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
Nick_S
BRFite
Posts: 533
Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Location: Abbatabad

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Nick_S »

Australia spent billions on jet fighters off the plan. Now, we're having trouble even flying them

https://theconversation.com/amp/austral ... hem-177156

Another negative article on the F-35.... these keep popping up every now and then.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by ldev »

Great explanation of how the angle at which radar waves hit an aircraft has a dramatic impact on radar cross section. By the Program Manager and first Chief Engineer of the F-117 program at Lockheed Martin

Nick_S
BRFite
Posts: 533
Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Location: Abbatabad

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Nick_S »

Air Force Wants To Retire 33 F-22s, Buy More F-15EXs In New Budget

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... new-budget

That was quite surprising to me. 33 of the world's best fighter may be prematurely retired.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Those are block 20 training (not combat) F-22's and retiring them makes sense if you plan on introducing NGAD in the early part of next decade. The F-22's fate was sealed the moment the fleet was capped at 186. Small fleets, dispersed around multiple bases (for expeditionary reasons) are a nightmare to sustain, modernize and operate over decades. USAF is doing a serious upgrade to the combat coded F-22 fleet and that will stay through till the NGAD arrives but once it does, even that will be retired with NGAD, F-35, F-15EX and F-16 being the four supersonic jets that they are sustaining into the longer term. With the NGAD demonstrator already flying, and its funding levels increased YoY, there is little justification in keeping F-22 around once it is fielded given they do the same mission and the F-22 will be a very expensive fighter to keep around doing missions that can perhaps be done by F-35, or F-15 EX with NGAD taking over the higher end OCA needs. One of the justifications to keep a small fleet of F-22's was its ability to swing mission and drop JDAM's and SDB's on targets stealthily. This was needed since the F-117 was no longer an option. But with 300 and growing number of F-35A's with the US Air Force, that multi role strike mission is now not very relevant for the F-22 leaving just the OCA mission. Which is why a modernized combat coded fleet is going to be kept viable until the NGAD is ready to take over that mission and then the 120-130 or so latest block variants also retired.

Also, the president's budget request is the first salvo of a long budget process. The USAF always like to throw out a large number of retirements and fleet divestments knowing full well that Congress will scale that back to a smaller number. So this, along with low balling certain programs and requesting additional funding through the unfunded priorities lists is a game they play each year. Congress will be adding anywhere from $30 Billion to $50 Billion to this budget so a lot of these requests will be denied and the AF knows this.
Nick_S
BRFite
Posts: 533
Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Location: Abbatabad

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Nick_S »

Thanks Brar. Very insightful as always.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5461
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Cyrano »

Congress will be adding anywhere from $30 Billion to $50 Billion to this budget so a lot of these requests will be denied and the AF knows this.
This bickering on the margins is nearly the size of India's total defense budget. LoL !
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Yes but relative to the US defense spending it is a 4 or so percent adjustment by Congress which is pretty standard for them. In fact the services kind of bake that in and underfund certain popular programs knowing that the gap will be addressed by Congress. There is a formal list of equipment that Congress asks each service cheif to provide, that did not make it into the base budget given the top-line number that the White house had given the Pentagon. Its a process thing in the US system as Congress, and not White House, ultimately gets to decide what gets funded. Also, by marking the 33 or so F-22 blk 20's, the USAF is also telling Congress, in a subtle way, that it would cost approximately $1 Billion to get them upgraded to the most current combat coded standard so its also a bit of posturing where they may get a few divestments but probably expect a large chunk of those to have upgrades funded to keep them around till NGAD is bedded down next decade.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Low key announcement that's flown a bit under the radar (pun intended) but is of some significance. Prior to this, a full PATRIOT battery (if not a battalion) sized force had to be employed alongside a THAAD battery to provide lower tier protection and to allow a third, sub 50km altitude, shot (first shot exo, second shot high endo, and third low endo). By integrating the MSE missile and launcher right into the THAAD combat system it now allows them to mix THAAD and PAC-3 MSE launchers in a standard THAAD battery deployment (with the existing TPY-2 X-band radar). Each THAAD battery typically deploys with six launchers but is organically capable of supporting 9 (where 6 THAAD launchers can be totally remote and hundreds of km apart with the latest WS build) so this leaves room for 3 MSE launchers (each with 12 interceptor rounds for 36 interceptors) alongside the 6 THAAD launchers (48 interceptors).

Missile Defense Agency and U.S. Army Test Integration of THAAD and Patriot Missile Defense Systems

The Missile Defense Agency, in partnership with the U.S. Army Program Executive Office Missiles and Space, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, and Ballistic Missile Defense System Operational Test Agency, successfully conducted a flight test today of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) Weapon System. The test, designated Flight Test THAAD Weapon System (FTT)-21, was conducted at the White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.

Preliminary results indicate that flight test objectives were achieved by the THAAD Weapon System, which fired two Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC)-3 Missile Segment Enhanced (MSE) interceptors that intercepted a Black Dagger target.

"The success of today's flight test marks a critical milestone for the integration of the THAAD and Patriot weapon systems," said MDA Director Vice Adm. Jon Hill. "The integration of the PAC-3 MSE interceptor into the THAAD weapon system provides the combatant commands and soldiers on the ground the capability to use the right missile for the right threat at the right time. This was a complex capability to develop, and I commend the MDA team, U.S. Army soldiers and civilians, and our industry partners for their stellar dedication to the mission."

FTT-21 is the first live intercept flight test of a software build that provides the capability for the THAAD Weapon System to compute PAC-3 MSE firing solutions, communicate with an M903 Patriot Launching Station, and simultaneously control multiple PAC-3 MSE interceptors in flight. The integration of the PAC-3 MSE interceptor into the THAAD Weapon System enables the warfighter to launch the PAC-3 MSE interceptor earlier enabling a longer fly-out time which in turns increases the defended area or battlespace. This new capability is directly applicable to addressing current threat environments with an enhanced, layered defense.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

New administration has completed its nuclear posture review, and as expected the consensus elements of nuclear modernization (triad recapitalization, and F-35 and B-21 nuclear cert) have survived as they've done through the previous two administrations, while the new weapon that the Trump administration started (sea launched nuclear cruise missile) has been cancelled.
After conducting the upcoming Nuclear Posture Review, the Biden administration has chosen to end the sea-launched cruise missile program, a senior Pentagon official said.
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/03/bid ... e-program/
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by ldev »

brar_w wrote:Low key announcement that's flown a bit under the radar (pun intended) but is of some significance. Prior to this, a full PATRIOT battery (if not a battalion) sized force had to be employed alongside a THAAD battery to provide lower tier protection and to allow a third, sub 50km altitude, shot (first shot exo, second shot high endo, and third low endo). By integrating the MSE missile and launcher right into the THAAD combat system it now allows them to mix THAAD and PAC-3 MSE launchers in a standard THAAD battery deployment (with the existing TPY-2 X-band radar). Each THAAD battery typically deploys with six launchers but is organically capable of supporting 9 (where 6 THAAD launchers can be totally remote and hundreds of km apart with the latest WS build) so this leaves room for 3 MSE launchers (each with 12 interceptor rounds for 36 interceptors) alongside the 6 THAAD launchers (48 interceptors).

Missile Defense Agency and U.S. Army Test Integration of THAAD and Patriot Missile Defense Systems
And you have an Americanski S-400 with a variety of missiles operating off a single system :) Now just call it a T-500 and sell it!! It may get a better reception :)
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Different missiles already fly out of US Air defense system. PATRIOT has three missiles integrated into it with a fourth in development. This modification essentially converts THAAD from a high altitude or upper tier system (which is what it was designed for originally), into one that can independently also cover a large chunk of the low altitude threats without needing the PATRIOT radar, or command and control system. And since the launcher and its communication node has been integrated into THAADs weapon system it also opens up any potential future missile that is integrated with that Patriot launcher so this capability will only grow with time. Also preserves the upper tier shots if they are not required. Should impact doctrine where some of the MRBM threats are addressed exclusively with the MSE instead of the more capable, but more expensive THAAD round. This adds a lot of flexibility in terms of where and how you deploy this expeditionary system as now you can take it a lot closer to the threat given it can now defend against the lower altitude threats including short range missiles. Earlier, THAAD deployment and sites had to be chosen based on the SRBM threat because it was a threat (sub-50km altitude engagements) that it could not independently deal with. Now it can so it opens up the aperture significantly. Enabling / underlying all this is the new dual-band (C and X band) high rate data-link that was introduced into the PAC-3 MSE missile which allows the THAAD radar to communicate with the interceptor without requiring a completely new high rate data link specific for this application (Patriot operates in the C band).
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Having completed first demonstrator engine tests in-house the second demonstrator GE engine has begun Phase 2 testing -

GE begins industry’s first adaptive cycle engine tests at Arnold Engineering Development Complex

The U.S. Air Force and GE on March 25th initiated Phase 2 testing of GE’s second XA100 adaptive cycle engine at the Air Force’s Arnold Engineering Development Complex (AEDC). This milestone marks the first test of an Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP) engine at AEDC.

“AEDC’s advanced testing facilities are a unique national asset. We’re thrilled to begin testing here and continue maturing this propulsion system that we believe represents the future of the F-35,” said David Tweedie, GE Edison Works’ general manager for Advanced Combat Engines. “Our testing to date has validated the XA100’s transformational capability, and we’re looking forward to seeing the performance data from Phase 2 testing.”

GE completed Phase 1 testing of this XA100 test engine in November 2021 in Evendale, Ohio. Phase 2 testing will take place entirely at AEDC, representing the capstone of AETP and signaling readiness to transition this technology into full-scale development.

GE’s XA100 became the world’s first ever flight-weight, three-stream adaptive cycle engine in December 2020 before initiating tests on its second engine in August 2021. GE’s engine is uniquely designed to fit both the F-35A and F-35C without any structural modifications to either airframe, enabling better aircraft range, acceleration, and cooling power to accommodate next-generation mission systems, while also ensuring durability and enhanced readiness.

“The XA100 simultaneously provides transformational improvements in fuel efficiency, thrust, power, and thermal management that simply cannot be matched by legacy propulsion systems,” Tweedie added. “These improvements will help ensure the F-35 remains a preeminent fighter platform not just in the near-term, but for decades into the future, and will enable lower operational and sustainment costs for the services.”

The XA100 combines three key innovations to deliver a generational change in combat propulsion performance:

An adaptive engine cycle that provides both a high-thrust mode for maximum power and a high-efficiency mode for optimum fuel savings and loiter time
A third-stream architecture that provides a step-change in thermal management capability, enabling future mission systems for increased combat effectiveness
Extensive use of advanced component technologies, including ceramic matrix composites (CMC), polymer matrix composites (PMC), and additive manufacturing
These revolutionary innovations increase thrust more than 10%, improve fuel efficiency by 25%, and provide significantly more aircraft heat dissipation capacity, all within the same physical envelope as current propulsion systems. The XA100’s improved fuel efficiency provides significant reduction in carbon emissions and will operate on any U.S. Air Force-approved Sustainable Aviation Fuel.

The XA100 is a product of GE Edison Works, a business unit dedicated to the research, development, and production of advanced military solutions. This business unit has full responsibility for strategy, innovation, and execution of advanced programs.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

A very interesting video of the AIM-9x 3 launched from a F-35A in LOAL mode. You can see this is a Data linked extended range shot given the lofted profile immediately executed at launch.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by ldev »

US tested hypersonic missile in mid-March but kept it quiet to avoid escalating tensions with Russia
The US successfully tested a hypersonic missile in mid-March but kept it quiet for two weeks to avoid escalating tensions with Russia as President Joe Biden was about to travel to Europe, according to a defense official familiar with the matter.

The Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC) was launched from a B-52 bomber off the west coast, the official said, in the first successful test of the Lockheed Martin version of the system. A booster engine accelerated the missile to high speed, at which point the air-breathing scramjet engine ignited and propelled the missile at hypersonic speeds of Mach 5 and above.
The official offered scant details of the missile test, only noting the missile flew above 65,000 feet and for more than 300 miles. But even at the lower end of hypersonic range -- about 3,800 miles per hour -- a flight of 300 miles is less than 5 minutes.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

^ Aviation week (AWIN) broke the news on this test last week. It is nearly impossible (for the US) to keep a hypersonic test launched from the air/land, and over./into sea a secret as OSINT trackers can track the unique aircraft and ships that are required for telemetry and for tracking the test. Even if you keep their deployments hidden from open source tracking, there are just a handful of air bases from which they (support aircraft) operate and those generally have spotters most of the time so when those ranges are being worked up for this type of test, it is mostly known. land to land tests are easier to hide but you don't have ranges that can support overland testing of these type of weapons so must launch into the pacific ocean.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Cyrano wrote:So any comparisons with US deployments in terms of total troops, teeth to tail, sorties, tonnes of logistics moved, etc. will never be really comparable.
I don't think that's the correct conclusion to draw. Gulf War, and OIF was fought 10K kms away. When you commit to large scale combat operations at those scales and distances you can't circle back and quickly reinforce so have to send everything close to the front line to fight that battle. Given the size of the Iraqi army, the terrain and land involved (quick mobilization) and the combat capability of the troops the coalition sized its troops well. You need a 3:1 ratio to push through your offensive axis and that's what drew Schwarzkopf's force construct and O plans. One can look at the efficiency of that campaign, and the extremely low casualty counts and see its success (the US suffered about 150 direct battle related casualties with a force in excess of 400,000. Another 150 or so were attributed to non battlefield related causes). OIF likewise saw about 160K troops against a now much weakened Iraqi force and even there it was right sized to efficiently route the SH government and take Baghdad with fairly low casualties (they were averaging about 50 KIA a month for the first several months of OIF). It was clearly not enough to execute a CI campaign but then they had surge that confronted that. Yet even all in there were something like 4K US casualties over five plus years (several due to proxy actions) which would indicate that on the whole the force structure and capacity was eventually rightsized. Russia seems to have lost more troops in these 40 days than 15 years of US operations in Iraq.
Last edited by brar_w on 06 Apr 2022 06:38, 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 »

brar_w wrote:^ Aviation week (AWIN) broke the news on this test last week. It is nearly impossible (for the US) to keep a hypersonic test launched from the air/land, and over./into sea a secret as OSINT trackers can track the unique aircraft and ships that are required for telemetry and for tracking the test. Even if you keep their deployments hidden from open source tracking, there are just a handful of air bases from which they (support aircraft) operate and those generally have spotters most of the time so when those ranges are being worked up for this type of test, it is mostly known. land to land tests are easier to hide but you don't have ranges that can support overland testing of these type of weapons so must launch into the pacific ocean.
DARPA has now officially confirmed - the second HAWC test (first for Lockheed) following Raytheon's September 2021 sucesfull flight test. Scramjet lit and maintained cruise speed in excess of Mach 5. Total flight in excess of 550 km.

DARPA and its U.S. Air Force partner recently completed a free flight test of the Lockheed Martin version of the Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC). The vehicle, after release from a carrier aircraft, was boosted to its Aerojet Rocketdyne scramjet engine ignition envelope. From there, it quickly accelerated to and maintained cruise faster than Mach 5 (five times the speed of sound) for an extended period of time. The vehicle reached altitudes greater than 65,000 feet and flew for more than 300 nautical miles.

This is the second successful flight in DARPA’s HAWC program. Last September, a different vehicle configuration from another contractor team also reached hypersonic flight.

"This Lockheed Martin HAWC flight test successfully demonstrated a second design that will allow our warfighters to competitively select the right capabilities to dominate the battlefield,” said Andrew "Tippy" Knoedler, HAWC program manager in DARPA's Tactical Technology Office. “These achievements increase the level of technical maturity for transitioning HAWC to a service program of record.”

Air-breathing vehicles utilize air captured from the atmosphere to achieve sustained propulsion. The speed and maneuverability of such hypersonic cruise missiles allow both evasion of defenses and quick strikes. Their kinetic energy can effectively destroy targets even without high explosives.LINK
Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12060
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Vayutuvan »

Something that might be of interest to DRDO/HAL/IAF.

https://www.aerodefensetech.com/compone ... ries/45475
Air Force Awards $100 Million to Continue B-1 Digital Engineering Program

The B-1 System Program Office (SPO) recently awarded a six-year, $100 million follow-on contract to Wichita State University’s National Institute for Aviation Research (NIAR) to continue the B-1’s Digital Engineering (DE) transformation. The National Center for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS) helped form the strategic partnership and created a flexible contract structure, which allows NIAR and the B-1 SPO to adapt requirements real-time to meet critical warfighter needs.
According to Lt Col Joseph Lay, B-1 SPO Material Leader for Structures: “This project brings the B-1 into the same field as newly designed aircraft and allows digital modeling to predict future areas of concern. This will allow the SPO to proactively develop repairs, reduce the cost and schedule for parts procurement by eliminating the burden of interpreting legacy Air Force (AF) drawings, and increase the number of vendors who are capable of producing parts for the B-1 platform. DE will not only help reduce the time it takes to develop repairs but also to install them. We will be able to develop and test repairs well in advance virtually ensuring first time success and improving aircraft availability.”

While new AF systems are born digitally, the transition to DE for legacy systems is complicated by various factors to include return on investment over the platform’s lifecycle, vendor lock with the original equipment manufacturer (OEM), and understanding where to start on a task of this size and complexity. The B-1 is proving legacy aircraft can find a benefit and has become a trailblazer for other legacy platforms to follow.

Creating flexible requirements with a cost ceiling allows the B-1 to execute only those tasks which provide maximum benefit to the warfighter. Initially, B-1 chose to focus on structures, one of the main issues impacting fleet availability. With successes in Desert Fox, Allied Force, Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom, and Inherent Resolve, the B-1 rapidly flew more hours than anticipated, accelerating the need to extend the original certified test life earlier than expected.

While the SPO has made significant progress in the arenas of structural life, maintenance and reliability, DE will breathe new life into the fleet, rejuvenating the B-1 to fly until the future bomber force is ready. Even in such short time, the SPO has already begun to benefit from DE activities. B-1 models have been delivered to aid in the design and manufacture of support fixtures for use at Depot Maintenance facilities and the first set of models are being supplied to third-party vendors to provide digital manufacturing data for complex components.

The B-1 SPO began their digital transformation in early 2020, creating a structural digital twin of a single wing. Since then the effort has expanded to include the structure of the entire airframe, the launch of an Integrated Digital Engineering Environment including a Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) tool, model based systems engineering (MBSE) efforts to create system modeling language (SySML) representations of various mechanical systems, technical order digitalization, the integration of systems and weapons to enhance the structural digital twin, structural and aerodynamic predictive simulation tool development, and other ...
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Via Steve Trimble-Aviation Week - a new record for a gun launched projectile with a distance of 200+km
A gun-launched, hypercone-shaped projectile launched by Dahlgren from White Sands last month set a new world at 109 n.m. distance. The launch supports Dahlgren’s research on guidance and control for future hypersonic vehicles
Image

https://twitter.com/thedewline/status/1 ... TAw33CZaWg
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

U.S. Navy Christens Its Most Advanced Arleigh Burke Variant


Image
The U.S. Navy christened its first Flight III Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer on March 26, the future USS Jack H. Lucas (DDG 125) was pier side in Pascagoula, Mississippi where the ceremony was held.

USS Jack H. Lucas built by Ingalls Shipbuilding had its keel-laying ceremony on the 7th of November, 2019. The vessel is the first ship of the Flight III configuration and was ordered by the U.S. Navy in 2013. Flight III Arleigh Burkes replace the AN/SPY-1 with the new AN/SPY-6(V)1 Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) built by Raytheon...
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:Via Steve Trimble-Aviation Week - a new record for a gun launched projectile with a distance of 200+km
A gun-launched, hypercone-shaped projectile launched by Dahlgren from White Sands last month set a new world at 109 n.m. distance. The launch supports Dahlgren’s research on guidance and control for future hypersonic vehicles
https://twitter.com/thedewline/status/1 ... TAw33CZaWg
This appears to have been from a General Atomics (mobile) railgun which is smaller, lighter and less powerful than the fixed USN railgun installed at its test facility.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

DARPA now seemingly confirms that this particular Lockheed Martin / Aerojet HAWC flight has surpassed the X-51A flight from back in 2011 in terms of the longest scramjet engine run time in an actual flight test. The X-51A's scramjet on time was a little more than 200 seconds and that stood as the world record based on known scramjet flight tests till date. LM HAWC breaking that would mean that Aerojet has broken its own record that its held for more than a decade.

https://www.airforcemag.com/new-hawc-hy ... endurance/
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

USS Tripoli (LHA 7) demonstrated the lightning carrier concept recently in the Pacific Ocean and 20 F-35Bs from VMFA-211, 225 and VMX-1 were able to take off and land on the amphibious assault ship. The demonstration proved that the American-class amphibious assault ship can be used as a dedicated fixed-wing platform when required.
Image

http://alert5.com/2022/04/08/uss-tripol ... more-93417
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

ShivS wrote:These bombs are not a circus.

The first guided dumb bombs were LGBs that were designed to ride reflected energy from a laser beam to a target - estimates are that they increased accuracy by a factor of 5-10. You can appreciate the impact that has on resources needed to carry out a mission.

However countermeasures were developed (smoke generators, oil fires etc) and under some conditions (dust, haze, low cloud) the LGBs do not work well.

That led to the JDAM where GPS plus INS and a combination of fins and strakes added to dumb bombs gave a far higher range of operating conditions. The range was similar but the operating envelope and resistance to jamming was far higher. Cost went up 2 to 3X.

At the same time over contested air space, especially a SAM rich environment you needed stand off weapons. Cruise missiles and air to surface missiles with genuine stand off capability were horribly expensive running into the millions of USD each. They are also big and a challenge to transport.

Enter the JSOW that married a set of foldable wings, fins and GPS/INS. These could deliver specialized bombs at stand off ranges of 50 km+. The cost went up to 25-50X a LGB, so we added terminal guidance via some EO or thermal mechanism to make sure that all that money gave you a (accurate) bang for the buck. There were many restrictions - the bombs are draggy and delicate - the launch profile needs to be very precise etc., but you get cruise missiles lite type capability at much lower costs and perhaps better accuracy.

As the aversion to any combat losses has grown we now want stand off capability for general purpose bombs too. The French added propulsion to a JDAM kit equivalent to make the hammer - costs approach the cost of a JSOW though. The Americans and Australians have added wings to a JDAM kit to make a JDAM-ER. For Indian usage the French approach is quite useful as in the Himalayas the range of a glide bomb is sharply reduced and the restrictive launch profile makes missions harder.

Within a decade we will see winged, propelled and networked swarms of these bombs - at horrible costs.
Excellent summary. A few points, JSOW was only partially a result of wanting more range. Range alone could have been gotten by simply strapping additional kits to the JDAM (the JDAM-ER approach). However with that the sponsors (US Navy) wanted stand of range, plus a path to a smart seeker (it has IIR with ability to hit moving targets now), and a fully networked glide munition (the JSOW C became the first fully networked munition in the USAF or USN). Survivability also played a role here (over a JDAM). They. gave up adding propulsion to it because of cost but that has been demonstrated successfully. Since JASSM had gotten a lot cheaper and production rate increased to close to 800/year, the USN simply decided to buy an inventory of that weapon instead (adding propulsion to JSOW) which it is doing now. There is no size difference between a JSOW or a JASSM from a carrier magazine storage perspective. The future of this tech is already flying in the form of the Storm Breaker, and the Golden Horde demo's the USAF is fielding or conducting. You can expect that approach to be scaled across sizes etc. A powered storm-breaker will eventually replace the Maverick etc etc. I'll also add one of the best quotes I've picked up on the use of a large family of precision guided direct attack and SO munitions - " It flips sorties per target to targets per sortie". While we look at cost during peacetime (of building large inventories), there is an intangible there from an air-campaign perspective.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

As B-21 bomber prep ramps up, Air Force awards contract for advance parts


Another insight into the program which seems to be going well and executing as designed. When the initial program was awarded to Northrop it was revealed that an unspecified number of B-21's would be funded using R&D (EMD) dollars and that along with the selection and R&D contract to design the bomber, Northrop had negotiated terms for a fixed price contract to build 21 aircraft (these were the aircraft included as part of the initial contract awarded in 2016 with more to be part of future multi-year contracts). We now know that the EMD contract would produce 6 B-21's, of which 1 will be a static test airframe, one other will be a permanent test jet for the program and the remaining four will take part in testing but then be transferred over to operational units. With news that the first B-21 has entered ground testing, and remaining five in production, they have now moved to begin awarding long lead contracts for the initial a/c part of the 21-aircraft initial contract. Based on this, the seventh B-21 could enter assembly in 12-18 months.

We could be weeks from having a rollout of the first B-21..with first flight in the second half of the year.
ShivS
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 19 Apr 2019 23:25

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by ShivS »

brar_w wrote:Excellent summary. A few points, JSOW was only partially a result of wanting more range. Range alone could have been gotten by simply strapping additional kits to the JDAM (the JDAM-ER approach). However with that the sponsors (US Navy) wanted stand of range, plus a path to a smart seeker (it has IIR with ability to hit moving targets now), and a fully networked glide munition (the JSOW C became the first fully networked munition in the USAF or USN). Survivability also played a role here (over a JDAM). They. gave up adding propulsion to it because of cost but that has been demonstrated successfully. Since JASSM had gotten a lot cheaper and production rate increased to close to 800/year, the USN simply decided to buy an inventory of that weapon instead (adding propulsion to JSOW) which it is doing now. There is no size difference between a JSOW or a JASSM from a carrier magazine storage perspective. The future of this tech is already flying in the form of the Storm Breaker, and the Golden Horde demo's the USAF is fielding or conducting. You can expect that approach to be scaled across sizes etc. A powered storm-breaker will eventually replace the Maverick etc etc. I'll also add one of the best quotes I've picked up on the use of a large family of precision guided direct attack and SO munitions - " It flips sorties per target to targets per sortie". While we look at cost during peacetime (of building large inventories), there is an intangible there from an air-campaign perspective.
Yes of course, the JSOW program was about great terminal accuracy, control as well as distance - if I remember right the one of the key initial tasks was SEAD and DEAD missions.

The way munitions are acquiring sensors, output sharing, autonomous intelligence and endurance it’s soon going to be hard to tell the platform from the munitions!
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by ldev »

ShivS wrote:These bombs are not a circus.

The first guided dumb bombs were LGBs that were designed to ride reflected energy from a laser beam to a target - estimates are that they increased accuracy by a factor of 5-10. You can appreciate the impact that has on resources needed to carry out a mission.

However countermeasures were developed (smoke generators, oil fires etc) and under some conditions (dust, haze, low cloud) the LGBs do not work well.

That led to the JDAM where GPS plus INS and a combination of fins and strakes added to dumb bombs gave a far higher range of operating conditions. The range was similar but the operating envelope and resistance to jamming was far higher. Cost went up 2 to 3X.

At the same time over contested air space, especially a SAM rich environment you needed stand off weapons. Cruise missiles and air to surface missiles with genuine stand off capability were horribly expensive running into the millions of USD each. They are also big and a challenge to transport.

Enter the JSOW that married a set of foldable wings, fins and GPS/INS. These could deliver specialized bombs at stand off ranges of 50 km+. The cost went up to 25-50X a LGB, so we added terminal guidance via some EO or thermal mechanism to make sure that all that money gave you a (accurate) bang for the buck. There were many restrictions - the bombs are draggy and delicate - the launch profile needs to be very precise etc., but you get cruise missiles lite type capability at much lower costs and perhaps better accuracy.

As the aversion to any combat losses has grown we now want stand off capability for general purpose bombs too. The French added propulsion to a JDAM kit equivalent to make the hammer - costs approach the cost of a JSOW though. The Americans and Australians have added wings to a JDAM kit to make a JDAM-ER. For Indian usage the French approach is quite useful as in the Himalayas the range of a glide bomb is sharply reduced and the restrictive launch profile makes missions harder.

Within a decade we will see winged, propelled and networked swarms of these bombs - at horrible costs.
A pictorial representation of the cost of different Air to Ground PGMs. The JDAM-ER is not shown but given that the additional cost over a regular JDAM is the wing kit, it should not be much more expensive, certainly far cheaper than JSOW. But it goes to show why the JDAM kit, regular or ER is great value, a big bang for the buck. And look at the quantities procured as a result of that low cost.

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

JDAM (even with the new MCODE enhancements) kits are fairly easy to make and crank out at a high production rate. One of the reasons the USAF/USN can take it a bit easy on its inventory replenishments is that Boeing maintains a max production capacity of about 1,000 kits a week (roughly a fifth of planned inventory) w/o needing to rope in additional suppliers or find alternate sources for components.
ShivS wrote:Yes of course, the JSOW program was about great terminal accuracy, control as well as distance - if I remember right the one of the key initial tasks was SEAD and DEAD missions.
Unlike the JDAM, or SDB I and II, JSOW is more comparable to a missile (hence the AGM designation) because it fills a need that would have otherwise required a missile. So its cost and performance should be relative to the target set against which it is intended to be used as, and the alternatives. The JSOW-C can strike moving targets, and is fully networked - something that even a $600K original JASSM wasn't 10-15 years ago. Even the current JASSM-ER is incapable of attacking moving targets, and does not possess a non line of sight data-link (which it is only getting next year). SDB-II is likely to evolve on a similar trajectory, with its next iterations likely to be powered, performing a similar role that is currently performed by the Maverick in inventory.
ShivS
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 19 Apr 2019 23:25

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by ShivS »

The Maverick - that’s an old name with memories. One of the finest weapons in the US arsenal and along with the LGB a true game changer for the air strike capability of the US. Sad to see it go.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

The USN has shared photos and some more details of its historic Layered Laser Defense test against subsonic cruise missile surrogate targets earlier this year. LLD is a test bed, but Lockheed Martin's HELIOS system will be installed on a couple of DDG-51's this year, and Lockheed is also the laser supplier to the US Army's 300 kW high energy laser system that will enter testing this year as well.

Laser Trailblazer: US Navy Conducts Historic Test of New Laser Weapon System

The ground-based laser system homed in on the red drone flying by, shooting a high-energy beam invisible to the naked eye. Suddenly, a fiery orange glow flared on the drone, smoke poured from its engine and a parachute opened as the craft tumbled downward, disabled by the laser beam.

The February demonstration marked the first time the U.S. Navy used an all-electric, high-energy laser weapon to defeat a target representing a subsonic cruise missile in flight.

Known as the Layered Laser Defense (LLD), the weapon was designed and built by Lockheed Martin to serve as a multi-domain, multi-platform demonstration system. It can counter unmanned aerial systems and fast-attack boats with a high-power laser—and also use its high-resolution telescope to track in-bound air threats, support combat identification and conduct battle damage assessment of engaged targets.

The drone shoot-down by the LLD was part of a recent test sponsored by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) at the U.S. Army’s High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. The demonstration was a partnership between ONR, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Research and Engineering) and Lockheed Martin.

“Innovative laser systems like the LLD have the potential to redefine the future of naval combat operations,” said Chief of Naval Research Rear Adm. Lorin C. Selby. “They present transformational capabilities to the fleet, address diverse threats, and provide precision engagements with a deep magazine to complement existing defensive systems and enhance sustained lethality in high-intensity conflict.”

The LLD testing supports a broader effort by the naval research and development community, partnered closely with the fleet, to mature technologies and field a family of laser weapons that can address multiple threats using a range of escalating options. These capabilities range from non-lethal measures, such as optical “dazzling” and disabling of sensors, to destruction of a target.

Laser weapons provide new precision and speed of engagement for naval warfighters. They also offer simplified logistics that are safer for ships and their crews, as lasers are not dependent on the traditional propellants or gunpowder-based ordnance found on ships.

Instead, modern high-power lasers run on electricity, making them inherently safer and able to provide weapon capability as long as a ship has power. This also means the cost per engagement for a laser weapon can be very low, since the only consumable item expended is fuel to run the system.

ONR plays an important role in developing technologies for laser weapons and has fielded demonstration systems for operational experimentation. Notably, in 2014 ONR saw the Laser Weapon System tested successfully aboard the USS Ponce in the Persian Gulf. More recently, ONR fielded the Laser Weapon System Demonstrator aboard the USS Portland in 2021.

Although there’s no plan to field the LLD, it offers a glimpse into the future of laser weapons. It is compact and powerful, yet more efficient than previous systems. It has specialized optics to observe a target and focus laser beams to maximum effect, while also incorporating artificial intelligence to improve tracking and targeting.

“LLD is an example of what a very advanced laser system can do to defeat significant threats to naval forces,” said David Kiel, a former Navy captain who is a program officer in ONR’s Aviation, Force Projection and Integrated Defense Department, which managed the testing. “And we have ongoing efforts, both at ONR and in other Navy programs, to keep building on these results in the near future.”

During the recent test at White Sands, the LLD tracked or shot down an array of targets—including unmanned fixed-wing aerial vehicles, quadcopters and high-speed drones representative of subsonic cruise missiles.

“We’re proud to say that the Layered Laser Defense system defeated a surrogate cruise missile threat in partnership with the Navy, White Sands Missile Range and Army High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility teams. Lockheed Martin drew best-in-class laser weapon subsystems from across the corporation, including key industry partner Rolls Royce, to support the entire threat engagement timeline from target detection to defeat,” said Rick Cordaro, vice president, Lockheed Martin Advanced Product Solutions. “We leveraged more than 40 years of directed energy experience to create new capabilities that support the 21st century warfighter.”
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 »

First solid-state, GaN based, high power microwave system in the world -


Introducing: Epirus' next-generation high-power microwave Leonidas system.

This marks the third Leonidas system developed, rigorously tested and operationally validated by Epirus in under two years.

The system has 2x higher power than the previous generation – thanks to our proprietary SmartPower technology platforms that lies under the hood of Leonidas. Other features include a gimbal for 360 degree coverage and a fully ruggedized and hardened system to withstand the rigors of a real-world combat environment.

This next-generation Leonidas unit just got back from the U.S. Department of Defense’s HPM counter-UAS technology demonstration, where it successfully took down a wide range of UAS targets.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

First COCOM run multi-month deployment is expected in the second half of the year -
Aircraft #carrier USS GERALD R #FORD CVN78 operating off the US East Coast 13 April with the aircraft of Carrier Air Wing 8 CVW8 aboard. The wing and ship are working up towards a fall deployment
https://twitter.com/cavasships/status/1 ... l-7BBGHNmQ

Image
Image
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Aditya_V »

There was talk of no fly zone in Western Ukraine and around Odessa on CNN, wonder if the CVN and CBG are going to the Black sea
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Aditya_V wrote:There was talk of no fly zone in Western Ukraine and around Odessa on CNN, wonder if the CVN and CBG are going to the Black sea
CNN doesn't decide that. There is no legal basis for NATO to pursue that and members, including the US side, would not agree to this unless Russia attacked Poland, Romania etc.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by ks_sachin »

Brar_w

Are you able to shed some light on US Army recruitment.
Specifically how long do soldiers serve?
Are they on contract?
At a battalion level how does a CO maintain cohesion if GI’s serve tours of duty I.e. short stints or r on contracts?
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

X-Post from the Indian Army Aviation thread....
Manish_Sharma wrote:US is retiring 100s of ApacheD helis to replace them with ApacheE attack helicopters. UAVs have their place but dedicated attack helicopters have their place. I never saw this argument when Apaches were ordered by India only for indigenous Swadeshi LCH this argument is being forwarded. US is even working on SB01-Defiant to replace apaches!

Surprising these nuggets are missing when we import but the moment there is talk of Swadeshi there are strange arguments given.
The reason why the US is remanufacturing its AH-64 force to the Echo (version 4-6 in particular) is that they come out as fully digital systems capable of conducting manned-unmanned teaming missions which is what John was referring to. SB>1 and the V280 are competing for the blackhawk replacement effort but regardless, there is a future scout helicopter program replacement for Kiowa (and some apaches that ended up replacing Kiowa) in the FARA which is having prototypes built presently but the requirements are very much to control UAV's, and air-launched effects from stand off distance. This is why you don't see the mast mounted radars on these future helo proposals. Given their SO requirements, they'll have larger sensors mounted somewhere else, and will predominantly be using UAV's (most launched from their bays) to extend their eyes and ears. FARA is a controversial program even in the US Army with many calling it to be cut altogether given a lack of certainty of scout helo survivability on a future battlefield.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

ks_sachin wrote:Brar_w

Are you able to shed some light on US Army recruitment.
Specifically how long do soldiers serve?
Are they on contract?
At a battalion level how does a CO maintain cohesion if GI’s serve tours of duty I.e. short stints or r on contracts?
I am by no means an expert on recruitment but generally the volunteer force in the Army (enlisted) signs up for a 4+4 contract with four years in active duty plus four in reserve. Depending on the role, there are other variations of this that have a less than 4 year active duty component. There are also longer duration enlistments on offer depending on the role and what the annual recruitment goals are. At the operational level, the backbone of the US Army is its NCO corps (corporal, sergeant, and staff sergeant ranks) which is the glue that binds the enlisted and makes the system work. There are presently serving 3 star generals who started off as enlisted and later continued to pursue their goals and rose through the ranks. In fact, the present 3 star (Lt Gen) running the US Army's hypersonic efforts joined the US Army as an enlisted.

https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Document ... ckbone.pdf
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Manish_Sharma »

brar_w wrote:X-Post from the Indian Army Aviation thread....

The reason why the US is remanufacturing its AH-64 force to the Echo (version 4-6 in particular) is that they come out as fully digital systems capable of conducting manned-unmanned teaming missions which is what John was referring to.
No more matter how many times john and you say that LCH can't have a version able to "conducting manned-unmanned teaming missions..." I refuse to believe it.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Manish_Sharma wrote:
brar_w wrote:X-Post from the Indian Army Aviation thread....

The reason why the US is remanufacturing its AH-64 force to the Echo (version 4-6 in particular) is that they come out as fully digital systems capable of conducting manned-unmanned teaming missions which is what John was referring to.
No more matter how many times john and you say that LCH can't have a version able to "conducting manned-unmanned teaming missions..." I refuse to believe it.
Can you kindly point me to where I said that? If not, then can you get back to having a substantive discussion on this or another topic instead of attributing statements to folks that they didn’t make at all.
Post Reply