AT-6 were the only two that met the initial requirements for the demonstration, said Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch, the Air Force’s top uniformed acquisition official. The service decided to broaden the pool to include the Scorpion and Longsword, the latter of which does not have an ejection seat or pressurized cockpit, because “it’s an experiment and we’re trying something new, we wanted to open it up to industry,” Bunch explained. North Carolina-based Iomax has modified the Thrush 710 agricultural aircraft to conduct surveillance and strike missions, but did not receive an invitation to participate in the light attack experiment; Bunch said this is because Iomax did not offer a proposal to the Air Force.

Bunch emphasized that it will be up to the manufacturers of the two “tier two” aircraft to work with the Air Force to meet the service’s needs in order to move forward to the next phase, which may include a combat demonstration. Ultimately, the Air Force may buy as many as 300 light attack aircraft to augment the A-10 and other platforms currently fighting terrorists in the Middle East.

During the experiment, the four contenders are being graded on their ability to perform six missions: basic surface attack (BSA), close air support (CAS), daytime ground assault force, rescue escort, night BSA and night CAS. The final test will evaluate the aircraft on their ability to perform in an austere environment, according to Lt. Col. Robert Odom, 704th Test Group deputy commander. The experiment is run by the Air Force Strategic Development Planning and Experimentation Office at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.

In addition to the ability to perform from an austere airfield, the most important characteristics the qualifying aircraft must have are rapid turn rate; the ability to employ certain weapons, sensors and communication systems; low operating costs in the field and affordable procurement cost upfront, Bunch said.

“We want to see if we can meet the demand signal from the combatant commanders that we’ve been facing in a more permissive environment over the last 16 plus years,” Bunch said. “Can we do that with a more cost-effective platform and be able to train and sustain and keep that going at a price rate that we can keep our fourth and fifth-generation aircraft back and let them train for the high-end fight?”

If the two tier one aircraft successfully complete this first phase and the industry players want to continue, the Air Force will work with combatant commanders to set up a combat demonstration, Bunch said. He emphasized that “industry has to want to play in this as well,” and that both government and industry resources will be used.

The broader message of the event is the importance of experimentation to speed up acquisition and get weapons to the warfighter faster, according to Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson. “We can’t just stand back, set out requirements, do analyses of alternatives, spend five years figuring out what exactly we want, put out an RFP, throw it over the fence and take ten years to develop a new technology—the adversary is innovating faster than we are,” Wilson said. “So in order to prevail in 2020 and beyond we have to innovate faster, we have to engage industry and the private sector in helping us to maintain the edge.”

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 782
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Manish_P » 13 Aug 2017 13:14

F-35B helmet's night-vision camera failed during test flight

The $400,000 helmet for the F-35B has a major problem: The night-vision camera does not work when there is no moon, according to video of a test flight aboard the amphibious assault ship America in November.

The problem will take months to fix, said F-35 Joint Program Office spokesman Joe DellaVedova. Potential solutions are expected to be tested in the fall, he said.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 13 Aug 2017 17:02

We discussed this a few weeks ago in the International thread. There was even a video where this was shared by the flight test lead pilot which I shared. The Gen 3+ helmet is currently being tested on land and will head over to the ship whenever they are scheduled for their next test deployment (in a few months time). The fix planned and implemented is to switch to OLED technology among other things specific to this one issue. The Marines aren't expected to take the aircraft on a ship deployment until next year.

Ship operations are part of the USMC F-35B IOC to FOC transition where they expect to wrap all developmental testing (FOC configuration) by early next year. There were three basic things they identified through developmental testing that need to be improved on the helmet. One was its weight, one was a green glow issue, and one was this. The helmet that they have at the moment and are putting through developmental testing on land has tackled each of these areas and each of the changes are to be retrofitted back once it is certified.
Last edited by brar_w on 13 Aug 2017 17:15, edited 2 times in total.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 782
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Manish_P » 13 Aug 2017 17:13

My mistake. I must have missed that one.

I came across this when i was reading up on night vision cameras/devices..


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: deejay and 39 guests