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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

U.S. Hypersonic Missile Upgrade Concepts Are Now Advancing

Two years before the first battery is fielded, the next stage of technology development for a joint U.S. Army/Navy hypersonic missile program is set to begin.

A series of technology insertions aims to make hardened, mobile and relocatable targets vulnerable to the second tranche of the Army’s land-based Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW) batteries and the first tranche of the Navy’s submarine- and surface-launched Intermediate-Range Conventional Prompt Strike (IRCPS) missiles, both scheduled to arrive in fiscal 2025.


The identical all-up round—a canister with a 34.5-in.-dia. two-stage booster and Common Hypersonic Glide Body (CHGB)—used by both programs is set to be fielded by the Army’s first LRHW battery in fiscal 2023, but it will feature a target set limited to fixed sites such as radar and communications dishes. To move beyond those limitations, the cooperative Army/Navy program is developing a technology insertion plan that seeks to introduce an inflight retargeting capability and—most challenging of all—a terminal seeker.

“That’s not going to be an easy one,” said Robert Strider, deputy director of the Army Hypersonic Project Office, referring to a terminal seeker, at the Nuclear Triad Symposium on July 7.

The reentry speed of a CHGB launched by an LRHW/IRCPS missile may be as high as Mach 15. At those speeds, friction heating causes the airflow around the CHGB to ionize, creating a plasma sheath that interferes with incoming communications signals and outgoing transmissions by a radio-frequency sensor.

Solving the inflight retargeting problem with an inflight communications update appears feasible in the near term, said Strider. “We think we’ve got the pieces,” he said. “We’ve got to see how it all fits together.”

The harder problem is integrating a terminal seeker within the dimensions and environment of a biconic-shaped, hypersonic glider.

“Getting something that will be able to go after moving or relocated targets, you know, that’s a different story right now based on the maturity of some of the technologies,” Strider said. “We’ve got a lot of big brains that are looking into this.”

The Army and Navy also are interested in alternative warheads, said Capt. Gregory Zettler, the IRCPS program manager. The Air Force’s first hypersonic weapon—the Lockheed Martin AGM-183A—is equipped with a tungsten fragmentation warhead. If the LRHW/IRCPS is equipped with a similar warhead, the gliders would be limited to attacking soft targets. Alternative warheads could include penetrators for hardened targets or underground bunkers and cluster submunitions.

Although Zettler and Strider spoke at a symposium on nuclear weapons, Defense Department policy limits the new class of maneuvering hypersonic missiles to conventional explosives. But some defense officials expect that LRHW and IRCPS missiles could achieve a deterrent effect similar to a strategic nuclear weapon. In fact, in a recent exercise called the Joint Warfighting Assessment 2021, the presence of an LRHW battery was enough to deescalate a simulated conflict.

“They didn’t even shoot [the LRHW] because they didn’t have to,” Strider said. “When it shows up, it does what it’s supposed to do, which is deter any kind of conflict and let them know how serious we really are.”

Coming into service two years ahead of the IRCPS, the LRHW program is entering a critical period of flight testing. Earlier versions of the CHGB were tested three times between 2011 and 2017, with one failure in 2014. The first test of the operational version of the CHGB followed successfully in March 2019.

Strider said the Army is now preparing “very soon” for the next milestone test: Joint Flight Campaign (JFC)-1, which will be the first test of the CHGB and the two-stage missile stack. The Army slimmed the operational boosters to a diameter of 34.5 in. so the IRCPS will fit into the launch cells of the Navy’s Virginia Payload Module, he said.

A successful JFC-1 test will validate the performance of the all-up round from a launchpad. The next milestone will come in fiscal 2022 with the JFC-2 test, which will be the first from a transporter-erector launcher (TEL), Strider said. Lockheed has delivered all four TELs already to support the first battery. A follow-on JFC-3 test in fiscal 2022 will be the first to be directed by an operational unit, with no program office or contractor engineers providing supervision.

“When you think about normal programs of record—at the pace that they normally work and the milestones they go through—this is lightspeed,” Strider said.

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Aggressor F-117's seen playing red-air at Red Flag that is currently underway -

Image
Image
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

DAF completes Architecture Demonstration and Evaluation 5
Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs / Published July 28, 2021

A Starlink antenna operates during the Global Information Dominance Experiment 3 and Architecture Demonstration and Evaluation 5 at Alpena Combat Readiness Training Center, Alpena, Mich., July 15, 2021.

PRINT | E-MAIL
ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS) --
The Department of the Air Force’s Chief Architect Office conducted experiments July 8-28 integrating commercial technologies to achieve decision superiority in support of its Architecture Demonstration and Evaluation exercise, spanning all 11 combatant commands and in partnership with U.S. Pacific Air Forces, U.S. Northern Command, the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center and the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security.

The Chief Architect Office’s fifth ADE combined three primary pillars toward an agile DoD decision superiority mission architecture: (1) emerging technology and concepts of operation from the Air Force and Space Force, (2) the third Global Information Dominance Experiment and (3) Pacific Iron 2021 Agile Combat Employment exercise.

The Chief Architect Office designs integrated open architectures to ensure that the department fields adaptable individual systems that integrate into an “architecture of architectures” that achieves the necessary operational effects on increasingly rapid timelines. The ADEs help move the department from design to informed implementation through a regular campaign of experimentation that brings operators side by side with technologists.

“Operating without decision superiority is like a tourist driving in New York City without GPS; you may ultimately get where you need to go, but it won’t be efficient and may not be effective,” said Preston Dunlap, Space Force and Air Force chief architect. “Our goal at Department of the Air Force Architecture Demonstration and Evaluation 5 was to move DoD towards an integrated mission architecture that achieves AI-enabled decision superiority anywhere, from combatant commands all the way down to the edge, whether in competition or conflict.”

ADE 5 integrated objectives including increased domain awareness of global actions in competition and crisis; increased information dominance through AI; increased decision superiority through developing feasible deterrence courses of action; increased global integration through rapid cross combatant command collaboration; and increased agile decision superiority through integrated, distributed, resilient communications, compute and software enabling Agile Combat Employment at the edge.

In addition to these overarching objectives, the Chief Architect Office also conducted experiments of key enabling technology: (1) applying artificial intelligence to enable decision advantage through software at the strategic, operational and tactical level in partnership with the Joint AI Center, (2) augmenting Pacific Air Forces deployed communications teams with commercial-off-the-shelf networking technologies and commercial communications pathways to boost bandwidth, stabilize connectivity and increase network resiliency, (3) pushing the flexibility of commercial and government edge computing and store capabilities to help warfighters gain access to mission applications during distributed operations, (4) enabling mobile, disrupted and distributed operations at the classified level through the use of mobile devices as computing platforms to run classified applications over commercial satellite and terrestrial cellular networks, and (5) integrating the capabilities of automated data feed translation and threat track fusion in partnership with the Defense Advanced Research Programs Agency (DARPA) through STITCHES (System-of-systems Technology Integration Tool Chain for Heterogeneous Electronic Systems). ADE5 also initiated the transition of STITCHES from DARPA to the Department of the Air Force.

“Our partnership with forward-leaning organizations like U.S. Northern Command, U.S. Pacific Air Forces, the Joint AI Center, and USDI on ADE 5 has yielded invaluable progress in designing and evaluating the technical architectures that will provide senior leaders and joint warfighters the decision advantage they both need and deserve,” Dunlap said.

The results of ADE 5 and its partnership with GIDE 3 and Pacific Iron 21 are shaping new concepts of operation and investments across a wide array of initiatives and programs – such as Commercial Satellite Integration, the next Advanced Battle Management System Capability Release, the Rocket Cargo Vanguard, and Agile Combat Employment logistics and resiliency programs – aimed to achieve integrated decision superiority and agile, distributed operations.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

New SIGINT payload and configuration for the MQ-4C Triton (the original Triton is a BAMS platform while this variant is a SIGINT replacement for the manned EP-3) -

Image

Navy conducts first MQ-4C Triton test flight with multi-intelligence upgrade

The Navy conducted its first test flight of the MQ-4C Triton in its upgraded hardware and software configuration July 29 at NAS Patuxent River, beginning the next phase of the unmanned aircraft’s development.

The MQ-4C Triton flew in its new configuration, known as Integrated Functional Capability (IFC)-4, which will bring an enhanced multi-mission sensor capability as part of the Navy’s Maritime Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance and Targeting (MISR&T) transition plan..

Currently, two MQ-4C Triton aircraft in the baseline configuration known as IFC-3 are forward deployed to 7th Fleet in support of early operational capability (EOC) and Commander Task Force (CTF)-72 tasking. VUP-19 will operate Triton to further develop the concept of operations and fleet learning associated with operating a high-altitude, long-endurance system in the maritime domain.

“The MQ-4C Triton has already had a tremendous positive impact on operations in USINDOPACOM and will continue to provide unprecedented maritime intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities which are especially critical to national interests with the increased focus in the Pacific,” Mackin said.

Triton is the first high altitude, long endurance aircraft that can conduct persistent Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) missions to complement the P-8 in the maritime domain. The Navy plans to deploy Triton to five orbits worldwide.
VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2976
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by VinodTK »

Popular Mechanics
The U.S. Military 'Failed Miserably' in a Fake Battle Over Taiwan
U.S. forces did not accomplish their goals in a series of recent wargames.

One failed exercise involved a struggle over Taiwan.

The U.S. military can't treat the next war as business-as-usual, and is already adopting new strategies in response to these missteps.

The U.S. military reportedly "failed miserably" in a series of wargame scenarios designed to test the Pentagon's might. The flunked exercises, which took place last October, are a red flag that the way the military has operated for years isn't going to fly against today's enemies.

Specifically, a simulated adversary that has studied the American way of war for decades managed to run rings around U.S. forces, defeating them decisively. "They knew exactly what we're going to do before we did it," Gen. John Hyten, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, revealed at an industry event.

While Hyten did not disclose the name of the wargame (it's classifed), he did say that one of the exercises focused exclusively on a brawl between U.S. and Chinese forces fighting over Taiwan—a scenario that seems increasingly likely.

He says there are two main takeaways for the U.S. military. The first involves the concentration of combat power—the American military, like many armed forces, tends to concentrate ships, planes, and ground forces for maximum efficiency and effect. Concentrating forces allows the military to mass firepower, operate more efficiently, and more easily resupply while in the field. In other words, it's easier for everyone on the good guys' side.

But the problem with concentration of mass is that it makes it easier for the enemy to find and kill you. If an enemy knows that American carriers always operate together, for instance, and an enemy discovers one carrier, it then knows a second carrier is close by. By the same token, an Air Force wing of 72 fighter jets operating from a huge, sprawling air base makes it easier to efficiently arm, fuel, and service the fighters, but destroying the base will take out the entire wing. And an Army infantry battalion concentrated in two one-kilometer grid squares is easy to control, but will suffer heavy casualties to artillery barrages.

Another takeaway is that the U.S. military's information dominance is no longer guaranteed, and would probably be in doubt in a future conflict. Since 1991, most of America's enemies have been relatively low-tech armies without the aid of satellites, long-range weapons, cyber forces, or electronic warfare capabilities. As a result, the U.S. military's access to communications, data, and other information has been very secure during wartime, giving friendly forces a huge advantage.

That won't happen in the next war. Potential adversaries Russia and China both have a strong motivation—and more importantly, capability—to attack the Pentagon's information infrastructure. Both countries are aware that U.S. forces are heavily reliant on streams of data, and in a future conflict will attack, jam, and disable the nodes that distribute that information (such as satellites and aircraft-based node) whenever possible.

What does that mean for U.S. forces? Hyten says that the Pentagon is pushing a new concept known as "expanded maneuver," and wants the entire military to adopt it by 2030.

Expanded maneuver is likely exactly what it sounds like—a greater use of mobility to keep U.S. forces out of the enemy's gunsights. Two aircraft carriers, for example, might sail a thousand miles apart while still working together. A wing of fighter jets might be spread out among half a dozen smaller airfields so the destruction of one won't mean the loss of all 72 warplanes. An infantry battalion's subunits might operate farther apart from one another and stay on the move to avoid destruction by enemy artillery.

But what about massing firepower? Long-range weapons can allow widely disparate units to concentrate firepower against an enemy, eliminating the need for close cooperation. Two aircraft carriers might converge on an adversary from different directions, coordinating strikes by using weapons like the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (or JASSM). A wing of fighters might engage enemy aircraft from longer distances using missiles like the upcoming AIM-260 long-range air-to-air missile.

Expanded maneuver will lean more heavily than ever on America's information infrastructure. Commanders in the field will need secure communications and navigation capabilities to coordinate fire and maneuver beyond traditional radio ranges, leaning heavily on satellite and aircraft-relayed communications and data. It's also vitally important that the networks that flow this information are hack-proof.

The battlefield might become a slightly more lonely place for U.S. forces, but that's what it will take to fight and win against a high-tech adversary in the 21st century.
The above risk applies to India also (concentration of troops & aircraft)
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Manish_P »

So was that 5G+ transfer speed on 4+ Gen fighter

Just wait for a week or so for China to claim 6G+ speed software update in-flight on their 5G bird. :mrgreen:
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Manish_P wrote:So was that 5G+ transfer speed on 4+ Gen fighter

Just wait for a week or so for China to claim 6G+ speed software update in-flight on their 5G bird. :mrgreen:
This is the second or third time this has happened. While the press notes are great because being able to do ECM updates in real times is going to be critical in the future against agile emitters, what is probably the reason for "Why Now" is that the USAF now has a platform that can penetrate and perform the ESM and EW duties required to be able to generate these solution sets that then get proliferated both to aircraft in the air, and those on the ground. Without something like the RQ-180 (or whatever P-ISR and P-AEW is called) this really has no future as it is harder to actually analyze the threat system and develop on the fly aids than being able to share that across disparate networks and mission systems that span 3-4 decades as far as technology baseline.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... revolution

This harkens back to the Sensor craft efforts of the early 2000s. Jokes aside, China did also latch on to the sensor craft concept and had a platform that it was also looking to develop though like most of their systems the rhetoric is likely much further along than the capability. But they do have similar lines of P-ISR and P-AEW/EA in the works..
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Lines between EW, TDL's, Radar, and BLOS communication is rapidly blurring..

This Is What The US Navy's New Shipboard Electronic Warfare System Can Actually Do


Image
The battle to control the electromagnetic battlefield is jumping into warp speed and these capabilities are especially important for protecting warships against many types of threats, from ever more advanced anti-ship missiles to swarms of drones. The Navy is now on the precipice of receiving the most revolutionary upgrade in electronic warfare capability for its surface fleet in a very long time via the AN/SLQ-32(V)7 Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program Block III, or SEWIP Block III, electronic warfare system.

This system combines the advanced passive detection capabilities of SEWIP Block II with the ability to make active, powerful, and highly precise electronic attacks on multiple targets at once. Beyond its core functionality, it can do much more, as well, including acting as a communications node and even a radar system. It is also designed to be able to be upgraded for decades to come. So, we are talking about a quantum leap not just in defensive, but also offensive electronic warfare capability for the Navy's surface fleet.

With all this in mind, we were fortunate to talk with Mike Meaney, Northrop Grumman's Vice President in charge of the SEWIP Block III program, all about what this system is capable of, how its physically large form will be integrated onto destroyers, and potentially other ships, and much more.

We covered an amazing amount of ground with plenty of new information. So without further ado, here is our exchange:

Tyler: Can you tell us a bit about what SEWIP Block III actually is and the status of the program?

Mike: SEWIP stands for Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program… And the Navy has procured it in three blocks. Block One, is some displays and processing upgrades they did. Block II, is an electronic support measures subsystem that is used to kind of surveil the RF [radio frequency] environment, to identify where the emitters are, and kind of identify what might be a threat to the ship. Block III, is what we produce, which is the electronic attack sub-system. And what it's really designed to do is be that non-kinetic weapon that the ship's captain and crew can use to defeat anti-ship missiles and any other RF threats facing the ship.

That is such a key role, and as a non-kinetic weapon, you basically have an unlimited amount of ‘bullets’ you can use to defeat those anti-ship missiles. Again we can engage multiple targets simultaneously… It’s a true force multiplier.

So when this threat comes at the ship, it can be a very lethal threat, so the ship's crew and captain have a decision to make, "Do I take it out with a kinetic weapon, like a missile? Or do I allow my non-kinetic system to take it out with these non-kinetic bullets?" if you will… That’s the force multiplier effect that our SEWIP Block III system provides the Navy, it’s this unlimited magazine of ‘bullets.’

As we approach the design of our architecture for our SEWIP for Block III, we built in a couple of things that we think discriminate it from other systems of a similar nature. First is, we fully meet the Navy's requirement for the advanced type of electronic attack techniques needed, not only against today's threats, but against the future threats that we expect to face. We applied an open architecture to allow the system to be upgraded and to support technology insertions in the future. We also went with a software-defined, hardware-enabled type architecture. That allows us to rapidly respond as new threats come over the horizon in the next couple of decades, and we can address them by simply upgrading the software in our system… Lastly, we created our architecture based on our Integrated Topside future naval capability we developed for ONR, the Office of Naval Research. And in many ways, the ‘In-Top’ system is a prototype for our Block III system.

What we had in that In-Top system was an inherent multi-function RF architecture, and we carried that over into our Block III design. So that means that in addition to successfully fulfilling the electronic attack mission of Block III, we also have the ability to take advantage of [the system’s] wide-band multi-function AESAs, Active Electronic Scanned Arrays. We could do any other RF function that's needed, and so, for example, we can employ our system to provide Signals Intelligence or SIGINT, we can have it do some of the ESM [Electronic Support Measures) mission that's currently being done by Block II. We could also have it be used to provide communication signals, and, in new and advanced communication waveforms and ways to connect not only to other ships but to other platforms… Then finally, we can even use our system for simple versions of radar, and use it for different types of radar functions, as well.

So, as we looked at this architecture, and how to grow it further, we have been actively working on the insertion of artificial intelligence and machine learning, and this would allow us to rapidly identify unknown emitters and create jamming waveforms on the fly and actively adjust our waveforms to the point that they're effective against these unknown systems.

We also have demonstrated late last year, a new set of communication waveforms that can be employed with our system, and that could allow the SEWIP system to connect to other SEWIP systems, or to connect to other platforms—they could be airborne, they could be space-based. And this is a key enabler that can be used by the Navy to fulfill their Project Over-Match and Distributed Maritime Operations, or DMO—capabilities that they're seeking to employ in the fleet… All of this is really a subset of the broader Department of Defense's initiative in towards JADC2 [Joint All-Domain Command and Control].

Ultimately, we're trying to interconnect sensors, platforms, and capabilities very tightly together to enhance the lethality of the force and also enhance the survivability of the force as we go forward. So by our ability to demonstrate the ability to rapidly insert and create advanced communication waveforms in SEWIP, we not only have the Navy meet their future mission needs, but it's also a great way to just grow and demonstrate the true multi-function nature of what we're fielding with the Navy.

In terms of program status, this year, we delivered our Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) model to Wallops Island and the Navy is beginning land-based testing. They'll be conducting an IOT&E (Initial Operation Test and Evaluation) using the system that we've deployed there for them. We also have two limited rate initial production systems in fabrication and test, as we speak. We’re going to deliver those on time this year and then they will be installed on Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. Then they will be deployed for sea trials…..

Tyler: You mentioned the three Blocks and the different capabilities they have. Block III adds the active emitter component, instead of the passive system for Block II. I noticed there was Sidekick in the past, which was an active jamming system that worked with SEWIP. What does this new active component do? Obviously, it can counter certain missiles and things, but what does it really bring to the fight with its AESA array?

Mike: That's a really good question… So the power of the AESA array, and there's a number of them that make up our system, the way I count it it's 16 AESAs that make up our system, and we have four facing each quadrant of the ship, to provide complete coverage, 360 degrees around the ship, and two of them are used for receive, and two of them are used for transmit [for each four AESA quadrant]. So, we use the received AESAs to precisely locate where an enemy threat is, be it an anti-ship missile or an enemy radar system or whatever it is, and then using that precise angle and information of where they are and where they're inbound towards us, we then use our transmit antennas to transmit that actual electronic attack waveform to attack the RF system that's a threat to us… With an AESA, one of its key advantages is you can dynamically adjust and focus your RF energy and so instead of some of the legacy systems that have been fielded for EW they use very broad beams and just broadly place a beam in a very broad space of from where the ship is. It [the AESA] allows you to create a very tight beam.Think of it as a ‘pencil beam,’ and by knowing from our receive antennas where the threat is, we can precisely put an enormous amount of RF energy directed at the threat… Since we can move and steer beams at computer speed at literally very small portions of seconds, we can put multiple beams out simultaneously and we can hit multiple things at the same time. So we can jam multiple threats simultaneously, we can dynamically scan them [the beams] and move them around quickly and do multiple functions simultaneously, as needed.

So the AESA allows you to create these dynamically rapidly reconfigurable sets of beams, allows you to point them and then efficiently use all of the energy you have and point it directly at the threat systems that we're facing, and then it also helps with emissions control (EMCON), because we're not blasting RF energy all over free space with very broadband antennas. So it's harder to detect that we're jamming and using that RF energy because we've so precisely controlled the shape of the beam and precisely pointed it only at the threat systems that we are targeting at the moment…

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Rakesh »

The C-2 Greyhound Replacement is Coming

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

The USN deployed the CMV-22B on the USS Carl Vinson earlier this week. Maiden full deployment (tasking) for both F-35C and CMV-22B though both have been operational on the Vinson for a few months (Operational F-35C's have been training on it since last year) -
The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) departed San Diego Bay Monday afternoon with nearly 6,000 sailors and a crowded flight deck to begin a scheduled deployment to the Indo-Pacific region, marking a key milestone for 21st-century naval aviation.

Aboard Vinson is Carrier Air Wing 2, the Navy’s first fully integrated air wing to deploy overseas with both the F-35C Lightning II fifth-generation, multi-mission strike fighter and the new CMV-22B Osprey tiltrotor.

The single-seat F-35C jets, assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron 147 based at Naval Air Station Lemoore, Calif., are the newest jet to expand the wing’s capabilities to project air power at sea. The CMV-22B, flown by the “Titans” of Fleet Logistics Multi-Mission Squadron 30, will extend the air wing’s legs, expanding the logistical resupply reach for the carrier and strike group.
https://news.usni.org/2021/08/02/first- ... rike-group
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) Successfully Completed Final Shock Trials


Image
USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) successfully conducted a third explosive event off the coast of Jacksonville, FL, on 8 Aug., marking the completion of the ship’s Full Ship Shock Trials (FSST). Shock Trials validate a ship’s shock hardness and ability to sustain operations in a simulated combat environment using live ordnance. During the four-month testing evolution, the first-in-class aircraft carrier withstood the impact of three 40,000-pound underwater blasts, released at distances progressively closer to the ship.

Metcalf said that the goal of the tests is to ensure that Ford’s integrated combat systems perform as designed and added “the tests demonstrated—and proved to the crew, fairly dramatically—that the ship will be able to withstand formidable shocks and continue to operate under extreme conditions.”

CVN 78 is returning to the Tidewater area for a six month Planned Incremental Availability (PIA). As the PIA begins, teams will conduct additional detailed inspections, assess any damage sustained during the shots, and continue modernization and maintenance work in advance of workups for the ship’s deployment in 2022.

Rear Adm. James P. Downey, program executive officer for aircraft carriers, rode the ship during the first and third shock evolutions, and observed the historic trials, first-hand.

“FSST has proven a critical investment in the Ford-class development.”

“The ship and crew performed exceptionally in these very strenuous conditions and continued their operations throughout the shock events, demonstrating the ship’s ‘fight-through’ capability.”

“We’re designing and building these aircraft carriers to sail in some of the world’s most contested security environments. So when you think about the threats to warships posed by non-contact blasts and the number of sea mines in the inventories of navies around the world, the gravity and consequence of these shock trials really come into focus. The Navy’s ongoing investment in the design, including this modeling, will help ensure the resiliency of Ford’s integrated, mission critical systems in underway threat environments.”
arvin
BRFite
Posts: 672
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by arvin »

Would have been an earthquake like experience for those inside the ship.
Anyway thoughts and condolences to the fishes who perished in the 3 tests for humanity's greater good.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

This tweet from the ship's official account has some views of what the shocks felt like for the crew..

https://twitter.com/Warship_78/status/1 ... 0493997060
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

nam wrote:
But then even Khan carriers also don't have any such MF radar. They have the usual long range volume search radar.
The first Ford class carrier (CVN-78) has the the Dual Band Radar (S and X band SPY-3/SPY-4 with a common back end) installed. The S band antennas on the CVN-78's Dual band radar are actually larger than the SPY-1 antennas on the DDG-51 destroyers (13+ ft vs 12 ft arrays). Future CVN's are getting a multi-face SPY-6 variant which is a multi-function radar (SPY-6V-3) derivative of the SPY-6 on its latest destroyers to keep the radar systems common with the destroyers (since the Zumwalt program was truncated the SPY-3/4 program became cost prohibitve to share over just the Aircraft Carriers alone).

The legacy Nimitz class carriers and the USMC amphibious ships are receiving (new amphibs) or getting back-fitted / upgraded (Nimitz) with a single face (rotating) SPY-6 derivative (SPY-6V-2) which will be a MF radar. So as ships are upgraded the Nimitz class legacy ships will have one SPY-6 rotating array, and one X band rotating radar (which most already have) while the Ford class ships will either have fixed dual (S & X) or fixed S band arrays going forward. Most of the Nimitz class carriers were delivered in the 80's and 90's (just 2 were delivered in the 2000s) so are due for a solid-state radar upgrade on the vessels that will not be retired between now and the early 2030s (2-3 Nimitz class carriers will be gone by 2033 starting with Nimitz in 2025). I believe the first ship is now in availability getting her older radars ripped out and replaced with the newer ones.

But in the US doctrine the role of the Carrier in its self defense is mostly point defense utilizing short to intermediate range interceptors. Anything beyond is tasked out to the escort destroyers and cruisers with their longer ranged family of missiles (US CVN's don't have VL cells either. Just two stations with ESSM and the RAM launcher).

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

BAE Systems develops advanced version of APKWS guidance kits

The upgrade improves the effective range of APKWS guided rockets by up to 30%, allowing warfighters to engage targets from a greater standoff distance with improved survivability.

APKWS is the U.S. government’s only program of record for guiding 2.75-inch laser-guided rockets, providing an efficient, low-cost weapon in the U.S. arsenal of precision munitions. Initial production of APKWS block upgrade guidance kits will start in Q3 2021.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Boeing's proposal for T-7B to fulfill the Adversary Air / Red Air and US Navy requirement to offload some of its pilot training needs from the T-45 goshawk.

Image

Image


https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... equirement
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

US Army funds development of robotic refuelling for AH-64 Apache attack helicopters
The US Army granted start-up RE2 Robotics a $1 million contract to develop a robotic arm for the purpose of autonomously refuelling Boeing AH-64 Apache attack helicopters in the field.

The service wants to use robots to reduce the number of personnel needed to refuel helicopters at remote way stations, potentially allowing its fleet to fly further without a heavy logistical ground-based footprint. For example, the technology could enable dispersed operations, such as island hopping across the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

The Pentagon sees dispersed operations as a way to avoid having its forces wiped out in a single ballistic or cruise missile attack from advanced adversaries such as China and Russia.

Image
Source: US Army

The US Army has been working on autonomous, robotic refuelling of the AH-64 attack helicopter for several years


Funding for the robotic arm refuelling project, called Remote Robotic Refueling for Extended Missions, comes from the US Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Aviation & Missile Center. It is being developed as part of the Autonomous and Robotic Remote Refueling Point programme, an ongoing effort to create autonomous refuelling technologies.

RE2 says its robotic arm system is mounted on an unmanned ground vehicle made by Pratt Miller. It is capable of autonomously placing a fuel nozzle into the AH-64’s fuel port and disconnecting when the helicopter is topped off. The robot can operate in an “unstructured, outdoor environment” using multiple sensors that create “3D situational awareness”, says the company

“Upon a pilot’s command, this system will quickly and efficiently remove a fuel line from a stored location, engage the fuel line with the Apache helicopter, and then move it back into a stowed position, completely autonomously,” says Amanda Sgroi, director of computer vision and autonomy with RE2 Robotics. “Because the system is unmanned, it will enable troops to extend the range of their missions while eliminating the need for soldiers to remain isolated at refuelling stations, further reducing the size of a mission’s logistical footprint.”

Removing soldiers from the fuelling stations – a potential target of adversaries – would also reduce casualty risks, the US Army has said. The US Navy and US Air Force (USAF) may also find uses for robotic refuelling for aircraft, land vehicles and ships, the service has said.

Automating the logistics that underpin dispersed operations is a priority for the US Department of Defense (DoD) due to the resource-intensive nature of operating from many small bases. More bases means more anti-aircraft weapons, ammunition depots, communications equipment, fuel storage, aircraft hangars, maintenance personnel and soldiers.

In light of those burdens, the DoD has been seeking to reduce its personnel requirements.

In October, the Pentagon granted a contract to Sea Machines Robotics to develop a prototype autonomous ocean barge to serve as a floating “forward arming and refuelling” base for rotorcraft. Autonomous sea barges and autonomous refuelling might free larger, more personnel-intensive assets – like aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships – from supporting aircraft operations.

Image
Source: Sea Machines Robotics

Robotic refuelling might also be useful at “forward arming and refuelling” bases aboard autonomous sea barges – a concept the Pentagon is studying

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

New Skunk Works Plant to Build Advanced Fighters, Other Projects
Aug. 11, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak
PALMDALE, Calif.—Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works advanced development division opened a new 215,000-square-foot production facility Aug. 10, allowing reporters and visitors a glimpse inside the state-of-the-art factory before it begins production of classified systems and is likely permanently closed to non-cleared personnel.

What will be built here first is a secret, but Skunk Works Vice President and General Manager Jeff Babione said he anticipates the facility—at the Air Force’s sprawling Plant 42 complex—will build fighters; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft; hypersonic missiles; and other advanced projects, with possibly more than one project in series production at a time. He declined to say specifically whether Lockheed Martin will build Next-Generation Air Dominance fighters at the plant.

“This is a one-of-a-kind facility,” Babione told reporters in a press conference. One of four new factories to be opened by Lockheed Martin nationwide this year, it is an “intelligent, flexible” facility where there are “no permanent structures…there’s nothing drilled into the floor,” he said, allowing the plant to be reconfigured at will for efficient, flexible manufacturing. This flips the concept of most factories—such that for Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter in Fort Worth, Texas—designed specifically to produce a particular product.

“We have flexibility about where to put what you’re building within this massive floorplan,” he said. “Rather than the work coming to the robot, the robot will go to the work.” Robots will be able to perform one operation “on one end of the factory in the morning, and a completely different operation at the other end in the afternoon. So you’re going to see a significant increase in automation.”

The robots are commercial machines that Lockheed Martin will program. The software to make them do an operation “does not have to be resident” in the system, Babione said. This reduces cost because the same equipment is not dedicated solely to a particular function or program but has application to many projects.

One 27,000-pound robot on display in the new space can move on casters or on cushions of air for fine adjustment of positioning.

The robots “will talk to each other,” Babione added. “How are we doing with cutter speed? Cutter sharpness … do we need to change things? How is the quality of the holes [being drilled]?” Other innovations include advanced test capabilities for wire bundles and laser systems that can spot out-of-tolerance part thicknesses to the thousandths of an inch.

“This will be the first factory at the highest level of classification but has Wi-Fi inside,” to enable the speed of information and allow the “men and women working in that environment” to know the status of the equipment and processes at all times, he said.

The new plant will likely focus on final assembly, with parts produced at other areas of the campus and by vendors. Lockheed Martin is creating partnerships with a number of suppliers such as Spirit Aerosystems to digitally design and manufacture parts with very high precision.

“There will be no paper, only iPad-like devices,” Babione noted. The workers will have access to augmented reality systems to troubleshoot and determine the best ways for robots to execute the work in addition to developing better designs.

The cavernous plant is environmentally controlled to stay within 2.5 degrees of a set temperature in order to minimize changes of the materials in response to heat or humidity, so that joints line up as they were designed to do using digital thread methods.

“The components that make up the different vehicles that we are manufacturing have different coefficients of expansion,” Babione explained. “Composites are different than steel; steel is different than titanium; titanium is different from aluminum.” It’s important that they be assembled “at the same temperatures” at which they were manufactured, he said. “That’s how we eliminate the need to do drilling in that facility.”

The massive air conditioning system will be powered by a new solar farm adjacent to the plant with 52,000 solar panels. Lockheed Martin is working with the state and county to get the permits.

While Babione could not give an estimate as to how much the speed of work will increase versus traditional factories, he characterized it as “significant reductions … not only in design, but certainly development,” amounting to “almost a step function change” in time to complete work.

“That’s what our customer was asking for … how do we go from concept to capability much faster. The technology allows us to dramatically accelerate that life cycle,” he said.

Small batches of products can be made more efficiently in the plant.

“Not only did we not design it for anything in particular, we can design and build multiple assets within the same footprint, something that we really can’t do very well in our current arrangement,” so, “we can now bring [the values of] capacity/quantity to multiple programs” that may not be built in large numbers. “We absolutely see a future where this facility is building multiple types of platforms.” He mentioned large-scale production of hypersonic missiles as one possibility.

The new plant will also require 450 new employees at Skunk Works in Palmdale, adding to the unit’s rapid growth. Babione said advanced development has trebled its workforce—resident in Palmdale, Fort Worth, and Marietta, Ga.—since 2017, to about 5,600 employees. Those employees are heavily oriented toward engineering and administrative support, Babione said. But “the mix is changing … growing significantly in the manufacturing and labor area because we’re expanding this facility.” He also said “we are opening up a new classified facility in Marietta, as well, so I do see a significant shift … as we transition to these core manufacturing capabilities.”

Why Marietta? “We’re running out of space,” Babione said. While this pushed the production of the new plant, which has a height of about 80 feet, there is “significant unused space in Marietta. This is a great opportunity to take advantage of that as well as add capability. We don’t have any classified manufacturing space in Marietta.”

The huge investment—Babione referred to $400 million pumped into the local economy—suggests a business case for large-scale production at the site rather than the low-rate, small-volume Skunk Works production programs of the past, such as the F-117, SR-71, and U-2.

“What has changed is that the cost of technology has come way down,” Babione said. “Think about what a robot cost 20 years ago; very few people had a robot because of the massive cost … it had to have this tremendous business case.”

At the same time, customer expectations have changed, and “we have got to compress this timeframe” from concept to production, Babione said. “And that comes with a significant drop in the cost of products and services.” The new factory is not a matter of “should we do it … but, we have to do it, to meet the objectives of our customer, both from a cost and schedule standpoint” he said, adding, “things that work for our customer ultimately work for us.”

The increased production volume will also help Lockheed Martin recruit and retain workers for future advanced projects, which is “what we live for,” he said. Designing and prototyping advanced systems is “still the hallmark of what we do at Skunk Works. … It’s X-planes, advancing the state of the art, doing things that no one’s ever done before, that is at the core of what we do here.”
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

ldev wrote:
SSridhar wrote:More than inclusion of China in START, it is the INF (Intermediate Nuclear Forces) Treaty (500-5500 km) where the US wants China to be included. The US is very vulnerable to this class of missiles and China has an abundance targetting vital US installations in the Western Pacific. IRBMs Like DF26 and MRBMs DF17 & DF21 variants pose the greatest threat to the US.
The US has withdrawn from the INF because of it's lack of delivery vehicles in the 500km to 5500 km range. Withdrawing from the INF means that in theory the US can deploy some of the stored ~5000 warheads from inventory and utilize them in the vehicles it is developing. But so far the vehicles being developed in this class such as the hypersonic AGM-183a do not appear to be designed for the nuke role.
INF was only applicable to ground launched systems, not sea or air launched. The only ground launched "hypersonic" missiles being fielded by the US would not have come under INF because even though it is about 3,000 km in range, it flies >50% of its profile in a non ballistic profile which was not controlled under INF unless the missile was powered (cruise missile). This weapon (LRHW) was being developed even during INF. That's sort of the minimum ground launched missile range they need to hold high value Chinese targets at risk. Rest would have to be delivered from air or ships given lack of basing in that region. They left INF because the treaty was dated and because they strongly suspected (with evidence) that Russia was cheating. As such, best to leave (Obama officials wanted to do it, Trump actually did it) and see if they want to re-negotiate something down the road.

The other are tactical weapons. PrSM is 550 km ranged weapon so more of a theater tactical asset. It just ups the range at which the theater forces can target from 300-350 km with ATACMS to about 550 km with PrSM. While its range over the lifetime will increase that will happen only at the pace of increase in ISR. You need ISR (and that ISR needs to be survivable against jamming, kinetic and other forms of C-ISR) to target at those distances otherwise the weapon range means absolutely nothing. That sort of range has limited utility in the INDO-PACIFIC but would be valuable in Europe and other regions that don't have targets at thousands of km's from blue forces. In addition to that the US Army is reviving the ground launched Tomahawk but that is also a shortish (relatively) ranged weapon and it too has little utility in the Pacific (it is more European focused) from a GL application. Basically, for US ground forces 2000-2500 km is probably the floor in terms of what ranges they need from land based fires against China. Because this leads to high cost, large size and logistical footprint they will field a limited force and rely mostly on ship/submarine and air-delivered long range fires for support. A B-21 that is going to be very hard to find or target can do a lot of damage even with a 1,000 km cruise missile. Shorter ranged weapons are cheaper and you can field more of them.

There is no need, and absolutely no armed forces requirement to add a nuclear warhead on either of these new weapons. The nuclear triad modernization programs are separate in the GBSD, and the new ALCM (LRSO). Both are in advanced stages of development. All the precission fires, and hypersonic programs are strictly conventional (and will remain so) and mostly tactical with particular emphasis on defeating IADS, and other A2AD enablers. There was one submarine launched nuclear cruise missile that the Trump administration added a few years ago, but I expect that to be terminated in the next nuclear review by the Biden administration. Nothing like the Pershing II is being planned, though they did do a ceremonial IRBM test during the Trump administration as they left the INF.
SSridhar wrote:Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM) which have immediately benefitted from withdrawal from INF (range being increased from 499 to over 1000 Kms), and Common-Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB). The US study appears to suggest that a depth of 700 - 1500 Kms behind the Chinese enemy line needs to be targeted for blunting the Chinese A2/AD strategy and these types of assets would do that job. As part of this cornucopia is the Strategic Long Range Canon which can fire a shell to over 1000 Kms. Projects will linger until end of this decade though.
PrSM will not get to 1,000 km despite what some blogs seem to be suggesting. They may have "2x" PrSM requirements but those will be met with a new weapon (and DARPA has a weapon just like that in the works). I'd be very surprised if you can get a 1,000 km weapon to even fit on a HIMARS. But that shouldn't matter because you can sacrifice some vehicle size and deployability given the 2x increase in weapon range (it can hold more targets at risk without needing to be airlifted to a new launch location). But 2 X of current weapon (ATACMS) which puts them to 600-700 km should be doable with a highly loaded grain motor. That's where the confusion comes from because officials have said that they'll get to 2x current capability eventually with PrsM and some blogs have read that has 2x of PrsM (which isn't a fielded weapon yet).

Lockheed Martin has a 1,000+ km hypersonic weapon that it is developing for DARPA that utilizes a larger prime mover but carries three missiles and repackages the USAF developed boost glide vehicle that is going on the AGM-183A. This would give them a HIMARS launched PrSM capability out to 600-700 km, a Medium ranged hypersonic capability, perhaps out to 1,200-1400 km, and a Long range hypersonic capability out to nearly 3,000 km.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/ne ... vered.html

Given the lack of basing, and maneuver limitations (both due to the logistical footprint and Chinese counterfire and airpower/seapower) 1,000 km doesn't really get you a lot of utility unless you can use it to target ships. 2,500 km and up is probably the price of entry for surface to surface missiles for the land based US force (Army or Marines). But 500-1000 km works well against ships etc. The strategic canon is essentially a science and technology program and isn't really going to lead to anything meaningful though offshoots like ramjet powered gun rounds etc will likely find their way into other systems.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

The Last Oliver Hazard Perry Class Frigate Ever Built Just Got Pummeled To Death

On August 15th, 2021, the U.S. Navy led the execution of a Sinking Exercise (SINKEX) off Hawaii as part of the ongoing and unprecedently massive Large Scale Exercise 2021. Not a whole lot is known about this SINKEX just yet, but multiple types of weapons were involved, including a Super Hornet-launched AGM-154 Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW) and stealthy Naval Strike Missiles (NSM) launched from the Marine Corps' new unmanned ground-based launcher vehicles. P-8s were also involved, which could mean they employed AGM-84 Harpoons. There are likely a number of other weapons that were fired at the frigate, too, as is typically the case during SINKEXs, which are prized and infrequent training and developmental opportunities.

The incorporation of the Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System (NMESIS) is a major development for this SINKEX. The system uses an unmanned vehicle based on the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle's chassis, known as Remotely Operated Ground Unit Expeditionary-Fires (ROGUE-Fires), that carries twin Naval Strike Missile launchers.

The concept is set to underpin the Marine Corp's new expeditionary anti-ship capability, which is a core component of a major remodeling of the force to be better suited for supporting distributed operations, especially in the Pacific Theater, during a peer-state conflict.

During the live-fire drill, two NSMs were employed, one from a launcher delivered by C-130 and another by one delivered by LCAC hovercraft. The Naval Strike Missiles apparently both struck the ex-USS Ingraham just as planned after flying over 100 miles to their target. This is a big accomplishment for the Marines' anti-ship missile system program, which is only around two years old. You can read much more about NMESIS in this past piece of ours....


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 »

General Atomics on where it thinks the next capability leap will come in the UCAV/UAV market (they are thinking on the payload as opposed to the platform side). Video included in the article is their company funded UAV launched, and UAV recovered wingman with a 500 mile range and swapable payload that can act as a forward present targeting asset for UCAV's that provide SO fires.


GA-ASI: The Future of Small UAS


Sparrowhawk Small UAS (SUAS):

Image

Image

General Atomics concept for DARPA's LongShot SUAS

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Pentagon Poised To Unveil, Demonstrate Classified Space Weapon
For months, top officials at the Defense Department have been working toward declassifying the existence of a secret space weapon program and providing a real-world demonstration of its capabilities, Breaking Defense has learned.

The effort — which sources say is being championed by Gen. John Hyten, the vice-chairman of the joint chiefs of staff — is close enough to completion that there was a belief the anti-satellite technology might have been revealed at this year’s National Space Symposium, which kicks off next week.

However, the crisis in Afghanistan appears to have put that on hold for now. Pulling the trigger on declassifying such a sensitive technology requires concurrence of the Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines, and a thumbs up from President Joe Biden, sources explain; with all arms of the national security apparatus pointed towards Kabul, that is almost certainly not going to happen next week. And until POTUS says yes, nothing is for certain, of course.

The system in question long has been cloaked in the blackest of black secrecy veils — developed as a so-called Special Access Program known only to a very few, very senior US government leaders. While exactly what capability could be unveiled is unclear, insiders say the reveal is likely to include a real-world demonstration of an active defense capability to degrade or destroy a target satellite and/or spacecraft.

At least, that is what has been on the table since last year — when officials in the Trump administration viewed revealing the technology as a capstone to the creation of Space Command and Space Force. The plan apparently had been to announce it at the 2020 Space Symposium, which was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic; the arrival of the Biden administration also led to a reevaluation of moving forward with the reveal.

Expert speculation on what could be used for the demonstration ranges from a terrestrially-based mobile laser used for blinding adversary reconnaissance sats to on-board, proximity triggered radio-frequency jammers on certain military satellites, to a high-powered microwave system that can zap electronics carried on maneuverable bodyguard satellites. However, experts and former officials interviewed by Breaking Defense say it probably does not involve a ground-based kinetic interceptor, a capability the US already demonstrated in the 2008 Burnt Frost satellite shoot-down.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Rapid Dragon conducts first system-level demonstration of palletized munitions


Image

The Air Force Rapid Dragon Program, a fast-paced experimentation campaign led by the Air Force Strategic Development Planning and Experimentation office, has completed two more successful demonstrations during its first system-level flight tests of this potential new capability at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico in July 2021.

The tests assessed the operational utility of delivering long-range strike weapons en masse from military cargo aircraft, and showcased the ability for a Beyond-Line-of-Sight Command and Control node to transfer Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range cruise missile targeting data to airborne Air Force Special Operations Command and Air Mobility Command aircraft.

The SDPE office, along with its partners, Air Force Futures, Air Force Special Operations Command, Air Mobility Command, U.S. Special Operations Command Det 1, and the 412th Test Wing, completed its first system-level flight test on EC-130SJ and C-17A aircraft.

The aircraft-agnostic Battle Management System onboard the aircraft received new targeting data and uploaded it to a JASSM-ER emulator. The JASSM-ER emulator successfully demonstrated the ability to retarget missiles while the aircraft was airborne. This set in motion the airdrop of the palletized weapon deployment system from each aircraft. While stabilized and descending under-chute, this new deployment system sequentially released multiple JASSM-ER mass simulants and demonstrated the ability to safely de-conflict the airspace between weapon release intervals. This capability can provide combatant commanders greater flexibility to respond in dynamic operational environments.

These jettison tests accomplished several first-time events: a successful high altitude airdrop using a modular deployment box; a successful jettison of multiple weapons from the palletized weapon deployment system; and weapon de-confliction verification through the clean separation of JASSM-ER simulants from the deployment system. An operational aircrew from the 492 Special Operations Training Group Detachment 2 and a test aircrew from the 418th Flight Test Squadron conducted the airdrops in an operationally-relevant environment, demonstrating the feasibility of a palletized delivery of long-range strike weapons. The Naval Surface Warfare Center-Dahlgren; Standoff Munitions Application Center; Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control; Systima Technologies; Safran Electronics & Defense, Parachutes USA; and R4 Integration, Inc. were integral to the success of this first-ever, end-to-end, system-level demonstration.

The Rapid Dragon Program will complete a live-fire test with a production JASSM-ER from a cargo aircraft before the end of 2021. These tests will inform potential design refinement and accelerate the maturation of these systems for further capability experimentation and rapid fielding. A follow-on program will look at expanding the Rapid Dragon portfolio to include additional weapon systems and multiple effects capabilities.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

Utah ANG demonstrates multi-domain battlespace connectivity on KC-135
On Aug. 7, the Utah Air National Guard, in collaboration with Collins Aerospace, successfully demonstrated advanced communication, mission computing and sensor technologies to support Joint All Domain Command and Control and Advanced Battle Management System initiatives on a KC-135 Stratotanker at the Roland R. Wright ANG Base in Salt Lake City.

.................
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by jamwal »

https://townhall.com/columnists/jackcar ... s-n2594529

A Time for Bold Adjustment: Fire the Generals
Tactically we are the most effective fighting force on the face of the earth. Operationally, we have serious issues in large part due to a promotion system that rewards mediocracy. Any frontline soldier who has been in a BUB — Battlefield Update Brief — with staff officers and their PowerPoints will be acutely familiar; rose-colored assessments that only got rosier as the graphs and figures were polished on their way up the chain of command. Strategically, we are a complete failure and have been since the 1960s. Once again, as the situation continues to deteriorate in Afghanistan, the frontline soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine will bear the brunt of their senior leaders’ failures.
Our senior-level leaders failed again. This should come as no surprise; they have a twenty-year track record of failure. One does not require military expertise or even need to be a student of history to note that common sense is not just lacking but completely absent in our general officer corps. One would be hard-pressed to find a commander in chief over the past two decades who has relieved a general officer for performance. The vast majority were promoted and many went to serve on boards of companies tied directly to the defense industry where they continue to profit.
There is a misconception that politicians lose wars. That has been an oft-repeated and popular mantra since the end of Vietnam. It has been echoed so often that it has become accepted as fact. It is NOT the truth. We need politicians, specifically a Commander in Chief and a Secretary of War confirmed by the Senate, who will fire generals and colonels not up to the task. Promote those who succeed regardless of rank and time in grade and fire those who fail. Without bold adjustments in the ranks, the next time we go to war, we are condemning ourselves to yet another disaster.
A lot of it is applicable to India too.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

jamwal wrote:https://townhall.com/columnists/jackcar ... s-n2594529

A Time for Bold Adjustment: Fire the Generals
Related to this topic from WWII experience:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Manish_P »

Jamwal wrote:
There is a misconception that politicians lose wars. That has been an oft-repeated and popular mantra since the end of Vietnam. It has been echoed so often that it has become accepted as fact. It is NOT the truth....
True to an extent but it is not the complete truth.

It is the politicians who set the ROEs, lay down restrictive conditions to ensure that they are not seen to lose face or favor of their voters if things go south, or there is unavoidable collateral damage or graphic videos which will revolt the public who were promised a clean and pretty war. The politicians in charge first and foremost think only about their seats and worry constantly if the media will use it to go after them (backed by the opposition parties)..

Would request you to please see the YouTube video of 4 USAF, USN fighter pilots recently posted in the Afghanistan thread (Page 50) titled something like the debacle of the Withdrawal from Afghanistan. See what those guys, each of whom served in Afghanistan at various periods, unanimously say about their political masters whom they derisively call 'Management'.

Finally what applies to the US need not always apply to us desis.
The bond between the officers and the jawans in the IA are uniquely very strong. If you are OK with firing generals then are you also OK with them firing progressively lower ranks - a Colonel firing a Major, a Major firing a Captain...? Imagine the effect on the morale..
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Pratyush »

A case can be made for the firing of generals and commanding officers where the goals of the military operations are clearly defined. When they are not clearly defined then the generals should ask for a clearly defined military objective and the end goal that is being sought to be achieved.

If they don't do so then they are complicit in the eventual failure. But in order to fire a general for failure, the chain of command has to be clear about the objectives.

WRT, the you tube link about the firing of generals. I find the basic assumptions about the topic to be flawed. I had watched it some years ago. Did not really agree with the basic thrust.

The speaker is contrasting the firing of generals for failure to achieve objectives when they are clearly defined and spelled out. But where these things don't exist then it is difficult assess the performance of a general. Therefore, the corrective measures also cannot be taken.

Military performance should never be seen in isolation.
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by jamwal »

This logic about effect on morale is dubious. The person who was insistent on army not crossing the border in 1999 was Jaswant Singh, a former armyman. Army could find only ONE officer responsible for Kargil intrusions, a Brigadier Surinder Singh who later got himself exonerated in court. Army chief of the time mentions him by name 3-4 times in his book. Same thing happened in 1965. They didn't even knew that war had started even after capturing dozens of pakis. A number of units abandoned their positions in Jammu sector during that war. How many people get dandaa for incompetency like this here?

Navy burns out hundreds of crores annually like clockwork in various fires and other accidents.
Air force had no single aircraft or bombs for operations in high mountains even after 4 wars. Later, they asked for a helicopter which could operate there after suffering horrendous losses and virtually refusing to operate. Yet went ahead to buy hugely expensive Apaches and refuses to buy the exact machine they asked for.

Indian armed forces are just as corrupt and incompetent as civilians and it is time that we acknowledge it.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Manish_P »

jamwal wrote:This logic about effect on morale is dubious. The person who was insistent on army not crossing the border in 1999 was Jaswant Singh, a former armyman.
And are you certain that it was his call only and not of the then PM. You might recall there were no guranteed info to believe that pak was not nuke nude then. Not to menon that the US and Europe were just itching for an opportunity to put further sanctions on us... and saving their munna.
jamwal wrote: Navy burns out hundreds of crores annually like clockwork in various fires and other accidents.
Wow, really sir... I guess the Airforce crashes a lot of planes and hellos. So to ensure zero such losses we should not do regular training and practice and leave them parked on the ground. The USAF also has crashes/accidents in all branches. Maybe we should suggest this to them as well. While we are at it let's go a step further and tell them to go for complete nuclear disarmament since they have had accidents with nukes.
jamwal wrote:Indian armed forces are just as corrupt and incompetent as the civilians
Again Wow, way to paint literally everyone with the same broad brush.

Thank you for also pointing out exactly what I said in my earlier post - that it is NOT entirely correct what that ex US military chap (now trying to sell his books and movie rights) makes it out to be, when he claims that it is the military command who is responsible for losing wars and not the Politicians who are actually the ones who define the objectives and set the RoEs.
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by jamwal »

It is mentioned by Gen V.P Malik in his book.

Did I write air force? Don't put words in my mouth. I specifically wrote navy which loses submarines and ships in entirely avoidable incidents like Russian navy of 90s.

You can try being as outraged as you like by my comments. My rants wouldn't change a thing and I suspect its same with you.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Manish_P »

Pratyush wrote:A case can be made for the firing of generals and commanding officers where the goals of the military operations are clearly defined. When they are not clearly defined then the generals should ask for a clearly defined military objective and the end goal that is being sought to be achieved.
Pratyush ji, agree with your points.

I might be wrong but all military leaders do ask for objectives before they set out. It is the ever-paranoid about their seats and image canny politicians who try and make it a ambiguous as possible or at best give initial objectives knowing well that they can be changed as the war progresses (depending on how they perceive it to be unfolding).

Especially if it a very long war, which may include change in the government.

I would like to request you to check out that YouTube podcast (posted in the Afghan thread) of those 5 pilots who served in Afghanistan at different times and how they talk bluntly about how they had to face changing Objectives and RoE, which came from the government from time to time.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Manish_P »

jamwal wrote:It is mentioned by Gen V. P Malik in his book
This must be inaccurate then...
https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-when-vajpayee-forbade-the-iaf-from-crossing-the-loc-5602058/
jamwal wrote:...
Did I write air force? Don't put words in my mouth. I specifically wrote navy which loses submarines and ships in entirely avoidable incidents like Russian navy of 90s.
When you state that everyone is incompetent and corrupt then logically it follows that what applies to the navy would also apply to the air force no?
jamwal wrote: You can try being as outraged as you like by my comments. My rants wouldn't change a thing and I suspect its same with you.
Perhaps not, but I would not be in a hurry to accept the statements of one person as being the ultimate truth and the counter view statement of another person to be a lie, solely on the basis of my preferences.

Last from me on this. Cheers.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Pratyush »

On the topic of firing generals in case of United States military over the last 20 years or so. I think that the following interview makes a good case for it.

The level of mismanagement shown makes it certain that the war was lost. It gives a context regarding the rise of ISIS in Iraq and the repeat of those failures which made the Afghanistan collapse inevitable.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Manish_P »

Interesting interview with the chief engineer who worked on the ATF program (YF22 and YF23).

Please let me know if posted earlier & I will delete the post

Post Reply