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.
Post Reply
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Rakesh »

Chinmay wrote:The US has flown a 6th gen prototype
“We’ve already built and flown a full-scale flight demonstrator in the real world, and we broke records in doing it,” Will Roper told Defense News in an exclusive interview ahead of the Air Force Association’s Air, Space and Cyber Conference. “We are ready to go and build the next-generation aircraft in a way that has never happened before.”
Khan already is in 6th gen while the rest of the world is catching up to the 5th!
That is the beauty of massa. More power to them!

Watch China now claim next week, that they too have flown a 6th generation prototype. China defies all laws of R&D and science. They do everything right the first time. No errors even. Truly a master race to be envied.

And folks on the forum will then start to dhoti shiver.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

The YF22/23 flew in 1990, while the X35/32 flew in 2000. If anything, they are a tad bit late in flying the 6th gen demonstrator (s) (there can't really be just one though it could be that only one design has flown). But the leap to the 6GFA is going to have to be significantly more than the leap from the F-22 to the F-35. US needs have evolved and with the China focus, designing 6GFA is going to be more complicated than a European theater scenario/requirement.

Most importantly, the engines are getting ready and will begin full up testing early next year. That is probably as hard a, or harder, nut to crack then other technologies. The goal with NGAD is very much to go from a bunch of distinct (but related) technology demonstrations (and demonstrators) to a full up system, rapidly. Rapid as in, under 10 years compared to the 12-15 years it took US 5GFA.
Last edited by brar_w on 16 Sep 2020 21:05, edited 1 time in total.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Roper Reveals NGAD Has Flown, But Doesn’t Share Details

The US Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance combat aircraft, intended to complement or succeed the F-22 and F-35 in the air superiority role, has already flown, having been rapidly prototyped through modern digital design, Air Force acquisition chief Will Roper revealed Sept. 15.....

He declined to give further details about the NGAD flights, except to say the aircraft has “broken a lot of records.” In a press conference after his presentation, Roper said he was able to win approval only to reveal the flights, without giving away program details or discussing the aircraft’s performance, in order to reassure stakeholders inside and outside the Air Force that digital engineering is producing “real things…in the real world.” He declined to say, for example, whether the aircraft was competitively developed, what companies were involved, or whether it will be produced in its present form.

“We don’t want the adversary to know” what the aircraft’s capabilities are, “or when they’ll show up,” Roper told reporters. But he feels it’s important to show that the process of doing things digitally “works.” He also discussed how the approach is affecting the new Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent ICBM.

The NGAD “right now is designing, assembling, testing, and, in the digital world, exploring things that would have cost us time and money to wait for physical world results,” Roper said in his speech. In the press conference, he said the paradigm has shifted, and now physical flying vehicles will verify and help refine highly detailed digital aircraft.

“The announcement isn’t that we just built an e-plane and have flown it a lot of times in a virtual world, which we’ve done. But we built a full-scale flight demonstrator and we flew it in the real world,” he told reporters.


In a later press conference, Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown said he’s been “tracking” the development of NGAD since he was commander of Pacific Air Forces.

It’s a full scale flight demonstrator,” he said, but he declined to predict “when it’s going to be a full-up program.” He echoed Roper’s comments, saying it’s an “e-series airplane,” using digital technology for design and production. However, “it’s less about the demonstrator, it’s more about how we … build airplanes faster, so we can be in a better place to compete” against China and Russia.



brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

US Air Force’s Roper Wants to ‘Fast Forward’ Digital Engineering Revolution
Will Roper, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology and logistics, shocked the military aviation community Sept. 15 when he announced at an industry conference that the Air Force had already secretly flown a prototype of its next-generation fighter. He attributed the rapid development of the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program to digital engineering methods widely used in the commercial automotive industry.

Next up, the Air Force wants to use digital engineering for two classified satellite programs and possibly a tactical weapons system, he told reporters Sept. 23. It is already being applied to the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent — the Minuteman III replacement program — and the T-7A Red Hawk jet fighter trainer, he added.

He expressed some frustration because NGAD and the two satellite programs are classified, and therefore are difficult to use as examples of how digital engineering can greatly reduce development timelines and possibly billions of dollars in maintenance and sustainment costs.

“I'm very focused on trying to build airplanes where we do more iterative designs, more frequently in smaller batches,” he said.

Radically changing the way the Air Force develops platforms using digital engineering will allow the service to retire older, expensive to maintain aircraft, he said. Currently, lawmakers are reluctant to allow the service to retire certain aircraft because there is nothing in the works to replace them. Rapid development of smaller batches that are quickly replaced with updated versions means that “geriatric” aircraft won’t be sitting on tarmacs for 30 years, he said.

Currently, the Air Force does a 30-year aircraft mass production purchase and then modernizes and sustains them until retirement. Digital engineering allows the Air Force to “flip” the paradigm, he said. “You can do smaller lots. You give up your economic order quantities, but you can spiral more frequently, but because you're not doing large procurement lots, you can afford those spirals and you can also afford to not keep the airplane for 30 years.

“And that frees up the massive amounts of money that we spend in modernization and sustainment, but that very few people report about. And that very few [congressional] hearings are held on,” he said.

“Once something is locked into modernization [and] sustainment, it's like dead money,” he said. “You're committed to that airplane and it's fixed money.” Most people only see the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Air Force acquisitions. They don’t see the vast amount of money being spent on sustainment, he said.

“If we don't flip the iceberg, it could very well sink us,” he added.

“The first time we take that over to the Hill — not as a hypothetical pitch like I'm doing now, but once it's tied to talk about a real airplane that we want to buy this way — and that's the discussion I'm having now on Next-Generation Air Dominance — that's where it gets real,” he said.

The talks are now with Defense Department leadership, he said. Key will be proving that the per-unit price of a platform will come down along with the sustainment costs.

“I pray that the answer is ‘yes,’ because we're not going to be the kind of Air Force we need to be if most of our money is in geriatrics,” he said.

“Digital engineering as a service” will be provided across the Air Force and the Space Force, he said. While the methodology is being applied to some classified programs, there is nothing secretive about digital engineering techniques themselves, he noted.

“So far the results have been amazing. It's been fun on NGAD watching the digital engineering tools allow us to lower risk and change designs in a way that would typically require physical world iterations. It just feels like you've got a fast forward button for acquisition. It's magical,” he said.
hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4635
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by hnair »

brar_w is there any open source listing of what makes a sixth gen better than the fifth? Also any speculation on the speed, form, newer sensors, DEW and new signature management measures?

I am guessing the minute the form of the craft becomes open source, the sheet metal workers of Chengdu will go into action around two RD33s.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Rakesh »

hnair wrote:I am guessing the minute the form of the craft becomes open source, the sheet metal workers of Chengdu will go into action around two RD33s.
100% - that train is never late.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

hnair wrote:brar_w is there any open source listing of what makes a sixth gen better than the fifth? Also any speculation on the speed, form, newer sensors, DEW and new signature management measures?

I am guessing the minute the form of the craft becomes open source, the sheet metal workers of Chengdu will go into action around two RD33s.
The previous USAF Chief described 5 technology areas/breakthroughs that would support the broader 6th gen (NGAD) portfolio of technologies. Only one of them is set in stone and is easily identifiable in policy, R&D and budget documents and that is the Adaptive Propulsion initiatives which have been ongoing for well over a decade, with ADVENT feeding into AETP which then transitioned to a a demonstrator engine program (they are building the first dozen engines at the moment) and which finally transitions into a flyable true to form/built to NGAD spec (ready to enter EMD and support operational transition) engine by 2025 (this is a separate NGAP program and basically takes AETD/P programs and sizes those engines to meet the requirements of NGAD transition).

The remaining four are highly classified. But it isn't hard to develop a ballpark sense of what is going to be needed. They don't want to replace the AWACS or JSTARS with similarly vulnerable systems which means that future systems must have seamless survivable and LPI/LPD capabilities to offload and ingest vast amounts of raw sensor data at long ranges. If you think of 100's of Gb/s capacity at 100's of km ranges then you are probably not too off from what they are likely to "need". DARPA already has some preliminary successes with its 100 Gb/s efforts. They will also need a generational leap in power generation. The F-35 is architectured to grow to a 250-300 Kw power generational capability without requiring a significant re-architecture of systems. A 6GFA would probably need 2-3 times that to support MMW sensors and communication systems and Directed Energy systems. The more power you generate, the less you would need to store for these systems, which means you can package these weapons into smaller spaces (modern solid state DEWs can be packaged much more easily with the only limiter being the "bank size" required to support a desirable CONOPS - essentially what magazine you want out of it). Adaptive engines with their third stream should help with thermal management.

Then you have to find, and fix harder to find targets like 5GFA, which likely means higher fidelity sensors and most probably space based connectivity with some sort of LEO based sensor grid. So these are just a few areas which the next generation USAF fighter has to address. There are probably more.

Finally, it would need to incorporate the massive amount of R&D/S&T that has gone into low-observable design, and other airframe related technologies. The F-22 was essentially 1980's level OML, and F-35A , mid to late 90's level OML. Same thing with materials though the F-35 pushed into the CNT and other exotic material application (like fiberMat for example) though nothing like what the B-21 will likely be tapping into. Massive amounts of aero work has happened supported by government funding and by companies internally as well. The contracts leading up to the B-21 award supported about a decade of basic VLO R&D leading in the mid 2000's so the needle has likely moved by leaps and bounds over where they existed when the F-35 design was frozen.

The Aero guys at the top 3 US primes (capable of designing and building a 6GFA) have been busy over the last dozen or so years -

Image

Image
k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 962
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by k prasad »

Very likely theyre also working on distributed coherent apertures, not only distributed over the entire airframe, but also coherent and networked over multiple airframes (that would fit in with the insane datarates they're looking for), kinda like MIMO distributed radars. This would be simultaneously LPI (not only in waveform coding but also spatially LPI) and have an extremely high resolution and sensitivity.. and improve VLO-detection, since different aspect angles of an object are detected by different sensors. The SAR modes on these will be fantastic!

I wonder if they're looking into alternate control surfaces. I remember some research from a few years ago of a prof in US working on microactuators to essentially change the entire aerofoil without using large-signature control surfaces. That might be something for 7th gen though.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/130 ... 19553?s=20 ---> India’s @DynamaticTech receives contract with @Boeing in support of T-7A Red Hawk, will deliver tools for the Static and Fatigue Testing of the control surfaces of the Boeing-Saab T-7A Red Hawk Program.

Image
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

^^ The high frequency mesh like network the F-35 is headed towards is already going down the road of multi-party based spatial orientation of comms nodes with a self-healing network. The next generation of MADL may as well get that in on the F-35 itself. I also see them moving to MMW now that power is going to be there to drive those. Those higher frequency will themselves be harder to disrupt.

Also, lots of "open" and published work in getting intakes around tailless aircraft and getting them mounted above for signature management. If Boeing has flown the first demonstrator (which is likely possible) then that is something they have been focusing on so it could be a design feature.


Image

Image

Image

Image
hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4635
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by hnair »

Thanks brar_w. Very nice posts and also good to know about the power requirement projections. So we are back to Tacit Blue days of flush intakes, square chins and nearly tail-less Flying Chavi-bars :) Wonder how such intakes will work during furious A2A action!

And it looks like the glorious two decades of the slow-moving pusher-prop UCAV as the center of attention is decisively over, as the threat of jihadi/MEmilitias slowly becomes irrelevant for the USAF. For India too, this means interesting options to explore - we already have the #1 'challenger power in the world already pissing on our lawn and need to be handled over the next decades. Despite lots of heartburn in this board, the armed and propeller driven UCAV never caught on the fancy of Indian military, due to the heavily contested airspace they work out of and also because it cant be used for COIN or internal security duties due to long standing national policy of not not using airpower inside India's borders during peace time. But we still have a lot of aficionados here for a solution that did not have a problem in the Indian context. Note: am not talking about using prop driven UAVs for regular surveillance as the Rustom project might do at some point, but using them to kill things in peace or kill armor/transports during war.

It maybe a good idea to explore a stealthy UCAV as a Jaguar replacement, particularly in the Himalayas. China's long logistics line will need a large number of unmanned options dropping ordinance than just rocket artillery/SRBM/cruise missiles missiles alone. On the western theatre, the prop-UCAVs being sold by cheen and turkey in our neighborhood should be dealt with by the SRSAM/guns, but A2G attacks on our logistics is still a threat.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

hnair wrote:Wonder how such intakes will work during furious A2A action!
The folks that will be working on these programs need to have the foresight to see where A2A combat will eventually go in a post DEW-on-Fighter world. How would you be able to maneuver within the DEW engagement (lethal) envelope, and what hard and soft protection measures these aircraft have on them. DEW hardening and other survivability considerations are likely to have a significant influence on the agility characteristics of these aircraft. So it's just not intakes it is also going to be about considering burying the pilot deep inside the airframe and possibly using unmanned loyal-wingmen as your close in fighters and have the 6GFA acts as a BVR and WVR coordinator. Many different things to consider given that these will be in service over 3-5 decades.
hnair wrote:Note: am not talking about using prop driven UAVs for regular surveillance as the Rustom project might do at some point, but using them to kill things in peace or kill armor/transports during war.
There is plenty of utility in Predator/Reaper types in a contested environment. It just won't be with the mission systems or weapons that were prioritized on them for integration due to COIN needs. This is already happening with highly capable, and agile open mission system sensor modules going on these aircraft and high end jammer payloads as well. Medium to Long range stand-off weapons too can pivot them from needing to operate in the forward edge of the battle area, to more stand-offish duties. They will continue to bring utility due to their ability to stay up for a long time and extend ISR and strike options. And they are extremely cheap to own and operate. They will however need to be paired with a more penetrating force of ISR and strike UCAV's. This is essentially what the USAF, US Army and US Navy are doing. RQ-180 (probably already operational) and RQ-Next will be that penetrating unmanned force, along with attritable UAV's. While the legacy less survivable force gets kitted out for stand off duties. In other words, these platforms would have to adapt to meet future needs, just like the F-15 EX's, and Rafale's of the world that will also be around for decades.
hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4635
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by hnair »

Yeah, there is no option but to go for a fully survivable, stealthy and expensive UCAV for CAS against a serious opponent
brar_w wrote:DEW hardening and other survivability considerations are likely to have a significant influence on the agility characteristics of these aircraft.
Many different things to consider given that these will be in service over 3-5 decades.
brar_w, 3-5 decades means it will still have to deal with older very agile fighters which will still be around, right? At some point in a war, a sixth-gen craft will come in contact with someone like WgCmdr Abhinandan riding a pre-5th gen old warhorse and who has scant respect for DEW hardening and the philosophy behind why a Flying Chavi-bar is travelling in a straight line. He will politely say "that looks nice!" but will do what he likes to do - flame that thing in front of him. I am sure a 6th gen fighter should be a progression from fifth-gen agility and not just regress back to Bleriot days.

The flush intakes (if the 6th gen figher has them) will have some design magic like what the russians do in keeping the compressor faces of SU 27-series well aerated at all angles or those grid extractors of the Y23 intakes for dealing with boundary layer from hitting compressor face etc.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

hnair wrote:Yeah, there is no option but to go for a fully survivable, stealthy and expensive UCAV for CAS against a serious opponent
I don't think anyone would do that or go down that path. CAS, as in supporting ground troops in close proximity to the enemy, has and will continue to evolve. What were once limiting constraints (forcing a particular decision and CONOPS) are no longer rigid impediments. Things like de-confliction times for other weapon systems, the capability to dial a weapon to target, and the ability to create go and no-go zones for weapons. Modern FAC/JTAC's can handle all of that and a lot more. Long range ground based precision fire deconfliction (at 200+ km ranges) time was in the 60-90 minute range during the Gulf War. It is now around 5 minutes and one of the goals of the Next Generation systems (ABMS and MDO more specifically) is to shrink it down to seconds instead of minutes. So this opens up all sort of surface to surface fires as legitimate "dial-a-weapon" options whereas once their use on the battlefield required extensive de-confliction, mission planning and airborne targeting support which was a few orders of magnitude outside the CAS kill cycle. That will no longer be the case come 2030. This is why ABMS is actually a more important program, as far as US Military is concerned, than the 6th generation NGAD.

If you are referring to the need to support ground troops inside double digit SAM envelopes (and why those systems wouldn't be degraded or destroyed ahead of time or concurrent to placing troops in the region), or those guarded by 5th or 6th gen fighters then there are now many many more viable options than fixed winged aircraft. The list will only grow. Precision Guided MLRSs are already good at 150 km and they are looking to take that to 200 km. Similarly, precision tube artillery out to 70 km is going to be possible in the next 18-24 months and this number will likely cross 100 km well ahead of when any MQ-Next is fielded. Then there are loitering munitions either AL, AL-and Air-recovered, or ground launched. ABMS essentially opens up a plethora of stand off options for CAS because you are no longer limited by launch aircraft parameters and information/SA at the time of launch. You don't need a predator/reaper circling right above the troops with the ability to drop a helfire or an SDB when needed. Those JTACs can now dial up or down and select the type of support they require depending upon the effect they desire.

The utility of the Predator/Reaper/Global-Hawk class of aircraft is in tasks that require persistence and the ability to generate and hold orbits. No manned aircraft can perform those tasks equally as good so if you need and value that capability, be it for ISR, strike or EW, then you will continue to utilize these and kit them appropriately to make them more capable and more survivable.

They don't solve for all dilemmas nor is that claimed. Things like RQ-180 are needed because you need to find and fix hard to find and fix targets deep inside enemy territory. Think C2, discriminating against decoys, TEL's, and SAM systems. But that is just one aspect of the unmanned mission. There are many others where the non-stealthy and less survivable UAV's and UCAV's will continue to be utilized to great success.
brar_w, 3-5 decades means it will still have to deal with older very agile fighters which will still be around, right? At some point in a war, a sixth-gen craft will come in contact with someone like WgCmdr Abhinandan riding a pre-5th gen old warhorse and who has scant respect for DEW hardening and the philosophy behind why a Flying Chavi-bar is travelling in a straight line. He will politely say "that looks nice!" but will do what he likes to do - flame that thing in front of him. I am sure a 6th gen fighter should be a progression from fifth-gen agility and not just regress back to Bleriot days.
If your point is that the 6th gen platforms will need to hold their own against 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th generation aircraft across a myriad of various combat scenarios at varying ranges and mission parameters then I agree. This will be a requirement. This is why the USAF spends so much ($$ and blood) in testing adversary aircraft and developing a deep understanding of the Fulcrums and Flankers of the world by physically flying examples and developing advanced models based on those results to offer to its designers. But they think in terms of campaigns and not individual platforms or one on one capabilities. So when they invest their money it will be in a portfolio of capability that collectively will aim to provide them a tactical advantage against an adversary operating these types. This was exactly how the ATF and the JSF did it and there is no reason not to follow the "enterprise wide" approach. It is the collective capability that you bring to the fight and that is the level at which you need to design requirements to defeat what your opponent is putting out. The DOTMLPF or a hybrid-DOTMLPF approach has worked for the US so I suspect it will remain the primary driver of system requirements.

So yeah, between a generational advancement in sensor suite, electronic warfare, self-defense, signature, and the employment of directed energy weapons against incoming missiles and aircraft, and the ability to manuever to employ these systems across their entire envelope, the 6GFA will have to offer a considerable leap over 5GFA. Not to mention bring newer things on the table. And this has to extend to how pilots (or AI) of the future will be trained, equipped, and how these systems will be sustained. These are all legitimate areas one can use to create an advantage for oneself and pull ahead of your enemy.

BTW, the threat of DEW's isn't just from other 6GFA. These are going to be on 4th and 5th Gen fighter aircraft as well. In fact,

Lockheed will flight test a scalable (up to100 kW) HEL pod on an F-16 in 2025. Raytheon has already flown such a pod on the AH-64E (though much lower power levels for the relevant air to surface mission set).

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/09/loc ... r-by-2025/

The notion that a 6GFA will just be able to fly straight and level is probably quite far from reality. The NGAD is an F-22 replacement and it will have to replace the OCA mission first and foremost. But much like the ATF program did back in the 80's and 90's (to the anger of some folks who were stuck in time) they will focus on air-combat superiority across the relevant close and stand off missions. The need would be to field a superior air combat capability than the F-22A which is now essentially a 30 year old design.

So how you do the air superiority mission in the US vs China context is the real question?? If Skyborg continuous to prove (Skyborg is on a 2-4 year time horizon) that experienced combat pilots will continue to get killed by AI driven sub $30 Million drones armed with 2-4 missiles then what do you do? What about, the "tyranny of distance" in the Pacific? What does a fighter aircraft with a 1,000 nautical mile combat radius, that is pushing the boundaries of fighter pilot endurance (on a combat A2A mission), low-observability (how else do you survive against a numerically superior force that is fighting closer to home than you) look like? Does the USAF even need a traditional F-22/F-15 like fighter? Or do they really need something like a 6th generation version of the F-111 controlling cheaper Skyborgs?

I think the hint to all those lies in the USAF's Chief of Staff's quote that not all NGAD capabilities (the five I mentioned earlier) would reside on one platform. I think they see the writing on the wall. There is no room for a type for type replacement of the F-22 in the modern USAF. They need to do the Air-Superiority mission differently in a way that is more effective in the Pacific theater against a force that can out number them (in theater) by a factor of 3:1 if not considerably more. A better "F-22/5GFA" won't get them there. They will need to think this problem from the same "offset" lens that gave them stealth, PGM's, GPS and other capabilities developed in the 70's and mastered in the 80s and 90s. What that is (beyond a cursory look at what is a "gap" they are trying to fill) is beyond my ability to imagine. But we'll know in the next 3-5 years.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

^^ This is another challenge UAV/UCAV's can present to air-defense and fighter aircraft. Target overload, especially when the target has the ability to mimic flying patterns and even RF emissions of the parent aircraft. So expect the less survivable UAV/UCAVs to get a lot closer when employing the vast decoy, EW, and small UAS systems of their own. From MALD-J's, to Gremlin type recoverable systems to other smaller UAV's. This poses a discrimination and targeting challenge, a magazine size challenge and buys you additional time in orbit. Again, these aircraft don't need to penetrate and won't be able to, but that doesn't mean they cannot provide a valuable ISR, strike or EW role. In fact, in many things they do, the requirement from a manned platform will be insanely capital intensive. Imagine how many manned ISR assets it would take to maintain a 24x7 orbit over a swath of ocean or over areas of interest over land. Even before new crop of sensors come up, highly efficient ESM payloads that can allow for 100s of km of stand-off distance are available for these aircraft. Same with other sensors. Weapons too are and can be developed. The JSM is a perfect stand-off missile for these types.

General Atomics' Sparrowhawk Drone-Launched Drone Breaks Cover


Image
General Atomics says that it has conducted captive carry tests of its Sparrowhawk, a new small drone that will be able to be launched and recovered in flight. The company says that Sparrowhawk is a demonstrator and was developed specifically to work with other larger unmanned aircraft that it builds, such as the MQ-9 Reaper and MQ-1C Gray Eagle, offering an important stepping stone to all-new capabilities on those existing designs, as well as future ones.

he California-based drone's maker said the captive carry tests, in which the drone was carried aloft by an MQ-9, but was not launched, took place between Sept. 16 and 17, 2020. This kind of testing is done to gather data on how a system, as well as the launch platform in many cases, handles the stress of flight.

A picture of Sparrowhawk that General Atomics released to The War Zone shows that the drone features a large main wing that is stowed parallel with the main fuselage before launch, after which is swings 90 degrees into a deployed position. The drone also has a v-tail and there appears to be at least one air intake for the propulsion system on the right side. It's unclear what type of powerplant powers the air-launched drone.

Sparrowhawk concept art that General Atomics posted on Twitter earlier in September showed a similar configuration, but with two fans at the rear of the fuselage. The company has said that the small drone will offer a reduced acoustic signature, as well as a visual one, compared to its larger designs, such as the MQ-9......
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

This program is making some rapid decisions and growing in scope. They are now up to 13 contract award recipients for the program (just for the air-vehicle that houses the AI modules and payloads) which is unusually high but a clear indication that multiple vehicles, with different atributes and performance parameters, all equipped with similar AI and kinetic/non-kinetic payloads will likely be brought into service. Some will accelerate and get in by 2023, others over time.

US Air Force adds vendors to list of companies that could make autonomous Skyborg drone

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force has added nine vendors to the list of companies that will compete to build the service’s autonomous Skyborg drone wingman.

On Sept. 28, the service awarded each firm an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract worth up to $400 million. The nine companies were AeroVironment Inc., Autodyne LLC, BAE System Controls Inc., Blue Force Technologies Inc., Fregata Systems Inc., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, NextGen Aeronautics Inc., Sierra Technical Services, and Wichita State University.

Those organizations join Northrop Grumman, Boeing, General Atomics and Kratos, which won the first round of contracts in July.

No money has been allotted to vendors so far. Instead, the 13 companies on contract will compete against each other for future delivery orders.

This second phase of awards establishes a diverse and competitive vendor pool by adding several nontraditional and traditional contractors we saw as important additions to the effort,” said Brig. Gen. Dale White, the program executive officer for fighters and advanced aircraft, whose team manages the Skyborg program with the Air Force Research Laboratory.


Skyborg is one of the lab’s top three science and technology efforts. The project is meant to produce a family of uncrewed aerial systems that can move into contested spaces and conduct aerial missions that might be too dangerous for human pilots to perform.

Under the Skyborg program, the Air Force hopes to build a low-cost, attritable drone that can be reused but — if destroyed in combat — is cheap enough to be written off without incurring a large material loss. Key to the program is the development of artificial intelligence that will allow the aircraft to operate autonomously and potentially learn from prior training missions.

Currently, the Skyborg program is focused on developing the technologies necessary for the “Autonomous Core System,” the service said in a news release. The Air Force will choose companies to begin designing air vehicle prototypes later this year.

The service has not disclosed how it will compete development opportunities among its list of potential vendors, or which companies could be in line to build the Skyborg air vehicle, mission systems or autonomy module.

Future plans include operational experiments during which the air vehicles will be integrated with autonomy modules and tested by airmen, the Air Force stated in the release.


The service has said Skyborg could be operational as early as 2023.

Last edited by brar_w on 01 Oct 2020 17:20, edited 2 times in total.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Not sure that I agree with the author's claims that the "budget fights" will push more de-classification (that applied to a post-cold war world, not sure it is relevant to a "new cold war" scenario) but this is what many seem to be thinking -

We Could See the Air Force's Secret New Fighter Jet Very Soon
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Interestingly, only the newer and more capable PAC-3 MSE will be physically integrated into the THAAD battery. This is logical because the MSE has a dual C/X band data-link making missile communication integration just a software thing (though launcher modifications would still be required). Legacy PAC-3 inventory (just the C-band data-link) will continue to require a Patriot battery in order for it to take cues from THAAD's AN/TPY-2 while the PAC-3 MSE equipped launchers can exist as integrated into the physical THAAD battery or just as a stand alone launcher supporting forward deployed troops (when connected to IBCS). The final step, though not mentioned in the article but actively discussed by the US Army, is to eventually do away with the PAC-3 MSE launcher (within THAAD) and integrate the MSE into the THAAD launcher itself for mixed missile load-outs which will be easier to sustain and deploy instead of lugging around a completely different launcher (from rest of the equipment).

US Army now wants THAAD/PAC-3 enhancements developed for USFK for other COCOMs too

The Army plans to reproduce for combatant commanders around the world the package of improvements now being fashioned to enhance integration of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense and Patriot Advanced Capability-3 systems in response to urgent requests in 2017 from top brass in South Korea for improved ballistic missile defenses.

Lt. Gen. Daniel Karbler, head of U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command and Joint Functional Component Command for Integrated Missile Defense, said the package of element upgrades to THAAD and PAC-3 as well as integration enhancements between the missile defense systems are now being eyed for adoption beyond the Korean peninsula.

"The Patriot-THAAD integration was prescribed by one specific combatant commander," Karbler said Sept. 10 during remarks at an online event hosted by Defense News. "But really, that capability now has got to go across all the combatant commanders. So the work that we're doing right now for Patriot-THAAD interoperability to satisfy that one particular COCOM's requirement, we will progress that to satisfy the other combatant commanders' need, especially when we have THAAD and Patriot deployed together."

In late 2017, MDA launched a rapid-response project to better integrate THAAD and PAC-3 systems in reaction to an urgent need from U.S. commanders in South Korea.

The project aims to integrate THAAD's capability to detect and track threat ballistic missiles at longer ranges with the most advanced PAC-3 interceptor variant, the Missile Segment Enhancement, to take advantage of the full kinematic capability of the guided missile. The project also integrates MSE launchers and missiles into the THAAD weapon system.

The project is being developed in three parts.

First, "THAAD Remote Launcher Part 1" adds new communications "paths" to THAAD launchers which allows commanders more flexibility in deciding where to emplace the launchers -- including at extended ranges, which allows the system to defend much larger areas.

A second improvement, called "Patriot Launch on Remote," allows the Patriot system to use a radar track provided by THAAD -- which has a much longer range than Patriot's sensor -- in order to launch sooner and intercept earlier.

The third planned improvement will incorporate the most advanced Patriot interceptor, the Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE), into THAAD by connecting -- via fiber optic link -- and MSE launcher into a THAAD battery.


The THAAD program plans to deliver these upgrades to forces in South Korea through 2021.

Last summer, the Missile Defense Agency notched a significant achievement in the effort to bolster defenses against North Korea's medium-range ballistic missile threats during a test that assessed a new, government-designed THAAD launcher that promises to extend the system's defensive reach.

During a late August 2019 flight test in the Pacific, soldiers from Ft. Bliss, TX, executed an intercept of an air-launched, medium-range ballistic missile target during an event designated Flight Test THAAD (FFT)-23 that featured the new launcher.

The 2019 flight test demonstrated THAAD's ability to "intercept an incoming threat missile using a launcher that has been located beyond the immediate proximity of the THAAD radar and fire control unit, known as remote launcher capability," according to a July update on the project by the Government Accountability Office. "The location of the launcher beyond the immediate proximity enables the warfighter to defend larger areas."

The full complement of capabilities is predicated in part on four major test events, including one scheduled before the end of next week, followed by one each subsequent fiscal quarter, according to the July GAO report.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

brar_w wrote:This program is making some rapid decisions and growing in scope. They are now up to 13 contract award recipients for the program (just for the air-vehicle that houses the AI modules and payloads) which is unusually high but a clear indication that multiple vehicles, with different atributes and performance parameters, all equipped with similar AI and kinetic/non-kinetic payloads will likely be brought into service. Some will accelerate and get in by 2023, others over time.

US Air Force adds vendors to list of companies that could make autonomous Skyborg drone
This, if true, would help explain why there are 13 "airframe proposals" put on initial contract on the program -

AFRL Seeks Automotive-Style Common Chassis For Skyborg UAS
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

US Army Fuze related science and technology investment overview and ongoing program rundown (2020) -

Image

Image

Image
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

This would make sense now that the JASSM inventory target is 10,000 missiles, and also given the huge inventory of MALDs, MALD-J's, JSOWs, and whatever comes out of the Gray Wolf learnings.

US Air Force C-17 Launched A Pallet Of Mock Cruise Missiles During Recent Arsenal Plane Test


A U.S. Air Force C-17A Globemaster III transport aircraft simulated the launch of multiple AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile cruise missiles via a palletized system during a recent major demonstration exercise. This is the latest in a series of experiments to evaluate the possibility of using cargo aircraft as so-called "arsenal planes" to provide additional strike capacity, especially during a high-end conflict.

The Air Force Strategic Development Planning and Experimentation (SDPE) office within the Air Force Research Laboratory announced on September 30, 2020, that it had conducted the test as part of the Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS) Onramp #2 event, which had wrapped up earlier that month. The 412th Test Wing led the palletized munition test flight, in cooperation with Air Mobility Command, which provided the C-17A from one of its units at McChord Air Force Base in Washington State.

It's not clear where the simulated launch actually took place, but the ABMS Onramp #2 included demonstrations at the ranges surrounding Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, at the U.S. Army's White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, and in the Gulf of Mexico. A combined operations center and intelligence fusion cell at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland helped coordinate the various activities.

he overall goal of the event was to explore how the various communications and data sharing networks and related systems under development as part of the ABMS program could help link together various sensors and weapon systems. Cruise missile defense was a major focus area, with the event including a first-of-its-kind demonstration of a U.S. Army howitzer shooting down a target drone acting as a surrogate cruise missile using a Hyper Velocity Projectile (HVP) after receiving targeting information from off-board sources.

Increased network connectivity is also extremely important for the arsenal plane concept, as cargo aircraft do not generally have means of identifying targets at stand-off ranges and then gathering the necessary information to engage them all on their own. Other platforms would almost certainly be responsible for feeding that information to airlifters operating in this role.

Transports, such as the C-17, would then use their large load carrying capacity, combined with palletized launch systems, to offer means of rapidly engaging a large number of targets across a broad area. Being able to quickly convert airlifters to and from an arsenal plane configuration would also give the Air Force a very flexible and relatively low-cost means of generating large amounts of extra strike capacity, especially compared to procuring additional heavy bombers.

"A Palletized Munitions capability could enable various airlift aircraft to employ a range of weapons en masse via a self-contained, roll-on/roll-off palletized system, and may offer an alternative way for the Air Force to bring more mass to the fight," Dr. Dean Evans, the Palletized Munitions Experimentation Program Manager at SDPE, said in a statement after the test during the ABMS Onramp event. "The successful demo represents a key step in SDPE’s Palletized Munitions Experimentation Campaign, which will determine if the Palletized Munitions concept is feasible and provides a competitive advantage for the warfighter."

The stealthy AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) family of land-attack cruise missiles would be especially capable and combat-proven weapons to combine with the arsenal plane concept. The standard A model has a range of around 230 miles, while the extended range B variant can hit targets out to around 575 miles or more. The Air Force is in the process of acquiring an extreme-range D version now, as well, that will have a range in excess of 1,000 miles. Integrating these weapons into the service's palletized munitions systems could also serve as a stepping stone to adding the AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM), a derivative of the JASSM, to the mix, further expanding the capabilities of future arsenal planes.

It first emerged in April that AFRL was exploring palletized munitions concepts, or what it referred to as a "bomb bay in a box." The following month, the Air Force revealed that it had conducted at least five test flights of prototype and surrogate systems since January. At least one of these tests involved the release of a previously unseen multi-purpose expendable air vehicle dubbed the Cargo Launch Expendable Air Vehicles with Extended Range (CLEAVER).

Initially described a long-range stand-off precision-guided munition, it is possible that CLEAVER could be used to carry other payloads to carry out other missions, such as acting as a decoy using an electronic warfare package.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

^^ Image and caption from the official AFRL release below. Do note that the C-17 already launches palletized medium and intermediate range ballistic missile targets so a that is a great resource for CONOPs development and test data.
Image
A high altitude airdrop of palletized munitions (JASSM simulants) from a C-17 using standard operational airdrop procedures was conducted during the Air Force’s Advanced Battle Management Family of Systems (ABMS) Onramp #2 activities. (Courtesy photo)
The Palletized Munitions demonstration leveraged Multi Domain Operations initiatives and Command and Control capabilities to transfer targeting information to an Air Force Special Operations Command aircraft via existing Beyond Line of Sight communications systems and cue the simulated release of a mock “palletized” Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM). Lockheed Martin, R4 Integration, and Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren were involved in the development effort for the first-of-its-kind demonstration. In a related event, the 412th Test Wing, in coordination with Air Mobility Command, conducted a C-17 palletized munitions airdrop demonstration using simulated munitions.

A Palletized Munitions capability could enable various airlift aircraft to employ a range of weapons en masse via a self-contained, roll-on/roll-off palletized system, and may offer an alternative way for the Air Force to bring more mass to the fight,” said Dr. Dean Evans, Palletized Munitions Experimentation Program Manager with SDPE. “The successful demo represents a key step in SDPE’s Palletized Munitions Experimentation Campaign, which will determine if the Palletized Munitions concept is feasible and provides a competitive advantage for the warfighter.”..

The Air Force’s ABMS initiative is building the “internet of military things” to connect sensors to decision nodes to shooters. Joint onramp exercises are the primary mechanisms to experiment, demonstrate, test, and evaluate new ABMS capabilities in a fully integrated way for a complex operational scenario. Based on real test data and warfighter feedback, these capabilities can be advanced, modified, discarded, or if requested by Combatant Commanders, put immediately into operational use. ABMS Onramp #2 was co-sponsored by United States Space Command and United States Northern Command.
LINK
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

The Congressional research service has a handy one page background (open source) on the USAF 6th generation program (NGAD) that it just updated this week -

Air Force Next-Generation Air Dominance Program:
An Introduction


On September 15, 2020, U.S. Air Force acquisition executive Dr. Will Roper announced that the Air Force had flown a full-scale flight demonstrator as part of the NextGeneration Air Dominance (NGAD) program. The announcement came as a surprise to many observers,
both as the NGAD program was believed to be an earlyphase technology development program unlikely to yield hardware in the near term, and because funding began two years ago, which is unusually fast to design and build a military aircraft. DOD had mentioned an interest in building a new “X-plane” prototype as far back as 2014, but it is not clear whether this led to the NGAD demonstrator.

What Is the NGAD Program?


The Air Force has said that NGAD exists to examine five major technologies that are likely to appear on next generation aircraft, with the goal of enhancements in survivability, lethality, and persistence. It has not specified what four of those technologies are. The one acknowledged NGAD-related technology is propulsion. Over the past few years, the Air Force has invested substantially in variable cycle engines. Other likely
candidates include new forms of stealth; advanced weapons, including directed energy; and thermal management.
The current engine on the F-35 and its variants expected to be on the B-21 produce a tremendous amount of electrical power that can enable new weapons. That could require advanced techniques to manage generated heat, so that it does not become part of the aircraft signatures and make the plane easier to detect.

Is the Goal of NGAD a New Fighter?


The technologies involved in NGAD are being developed to provide air dominance. Part of the program’s goal is to determine how to achieve that end, independent of traditional ideas. NGAD could take the form of a single aircraft and/or a number of complementary systems— manned, unmanned, optionally manned, cyber, electronic— forms that would not resemble the traditional “fighter.”

For example, a larger aircraft the size of a B-21 may not maneuver like a fighter. But that large an aircraft carrying a directed energy weapon, with multiple engines making substantial electrical power for that weapon, could ensure that no enemy flies in a large amount of airspace. That is air
dominance. There appears little reason to assume that NGAD is going to yield a plane the size that one person sits in, and that goes out and dogfights kinetically, trying to outturn another plane—or that sensors and weapons have to be on the same aircraft.

Budget and Program Structure


Air Force NGAD is budgeted at $9 billion from 2019 to 2025. The FY2021 budget is $1 billion, with a request of $1.5 billion for FY2022. NGAD was originally mooted as a joint project between the Navy and the Air Force, and there is still some cooperation between them, but the two services have created separate NGAD offices.

What Does the Flight Demonstration
Mean?


Based on the movements of senior DOD officials, CRS assesses the first flight came on or about August 21, 2020. Some news sources have referred to this event as the first flight of a new fighter, and speculated as to the design and characteristics of such a fighter. However, it is notable that the aircraft was described as a “full-scale flight demonstrator,” not a “prototype.” The former phrase is used to describe an aircraft that is showing off some form of technology and is different from “prototype,” which indicates a more production-representative system.

The history of full-scale flight demonstrators shows that they are not always followed by broader contracts. For example, in the early 1980s, Northrop flew a full-scale flight demonstrator in the Tacit Blue program. That was a single-passenger stealthy aircraft used to investigate
operating a sophisticated sensor system in threatened airspace. Northrop built one Tacit Blue and did not wind up subsequently building anything that looked like it. Some of the technology explored in that program eventually went into JSTARS, an airliner-sized, nonstealthy sensor platform that had nothing physically in common with the flight demonstrator.

Another full-scale flight demonstrator, the Boeing Bird of Prey, flown in 1996, was used to demonstrate stealth and other technologies. Boeing made one Bird of Prey and did not receive any contract publicly connected to the work that flight demonstrator performed. These cases illustrate the
difference between demonstrators, which are research aircraft, and prototypes, early examples of finished systems.

While Tacit Blue was a fighter-sized aircraft that led to an airliner-sized system, both the F-22 and F-35 programs included the opposite—airliners fitted out with those fighters’ avionics and sensor suites, so the subsystems could be flight tested while accompanied by a crew of engineers to monitor and adjust performance. These aircraft were full-scale flight demonstrators of those subsystems, in an airframe that in no way resembled the eventual aircraft. There is therefore little evidence to describe what the Air Force recently flew based on the phrase “full-scale flight demonstrator.” Such an existing airframe could be augmented with one or two NGAD technologies to become a full-scale flight demonstrator, considerably shortening time to “first flight.”

What Else Is Important About NGAD?


The NGAD program is part of the Air Force’s reengineering of how it does acquisition. One goal is an effort to split design, production, and sustainment so that whoever designs an aircraft might not get the production contract, and whoever gets the production contract may not also support the aircraft in the field.

Ultimately, that vision could result in firms specializing in design that pass their designs to high-tech manufacturing centers capable of producing anything sent to them in digital form, rather than maintaining dedicated airplane factories. Companies with global logistics chains could be tasked with the sustainment mission. This reallocation of roles could open Air Force programs to firms that are not traditional military aviation primes.

This concept complements the Air Force’s other goal, to move from long programs to short runs of different aircraft, theoretically made possible and economical by flexible production lines. This might lower sustainment costs because they would be replaced by newer designs rather than being kept in service for long periods. This effort is often referred to as the “digital Century series,” referring to simultaneous Air Force development programs of the 1950s and 60s.

Does NGAD Compete with F-35 or
Other Programs?


For the next few years, at least, NGAD is a research effort, with no current plans to acquire production aircraft or other
systems that may result. Congress authorizes and appropriates research and development funds and production funds in separate budget lines. F-35 is substantially funded through procurement, NGAD through R&D, and those are not directly fungible.

Further, even if the flight demonstrator were a fully production representative aircraft, it could still take industry several years to create production facilities. While the Air Force is trying to move to new agile forms of production, it’s not clear that contractors have kept pace with that
initiative. The F-35 is a program of record, with funding projected for the next five years at least. The Air Force has not budged off its ultimate goal of 1,763 F-35s. No acquisition goal or fleet size has been posited for NGAD. Also, the air dominance role NGAD is intended for is more in line with the current mission of the F-22 or F-15EX than F-35.

That said, these programs would all have to fit within an Air Force topline budget, which could lead to pressures to favor one program over another in funding decisions.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Major muscle movements, with an eye on China, can be expected in the 30-year US navy shipbuilding plan. The US SecDef just previewed today what can be expected in the plan -

US SecDef Calls for 500-Ship Fleet by 2045, With 3 SSNs a Year and Light Carriers Supplementing CVNs
Defense Secretary Mark Esper announced a new future fleet plan for the Navy that would grow the attack submarine force, supplement nuclear-powered aircraft carriers with light carriers to achieve greater day-to-day presence, and invest heavily in small and unmanned ships for distributed operations.

Esper’s Battle Force 2045, which he rolled out during an online event today at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, lays out plans for achieving a fleet of 500 manned and unmanned ships by 2045, and a fleet of 355 traditional battle force ships by 2035 – all in a resource-constrained budget environment.

First, he said, the fleet would have a larger and more capable attack submarine fleet of 70 to 80 SSNs.

“If we do nothing else, the Navy must begin building three Virginia-class submarines a year as soon as possible,” he said in the event during his opening remarks. “If we do nothing else, we should invest in attack submarines,” he repeated later during a question-and-answer session.

Esper also called for refueling a total of seven Los Angeles-class SSNs, compared to the five or six the Navy had previously discussed, and invest heavily in the SSN(X) future submarine program.

Second, Esper stated that nuclear-powered aircraft carriers would remain the most visible deterrence on the seas, but he said a new future air wing would have to be developed to increase their range and lethality, and that light carriers would have to supplement the Nimitz- and Ford-class supercarriers to help achieve greater day-to-day presence while preserving limited CVN readiness, which has been strained recently by overuse and backups at maintenance yards. Up to six light carriers, possibly based on the America-class amphibious assault ship design, would operate both instead of and alongside the CVNs.

“While we anticipate that additional study will be required to assess the proper high/low mix of carriers, eight to 11 nuclear-powered carriers will be necessary to execute a high-end conflict and maintain our global presence, with up to six light carriers joining them,” Esper said in his remarks.

Third, Esper called for between 140 and 240 unmanned and optionally manned ships on the surface and under the sea, conducting missions ranging from laying mines, conducting missile strikes, resupplying manned ships, surveillance, serving as decoys and more.

“They will add significant offensive and defensive capabilities to the fleet at an affordable cost in terms of both sailors and dollars,” he said.
“Earlier this month, the Sea Hunter prototype completed operations with the USS Russell, demonstrating that unmanned surface vehicles are technologically feasible and operationally valuable.”

Fourth, he called for 60 to 70 smaller combatants, such as the new frigate class under contract now, to increase capacity and free up larger ships for more complex missions.

Fifth, Esper said strategic sealift and logistics would be pivotal for distributed maritime operations, with 70 to 90 combat logistics ships required – though he noted that further work would be done in this area to understand if that was enough for the naval battle, as well as to understand what else would be needed to ensure ground forces could be moved en masse to a fight by sea if called upon.

Sixth, he said, the Navy would need unmanned aircraft launching off carrier decks to cover all the missions of today’s air wing: fighters, refueling, early warning and electronic attack. He alluded this recently while speaking to sailors aboard USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70), USNI News previously reported.

And lastly, he pledged his support for the Marines’ Force Design 2030 effort and the new classes of ships and connectors needed to accomplish this, though he added that more work would be needed in this area..
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Prem »

600 ship Navy is dream from President Reagan era.
https://www.hudson.org/research/13776-f ... am-1981-89
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Right, but Esper is not proposing a 600 ship Navy. He is proposing around 355-385 manned battle force combatants, and 125-150 unmanned surface and sub-surface vessels in the small, medium to large category. This isn't a giant departure from what Democrats were proposing the last time they had control of the WH. In their last ship-building plan, Obama had something like 310-325 combatants by 2030s and going from that to 355 isn't a huge leap (they've added 5 years to it as well so it really isn't a huge bill). What is more important is the structural changes proposed - half a dozen light carriers to augment the CVN's, a larger SSN fleet and a very large unmanned fleet across all surface and sub-surface missions. A large unmanned fleet isn't an OPEX burden, or a manpower/sailor recruitment and retention burden so it is completely doable as long as they can get the technology to work. As in any 30-year shipbuilding plan, the underlying # isn't the important thing. What is important is the force structure and larger changes to the fleet mix. Looked through that lens, one can see that there is a fundamental shift in the fleet mix, and major muscle movements when it comes to unmanned vessels, and the carrier air-wing that can be expected in the medium term. The cold-war centric force is slowly going to transition to one that is more optimized for the Pacific and confronting the rapid rise of the PLAN and their rocket force.
Last edited by brar_w on 07 Oct 2020 19:10, edited 1 time in total.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

This is Space X's first foray into directly bidding for strategic and missile defense payloads (beyond just launches).

Tranch-0 when fully fielded (by late 2022) would give them around 30 satellites (10 tracking and 20 transport) which will be sufficient to begin experimenting with hypersonic defense using space sensors. This is important because it will allow live tracking demonstrations and even intercepts of hypersonic boost glide targets (which are being developed) to happen leveraging the experimental system. Lockheed Martin, and York are building 10 transport layer satellites each which will also be launched by 2022 with their performance eon the contract used to potentially downselect to one vendor.

The tracking layer payloads detects, and places the hypersonic weapon in a fire-control quality track. The transport layer payloads fuse data from multiple tracking layer payloads, computes a fire control solution and downlink that to multiple ground based air-defense systems. The plan is to award Tranche 1 contracts by 2023, and have satellites fielded by end of 2024. Tranch 1 will involve a few hundred transport satellites, and a few dozen tracking layer satellites. T-1 will offer limited coverage, while the final Tranch (2) will expand into hundreds of transport and tracking layer sats and provide global coverage. Current plans are to fully field Tranch 2 by end of 2026.

L3Harris, SpaceX win Space Development Agency contracts to build missile-warning satellites

The Space Development Agency awarded $193.5 million to L3Harris and $149 million to SpaceX to build four satellites each to detect and track ballistic and hypersonic missiles.

The contracts announced Oct. 5 are for the first eight satellites for a potentially much larger constellation of sensor satellites the Space Development Agency is calling Tracking Layer Tranche 0.

The awards mark the first time the U.S. military has announced an order of satellites from SpaceX, which opened a factory in Seattle several years ago to produce thousands of small satellites for its Starlink broadband megaconstellation.

Both SpaceX and L3Harris are required to deliver their satellites by September 2022, Space Development Agency Director Derek Tournear told SpaceNews.

Each satellite will have a “wide field of view” overhead persistent infrared (OPIR) sensor capable of detecting and tracking advanced missile threats from low Earth orbit. The satellites will also be equipped with optical crosslinks to pass data to relay satellites.

Tournear said the winners were selected based on technical merit and ability to deliver satellites quickly.

SpaceX’s missile-tracking satellite will be based on its Starlink bus with an OPIR sensor acquired from another supplier, Tournear said. He declined to name the payload provider and SpaceX has not disclosed subcontractors for the project.

L3Harris, according to Tournear, bid a complete satellite with the bus and payload produced in-house.

The optical crosslinks in the Tracking Layer must be compatible with the optical links used in the Transport Layer satellites that Lockheed Martin and York Space Systems are building for the Space Development Agency under contracts awarded in August.

The Transport Layer is the backbone that moves data collected by the sensors to anywhere in the world where the U.S. military needs it.

Tournear said SpaceX “came in with an extremely credible proposal” that leverages its Starlink assembly line.

“The selection is on technical merit but the schedule takes top priority,” he said. “The SDA model is based on leveraging commercial technology. We have leveraged commercial tier 2 suppliers. This is an example of how we are leveraging commercial tier 1 suppliers.”

“We want to show that we can take commoditized commercial components and perform a DoD mission,” said Tournear.

All eight satellites will be launched in 2022 for a demonstration of the Tracking Layer. The next step will be to add 28 more wide field-of-view satellites and one or two “medium field of view” satellites that will be developed by the Missile Defense Agency. The medium field-of-view sensors provide more specific target location data to cue weapons automatically.

Under Tranche 0, a constellation of 20 Transport Layer satellites, eight wide field-of-view and two medium field-of-view OPIR Tracking Layer satellites would be deployed in two planes of 15 satellites each.

Tournear said the SDA is now reviewing bids for the “mission systems engineering and integration” contract. The winner will be responsible to tie the Transport Layer and the Tracking Layer with ground systems.
Image
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

US Army catches ‘air-launched effect’ drones in mid-air using another UAV

The US Army for the first time caught and recovered Area-I Altius “air-launched effects” drones in mid-air using a quadcopter during Project Convergence exercises in August and September.

Air-launched effects are small UAVs carried aboard and released from larger aircraft, giving them extended reach. The Altius-600 has 238nm (440km) range after launch.

The service avoided $2-3 million in potential damage to a collection of Altius fixed-wing unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) by using a new Flying Air Recovery System (FLARES), Brigadier General Walter Rugen, director of the US Army’s Future Vertical Lift Cross Functional Team, said on 6 October.

Rugen made his comments during Forum 76, an online conference hosted by the Vertical Flight Society.


“Previously, the Area-I Altius recovery involved belly landing the air vehicle,” Rugen told FlightGlobal in September. “But, during [Project Convergence 2020] we’ve been able to successfully air recover the [air vehicle] more than 25 times using a quadcopter UAV.”

The technique makes use of wing hooks on the Altius. The drone flies into cables suspended by the quadcopter, catching the cables in its hooks and sliding “down to the ground, minimising any potential damage”, said Rugen.

For the catch demonstrations, the Area-I UAVs were launched using a rail atop a truck, as well as from airborne Sikorsky UH-60 and MH-60 helicopters and a General Atomics Aeronautical Systems MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAV, he adds. FLARES is a proof of concept that has not previously been tried, according to the US Army.

The US Army wants its next-generation scout helicopter – the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) – to fly to the edge of dangerous airspace and release a swarm of air-launched effects, which will then penetrate enemy territory and send back intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance information. The small drones could also serve as explosive loitering munitions or electronic warfare platforms.

Because FARA is still in development, the US Army used a UH-60 as a surrogate to tube-launch the Altius UAVs. The small drones can also be networked together to pass information back to operators in friendly territory. “We’ve had our air-launched effects daisy-chained out to about 61km,” Rugen told FlightGlobal in September.

In addition to launching from FARA, General Atomics has shown renderings of its MQ-1C Gray Eagle Extended Range variant carrying 20 air-launched effects in pods below its centreline and wings.

“Serving as an [air-launched effect] mother ship, the [Gray Eagle Extended Range] will carry multiple [air-launched effects] with a variety of capabilities,” the company says. “The launching and controlling of [air-launched effects] from [Gray Eagle Extended Range] could potentially increase the survivability and effectiveness of current and future manned aviation systems with intelligence, targeting, communications, jammers, decoys and kinetic effects.”

General Atomics is also working on an air-launched and air-recovered drone, called Sparrowhawk. That air-launched effect development effort is internally funded by the company and intended for deployment aboard the US Air Force’s MQ-9A Reaper, a medium-altitude long-endurance armed reconnaissance UAV.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Apparently this is the final configuration of the US-Army Long Range Hypersonic Weapon battery. The initial units are already training on the new CONOPS and some of the C2 equipment (already operational with other systems). First battery deliveries stateside to begin next year (with a residual operationally deployment capability) and it will be fully equipped by mid 2023.

Lockheed Martin releases first image of new hypersonic long-range missile system


Image
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Philip »

The report on USN "light carriers" vindicates my stand for long for the IN too.These smaller CVs,though for the USN a light CV may be in actuality a med. sized vessel, will be very usefu in dealing with situations not requiring a full large CBG. With these additional light CVs and its large fleet of amphibs, plus new LCS surface combatants, the USN will be able to respond to a variety of global threats and situations with a greater no. of assets commeasurable to the threat. The WW2 experience of Essex class CVs seems to have had a revival.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Yeah they are great for peacetime missions and presence, but the moment the $hit hits the fan, the CVN force will have to come in and augment those just because those L class ships can't prosecute even the fraction of the targets that are going to be required from carrier strike figther squadrons in the first days of any near peer O plan (remember it isn't just CAS or protecting the surface fleet, AC's actually need to execute on a plan which means generating surplus sorties for striking targets which is really what sets a CVN apart because it has a large enough air-wing to do multiple missions concurrently - It sort of defeats the purpose of having a vessel capable of launching an air-wing if all a lite-carrier' air wing can do is protect itself and its escort). In fact not even a lone CVN can hence why the practice for dual and multi-carrier operations. The "lightning carriers" physically run out of the ability to generate sorties, hold any sizable magazine, or be able to execute on a tight support structure for them to be serious stand alone assets (without the big brother CVN) against a capable adversary. Just look at the # of carriers required during the Gulf war, and then use a multiplier for the size, vastness of the Pacific and the capability of the PLAN.

So yeah, the story isn't that some mythical Essex class nostalgia is going on here. The story is that the US navy thinks, based on what the SecDef previewed, it needs between 16-20 aircraft-carriers to execute its future global mission while also training for the higher end fight (you can't be on constant deployment in peacetime and expect to get high end training concurrently). And that the only way to afford that many carriers (along with everything that they are proposing in the 30y plan) is to sprinkle those L class 45-50k ton vessels in between but outfit them appropriately (so 18-20 F-35B's and possibly a V-22 derived AEW aircraft).

One advantage the USN/MC has in executing this is that they have a fair bit of V-22's and plan a decent CMV-22B fleet. The Osprey has the range, speed and payload to allow for them to execute a daisy chained operation between CVN's and L-class vessels where they can efficiently move weapons from larger magazines (CVN) to smaller vessels (L-class ships) and allow the smaller vessels to service the larger number of aircraft they may need to carry (the osprey can move an F-135 engine module making it the only such vertically landing aircraft in the world that can (without sling loading it)). So on the back of the V-22/CMV-22B fleet, they could attempt to execute a hub and spoke operation with one CVN and a couple of L class vessels for extended periods of time.

That just shows how valuable the CVN is going to be in this new set up. Take away the CVN and no one in China is going to lose any sleep over the capability that these F-35B carriers bring to the fight. They have a fraction of the range, a fraction of the fire-power and a fraction of the magazine of even a modestly kitted Nimitz (leave aside the more capable Ford). Not to mention that they are limited in their ability to cover more then a couple of missions at a time so have limited flexibility. They work for the USMC because that service is a force projecting force that seeks just two broader tasks from its L class vessels - CAS and limited surface fleet protection. Even if they magically scale up those ships to 60k tons, they will still be limited relative to CVNs so at best are decent companion vessels but not very credible (in the US-vs-China scenario) stand-alone assets.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Replied here from the Indian Missiles's thread:
Sumeet wrote:Brar If you think AWACS is an outdated concept why is there so much focus (in IAF) to build new ones or buy it from foreign sources for countries like India.
Because it fills a gap and serves a purpose given the threats the IAF and India faces?
Sumeet wrote:Is it because most of our force for next two decades will be non stealthy fighters ?
That, and more importantly, so will the adversaries both sides of the border.
Sumeet wrote:Should not Radar upgrade (say GaN TR modules) based AESA present a solution to low observable systems ?
The radar range equation is still unfavorable so while having 2nd, or 3rd generation GaN modules (especially when you get to that microfludic thermals) may help close some gap, you are still not where you started as highly optimized VLO designs shrink RCS by multiple orders of magnitude and not just linearly. So if you are preparing to confront a future where stealthy 5th and 6th gen fighters have proliferated, and unmanned VLO UCAV's and manned VLO bombers exist in quantity then this isn't the best or most cost-effective approach. On top of this you have the threat from long range interceptors which come into play faster if the adversary is mounting them on LO to VLO platfroms. So then the question is, can you afford to "live" with their reduced survivability, and if you cannot afford to buy to account for this level of attrition, can you "live" with degraded SA and command and control? For the USAF, the answer to both of those is no. So they need to find ways to do the AWACS and JSTARS mission in ways that does not present sizable single points of failure (like high value assets) that the enemy has decades to work on countermeasures against (because these things last for 3-5 decades in the fleet). I'm sure when AWACS and JSTARS showed up on the battlefield they weren't as widely regarded as the capability is today. They had to prove their worth and they did in GW. Likewise, if you see the writing on the wall and your enemy, who gets a vote, has devised capable counters then you have to have the flexibility to pivot to ways of doing the mission that is advantageous to you (and not to your enemy). I think underpinning this is the recognition that the "capability , SA and C2" is important and not how it is done. If you wed yourself to a platform and not the capability then that can get problematic and lead to a nasty surprise if the balloon actually does go up.

Do note that my original comment was about AWACS and JSTARS replacement, as in the need to replace those two fleets in the USAF. Fleets which in some cases won't need replacement until mid to late 2030s. In case of the IAF, the debate/point isn't about recapitalizing a fleet but acquiring a large enough fleet in the first place. So with the USAF it is different. They see the writing on the wall and a need to do this mission differently and have 10-15 years to figure out "what" and "how" because they have a large AWACS fleet already. Sinking money in recapitalizing it like for like is probably foolish. IAF wants to get there so the gap that this fleet is filling (or going to be filling) is currently being unmet.

As for the paper, that is a research paper which you can find arguing for either sides of the argument (this is what research scholars do). But within the USAF, academic work, and of late, wargaming had flagged some major concerns in terms of survivaiblity for these high value assets. To such a factor where the service unilaterally terminated a congressionally approved, and funded, JSTARS recap (to a point where they had to fight for this with Congress) and has since begun live demonstrations of what will replace it (ABMS). Imagine a service fighting with Congress to kill a fully funded R&D and acquisition program for a brand new fleet of AEW aircraft. Doesn't happen often but it did in this case. Also note that the JSTARS-Recap had a very innovative radar - A dual band (X and Ka 2nd generation GaN sensor) - selected but they couldn't close the case despite having the radar in hand (it was mature and flying for multiple months before the program was terminated). Even the backup radar was a 2nd gen X band GaN radar. And it too was flying.

Within the USAF the path to take is now crystal clear and there is probably no going back to a NG E-3 or a NG E-8 (or a hybrid E-10). The debate was beyond academic. It entailed demonstrations (flying hardware) and probably some extensive real world red-teaming. This is why they haven't bought even a single E-7. E-3's will last till the 2040s and then nothing will replace them with the mission distributed over dozens if not hundreds of platforms with varying survivability.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... vironment/
If the Air Force decides to retain the capability of having a centralized battle management node in the skies, service leaders believe the current acquisition approach is the correct one, said Gen. Mike Holmes, head of Air Combat Command.

Otherwise, the Air Force might be best served by networking together its current collection of aircraft, drones and sensors in an interim capability that can bridge the service’s capability gap until it can field a more survivable system built to handle high-threat environments, he said.

“The question really is, how long do we continue to fund the GMTI [ground moving target indicator] capability in the classic way we’ve done it: with an integrated platform that has a sensor and air battle managers onboard,” that then communicate in the line of sight with people to take on tasks, he said during a Sept. 18 roundtable with reporters at the Air Force Association’s annual conference. “How much of our threat environment in the future will allow us to do that?”
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Philip »

The report on the Eglin base F-35 crash.
It also gives the cost of the F-35 as $176M.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your ... tors-find/

Xcpts:
Eglin F-35 crash resulted from tired, distracted pilot and unresponsive tail glitch, investigators find
Stephen Losey
An investigation has concluded that the May 19 crash of an F-35A Lightning II at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida was caused by the pilot trying to land at an excessive speed, and a previously unknown flight control logic glitch that left its tail unresponsive.

The report, which the Air Force posted online Sept. 30, also listed multiple pilot mistakes or factors that investigators said significantly contributed to the crash on Eglin’s Runway 30. They found the pilot was fatigued and, as a result, “experienced cognitive degradation” was also distracted at a critical point in the flight due to a misaligned helmet-mounted display. The pilot tried to land with the speed hold engaged and used an alternate cross-check method, and lacked some key knowledge about the fighter’s flight control logic.

The pilot in this crash successfully ejected, sustaining non-life threatening injuries. The crash was the second involving a fifth-generation fighter at Eglin in short succession, following an F-22 crash four days earlier. It prompted alarmed base leadership to temporarily put flights on hold to focus on safety.

The F-35 was in the 58th Fighter Squadron, assigned to Eglin’s 33rd Fighter Wing.

The pilot, who was a qualified instructor pilot, was the flight lead in a night training sortie alongside another F-35. The two-ship finished the training, and the pilot approached the runway for a landing at about 9:25 p.m.

But the pilot landed too fast and too shallowly. As the fighter approached, its speed hold was set at a calibrated airspeed of 202 knots, which at this point was in line with normal procedure. But it should have been disengaged before landing so the fighter could slow down.

Problems started to mount upon approach, distracting the pilot, the report said. The pilot noticed something was wrong with his helmet-mounted display, suggesting it was misaligned in relation to the horizon. The pilot cross-checked his virtual heads-up display and instrument landing system data, and visually adjusted his aim point and glide slope toward the runway’s threshold.

The data showed the fighter was high in the glide path, and coming in with its nose further down than normal for a landing. The pilot tried to correct the error, which further threw off the misaligned display readings.

What’s more, it was nighttime and the area around the runway was poorly lit. The pilot “described having to point into the black abyss” of the area in front of the runway, the report said. And the green glow of his display was increasingly distracting the pilot, the report said, even though he turned its brightness down on his final approach. The report said humidity worsened the glow.

The fighter touched down with the speed hold still engaged — which is a prohibited maneuver — and about 50 knots faster than intended. It also came in at an angle of attack of 5.2 degrees, or 8 degrees shallower than it should have. At that speed, the pilot had to nudge the stick forward to touch down. This caused all three landing gear to touch the ground at the same time, instead of the rear gear touching first and then easing the nose gear down.

The three-point attitude landing caused the nose gear to bounce, and the fighter’s nose rose quickly and sharply. The pilot again pushed the stick forward to try to stop the fighter, which started a series of “increasingly violent” pitch oscillations as it bounced on the landing gear.

The pilot continued to try to regain control of the fighter for about five seconds, but the flight control system became overwhelmed by the quick succession of forward and aft stick movements. This flight control system glitch caused the plane’s horizontal stabilizers to default to a trailing edge down direction and stay there, nudging the nose down.

The pilot pulled back on the stick and hit full afterburners to try to abort the landing. But with the stabilizers pointing down, his effort to take off again was unsuccessful and he was forced to bail out.

The $176 million plane
rolled, caught fire, and was completely destroyed, the report said. Debris was strewn across the runway and in the field to its north. The pilot landed on the south end of the runway, and was recovered by emergency responders.

The report said the pilot was fatigued and said he had been having increasingly poor sleep. The pilot also said he felt fatigued more often in the F-35 than in his previous aircraft, the F-15E. The report notes that the F-35′s oxygen delivery system is different than legacy oxygen systems like the one in the F-15E, and has caused many F-35 pilots to feel slightly more fatigued than usual.

The pilot was fixated on the faulty display symbology during the critical phase of landing, to the exclusion of cross-checking his airspeed and angle of attack, the report said. And he had several things on his mind, the report said, including a positive COVID-19 test of a contact of a contact that might require him to quarantine, which contributed to his task over-saturation.

PS:It appears that the F-35s OBOGS problem hasn't been satisfactorily fixed. Simplest solution,go back to what works best.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Philip wrote: It also gives the cost of the F-35 as $176M.
For write-offs, the cost of the asset being written off is always attributed based on the cost of the correspending production lot that aircraft and its associated hardware is part of (it's common sense - you write off based on what you paid for it not what you pay for a similar aircraft now). So imagine if the AA-1 ever crashes, the write off would use its cost to determine the loss. AA-1 probably cost more than $300 million given that it was the very first example and part of a very small initial production. More than 570 serial production F-35's have been delivered so it isn't strange that early production lots cost more than current production lots because production has grown over the time the aircraft went into production.

When you buy aircraft (as in what the is the "cost" of an aircraft) you pay the prevailing Lot cost, which is negotiated, definitized and sealed prior to aircraft delivery. That for the CTOL (A variant) is below $80 Million for the most latest negotaited contract (with aircraft currently in production). These are firm-fixed price contracts. So the $80 MM cost is for aircraft ordered in 2019. The aircraft that crashed in Eglin was ordered in 2013 and was delivered in 2015. The F-35 was a lot more expensive in 2013 then it was last year. W/O's also add all that you've spent in upgrades. The F-35A CTOL has moved through block 2B, to 3F and began receiving some early FOM hardware last year so those costs are also written off along with the aircraft.
Philip wrote:PS:It appears that the F-35s OBOGS problem hasn't been satisfactorily fixed. Simplest solution,go back to what works best.
There is no indication that the PEs on the F-35A are any more than the PEs in other fleets that also utilize the technology. And some of these systems and sub-systems are shared across multiple international fighters. I am not aware of any OBOGS related worthiness restrictions currently in place beyond monitoring and the reporting protocol. What you are seeing is greater visibility into PEs because the technology is moving up in scale considerably and because episodes have shed light and there now exists a long laundry list of reporting protocols that must be followed when PE is suspected. High level multi-disciplinary efforts are underway to understand the issues (likely a combination of technology MTBF limitations and HFEs related to not adequate guidlines on how to sustain these systems). Expect iterations of the current generation of systems, and future generations of this technology to make improvements across the board. The answer to new challenges that crop up with new technology isn't to go back running to the old way of doing things, but to advance your own understanding and technical ability and improve. It is called progress.

The F-35 fleet generates a tremendous amounts of data because it flies a heck of a lot. The fleet surpassed 325,000 cumulative flight hours last month. And it does so in all types of environments. From Persian Gulf naval deployments, to multiple cross Atlantic and cross-Pacific deployments and from combat zones over Syria and Iraq to flying in remote areas like Alaska and Norway and Iceland. And this at 26 air-bases and many nations operating the type. So the learnings would probably be faster, and better than if it were a tiny fleet (like the F-22) being operated by smaller units with limitations on how many resources they could dedicate to improving the system at any given time.
Last edited by brar_w on 11 Oct 2020 06:06, edited 1 time in total.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Philip wrote:Well,lucky US that can junk such systems so easily!
They aren't junking them so easily. They've flown a tremendous amounts with these aircraft for what they are, what they do, and what they are designed for. The Global Hawk is not a MiG-21 or any other tactical fighter. One needs to understand the difference between a fleet of UAV's (HALE UAV's at that) and manned fighters and then begin to dissect what nuances exist between those. You can start with burn rates. A fighter may fly 200, 300 or 350 hours a year. A HALE UAV, especially one that is globally deployed and part of a few dozen aircraft fleet can fly many many times more per year. The demand for ISR orbits within the USAF is insane. I've provided data in the past but it essentially entails holding multiple global orbits nearly constantly over the last many many years.

A high end HALE asset needs to be able to incorporate your latest sensors, mission computers and self-defense countermeasures for it to be effective on the battlefield. There's no plan B for it. It isn't a trainer or something that you can use to make up numbers. If it doesn't have your latest and greatest sensors then its utility fades away.

If you have old types where you do not need see value in making that investment then you are probably better off spending that money where you get better return. The whole idea of an unmanned fleet is that you aren't stuck with them for as long you'd keep an 8-10K hour figther that goes through multiple lifetime structural or capability upgrades. Drones can be used, abused, and set aside when something better comes. Fighter serve a whole host of roles and are manned and therefore chew up training hours. Drones, particularly the higher end HALE drones, are almost exclusively used for operational missions (besides some low utilization for some exercises or flight checks and certification flights).

The USAF made the value decision that given finite resources (the budget is always about trade-offs) they would much rather retire block 30 and pre block 30 Global Hawks and retain the fleet of Block 40 and 40+ Global Hawks as those are more survivable and incorporate newer sensors, better faster computers and are more connected. Bringing block 20 and early block 30's up to block 40 standard is probably not a wise investment from their point of view and retaining them as such offers limited utility and chews up O&S resources on account of a fragmented fleet.

This calculus is no doubt impacted by the RQ-180 having entered service (though the USAF cannot come out and outright state that because of classification). In factm, the prior USAF boss literally said as much:

Exhibit A
Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein said all of these aircraft have “performed well” in combat but are nearing the end of their service lives and either cannot survive against a peer adversary or cannot “contribute significantly” to a 2030 fight.

The problem, he said, is that the service cannot talk publicly about what the future force might look like... “Not surprisingly, of the services, the air and space forces have the largest classified portfolio of investment. This makes the story harder to tell,” said Goldfein...LINK


Exhibit B
Almost six years after Aviation Week first disclosed the existence of a large, classified unmanned aircraft developed by Northrop Grumman, there is a growing body of evidence that the stealthy vehicle is now fully operational with the U.S. Air Force in a penetrating intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) role.

Thought to be dubbed the RQ-180, the advanced design is believed to have been flying since 2010 and under operational test and evaluation since late 2014. According to new information provided to Aviation Week, the aircraft became operational with the recently reformed 427th Reconnaissance Sqdn. at Beale AFB, California, this year. The Air Force declined to comment on the status of the program.

LINK
Reading between the lines, what the CSAF is essentially saying is - Divest Exhibit A, and use that money saved (O&S account) to buy more of Exhibit B. This isn't out of the blue. The USAF was asked to do analysis like this by two recent Secretaries of Defense in Mattis, and Esper. This is also entirely consistent with the USAF's view on the F-35A vs F-15EX debate (both the CSAF and SecAF were against it and opposed it quite publicly). In that case IB concerns meant that they were overruled by the Secretary of Defense. But in this case IB concerns will not exist as both types are built and supported by the same OEM.

Any third party interested in them would have to make two determinations - 1) Is the block 20 or block 30 configuration good enough from a cost and capability stand point (sustaining older block GH's is more expensive than sustaining current block aircraft) and 2) Is the remaining capability left in these aircraft (service life) allows for them to be cost-effectively be upgraded to block 40 and operated for the remainder of their lives. If the USAF is luke warm on upgrading them to block 40 and beyond then I'd suspect most external customers would shy away from doing the same. You have to close the business case.

Regardless, not enough money in the USAF or any 3rd parties budget to transform them into MALE UAV/UCAV's which was the entire point of the strawman argument (that somehow dated older variant GH's can come in and fill a Reaper like gap or operational ISR+Strike need).
Philip wrote:We're manfully keeping our legacy MIG-21s flying after 50+ years! And when the Bisons finally retire,they'll cross 60.
The B-52 will likely retire after 100 years in service. The C-130 can probably last a very long time in the USAF and elsewhere. But comparing it to an RPA isn't really valid because they are designed differently, are used differently, and serve a different mission and purpose. A Buff that has mostly sat on alert duties and is therefore much "younger" than B-1's (which though younger in calendar years have been utilized a lot more, and a lot differently to their intended design) can be transitioned to stand off duties and continue to serve a purpose. A high end HALE ISR platfrom begins to loose value if it can't carry your latest and greatest sensors and therefore cannot assure ISR data when needed. There is nothing analogous to a stand-off attack mission in the HALE ISR mission. Either you carry the requisite sensors, and can survive or you can't. If it gets cost prohibitive to do either then you move on. That's a big advantage of unmanned over manned.
Last edited by brar_w on 11 Oct 2020 07:06, edited 3 times in total.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Here's some data to get some sense on the "utilization" of the UAV fleet that I referenced earlier.
Definitions: The Air Force measures its RPA presence in-theater with the term “CAP,” which equals a 24-hour presence over a given geographical area. A single Combat Air Patrol (CAP) translates to about four aircraft: three in-theater and one at home base for training. LINK

Global ISR demand continues to persist given the proliferation of violent extremist groups in regions across the globe from all corners of Africa to the Philippines. As such, the Pentagon sought to increase global CAPs by nearly 50 percent in four years moving to 90 CAPs by 2019. LINK

Image

While this is for the aggregate RPA fleet, it is a good proxy to establish how unmanned ISR assets are utilized by the US Military. Definitely nothing like an F-15 or F-16.
Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12062
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Vayutuvan »

https://www.aerodefensetech.com/compone ... pace/37601
Directed-Energy System to Defeat Small Unmanned Aircraft System Swarms
New weapons technology is needed to combat the proliferation of small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS), miniaturization of sensor technology, and advancement of UAS swarm logic that will enable swarms of sUAS to threaten US airbases by the 2025 timeframe.
...
The proliferation of small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS), miniaturization of sensor technology, and advancement of UAS swarm logic foretell that swarms of sUAS will threaten US air-bases by the 2025 timeframe. Currently fielded base defense systems are not well-suited to combat this emerging threat. Current directed energy (DE) developmental systems indicate this class of weapons is the best soluti...
There is a link to whitepaper at the end
Last edited by Vayutuvan on 13 Oct 2020 02:30, edited 1 time in total.
Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12062
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Vayutuvan »

https://www.aerodefensetech.com/compone ... pace/37613
Experimental Design of a UCAV-Based High-Energy Laser Weapon

Until now, unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAV) have used only conventional missiles (i.e., Hellfire), but the rapid growth of laser weapon technology suggests that the day of the first deployable UCAV armed with a high-energy laser (HEL) weapon is not far away.
...
Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California
The deployment of an airborne platform armed with a High Energy Laser (HEL) weapon has been a major challenge for several decades. Attempts in the past included mounting a HEL weapon in large aircraft like a Boeing 747, mainly for strategic missions like defense against tactical ballistic missiles. Despite being very promising in their initial phases, these trial configurations presented various technical and economic issues that resulted in their cancellation.

Recently, the focus has shifted from strategic missions to tactical missions. That means that HEL weapons of lower power and, consequently, decreased size and weight would be sufficient for these missions while also being more suitable for airborne applications. Additionally, the improvements in laser weapon technology in terms of size, weight, and power (SWaP) promise that soon a HEL weapon could be deployable from an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).

The purpose of this research was to model a UAV-based HEL weapon by applying a model-based system engineering (MBSE) approach and simulate its performance. Two alternative HEL design configurations were selected, and their corresponding weight requirements were estimated. Finally, the endurance of the UAV for these different configurations was calculate...
There is a link to whitepaper at the end
Post Reply