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 »

Next-Generation of DACS technology needed to break through some of the challenges of highly maneuverable boost glide vehicles in the glide phase of flight (which is the longest phase in a high L/D BGV profile). This is not going to be a quick, cheap, or easy challenge to overcome. Also puts some claims of legacy Air-defense systems into question in terms of being able to effectively deal with BGV's in anything besides the very terminal phase of flight.

DARPA Reveals Key Piece Of Future Hypersonic Interceptor
In order for a missile to shoot down another missile, the interceptor needs to be far more agile than the target. The physics of missile defense dictates that the agility margin for the interceptor design should be at least a factor of three, as measured in G forces. As missile defense coverage expands to hypersonic glide vehicles with the ability to swerve midair, new technology is necessary for the interceptors to keep up.

Since 2018, DARPA has been secretly working on an “enabling technology” for a new class of interceptors against hypersonic glide vehicles (HGV), such as China’s conventional DF-17 missile and Russia’s nuclear Avangard intercontinental ballistic missile. The nature of the threat likely demands an integrated solution, combining a portfolio of technologies to achieve the speed, range, precision and agility required for neutralizing HGVs.

Now, a senior DARPA official has revealed that a key ingredient of that package is in development by the agency’s Glide Breaker program: a new generation of divert and attitude control systems (DACS).

“If I want to do a hypersonic-bullet-to-hypersonic-bullet intercept, I need a divert and attitude control system that can pull three times the Gs as the guy coming in,” Michael Leahy, the director of DARPA’s Tactical Technology Office, tells Aviation Week. “That doesn’t exist. With the new capabilities and ways to be able to make that happen, [Glide Breaker will] be able to put it together.”

A DACS powerful enough to target HGVs is now in development by two competing teams: Aerojet Rocketdyne and Northrop Grumman. Both companies have received awards since 2020 from DARPA under the Glide Breaker program for the “development of a divert and attitude control system for use in a hypersonic defense kinetic-kill vehicle.” A subaward to Northrop identifies a requirement for a hybrid solid propellant, with the goal of developing a DACS compatible with safety standards for ships.

Meanwhile, other defense science and technology agencies continue to pursue alternatives to counter HGVs. The Office of Naval Research, for example, has revealed a concept showing a DDG-1000 destroyer launching a pair of SM-2-like interceptors featuring “multibody control” technology against an incoming HGV.

Northrop’s participation in Glide Breaker means the program also is an opportunity to expand the U.S. industrial base for DACS. Aerojet is now the U.S. military’s only source for the critical control system. Indeed, Aerojet’s grip on the domestic market for DACS has emerged as a key issue in the antitrust reviews of Lockheed’s proposed acquisition of the rocket and ramjet supplier—especially with the competition for the Next-Generation Interceptor contract underway.

The nature of the HGV threat implies that Glide Breaker will expand the performance envelope of DACS technology. Whereas Lockheed Martin’s Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense and Boeing’s Ground-Based Interceptor use a DACS to maneuver in the vacuum of space, a future HGV interceptor would use a DACS to bolster the performance of aerodynamic control surfaces in the thin atmosphere of 100,000-150,000-ft. altitudes. The key is to intercept the HGV in the glide phase, before the weapon can regain kinetic energy by entering a steep dive in its terminal phase almost directly above the target.

It remains unclear how soon the Glide Breaker technology could become available. The Missile Defense Agency is planning to introduce the Regional Glide-Phase Weapon System (RGPWS) on Navy ships in the late 2020s, leveraging new variants of existing interceptors. Lockheed has proposed a “Dart” variant of THAAD, and Raytheon has offered a “Hawk” version of the SM-3. Integrating Glide Breaker’s DACS in the RGPWS may dramatically improve the chances of glide-phase intercept attempts, but only if the technology is mature enough to enter production within about five years.

In the absence of a new DACS, the Hawk and Dart candidates for the RGPWS could rely on their existing maneuver devices, including DACS and aerodynamic control surfaces. In the past, missile defense officials have said that even a series of unsuccessful glide-phase intercepts against an HGV may help. The attempts could require the incoming HGV to maneuver aggressively, bleeding off some potential energy that otherwise would have been available to convert into kinetic energy in a terminal dive.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18196
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Rakesh »

What a beautiful photograph.

https://twitter.com/GuyPlopsky/status/1 ... 71050?s=20 ----> Good shot showing the F-35B's retractable aerial refueling probe.

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

That's pretty nifty. What they may be talking about here is that the smart seeker or whatever other guidance system they added to the 2,000 lb munition is actually designed to strategically miss the ship and explode in the water in close proximity to the vessel.

The Air Force Is Developing Smart Bombs With 'Torpedo-Like' Ship Killing Capability


Image
hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4633
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by hnair »

brar_w, some questions (don’t know if you have answers, but):

- will this dive under the hull before detonating? If not, then the gravity assisted snapping of hull into two might not happen.

- Since this looks unpowered, wouldn’t it need the launching craft to be close to the ship and be under threat from AAW SAMs? Or is it for lightly armed auxiliaries?

All said and done, quite a cost effective solution to reduce the tonnage of the enemy
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

They have not released much information on what exactly they are trying to do here but I think it's safe to assume that a fuze upgrade would probably also be part of the overall modification and some sort of ER wing kit that could allow the weapon to execute a shallow vertical dive so that the explosion happens at a favorable position post entering the water. The image is probably a test of the seeker/guidance concept but there are glide kits available for the 2000 lb class weapons that can be added to get some of that altered profile and extended range.

Capital ships and other commercial vessels that China recently begun using as amphibs would be potential targets. And much of China's small combatants aren't really equipped with air-defense that can handle a threat from much beyond 40 miles. The 2000 lb family of bombs fit inside F-35's and will/can be carried internally on the B-2 and upcoming B-21 so there are probably ways to lob a lot of these at vessels from 50-100 km away (JDAM-ER kits have been tested by Boeing but for strike they've not had interest because of time to target limitations) using a stealth platform if they want to.

The USAF is also experimenting with several powered direct attack munition configurations (rocket motor and engine) in support of the JDAM replacement (GBU-X) program so the technology could be applicable there as well. Despite all that is written about the very expensive AShM options it is the smaller, and cheaper weapons in scale are equally as important as the number of targets and targetable platforms will go far beyond the battle force ships. Right now the main Anti Ship platform for the US Air force is the B-1 bomber (though older F-16's and F-15E's can carry Harpoon they rarely do so) but if you were to expand this to virtually any platform that can carry the 2K munition then this is a dilemma for China that it has to account for in its defenses.
Under the sponsorship of the USAF, MBDA and Boeing have successfully demonstrated extended range for JDAM and SSB, with 5 Diamond Back® wing kit flight tests completed between April and September 2000. Weapon releases were from a USAF F-16 at Eglin AFB, Florida and White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. Two weapons types were used (2000lb JDAM ER and 250 lb SSBREX) proving that the wing kit is scalable across a range of payloads. Flight test objectives were met by demonstration of safe separation, wing deployment, controlled cruise flight, down range and cross track performance and terminal end game that resulted in hitting the target area as planned. Diamond Back ® increases the weapon footprint by up to 20 times (dependent on release altitude) while retaining the terminal accuracy of the JDAM or SDB munition.

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by ldev »

brar_w, appreciate you can provide some clarity on this.

Meteor integration with the F-35 is ongoing and is expected to be completed "mid-decade" according to the RAF and thereby presumably also for the USAF/USN/USMC Also, notwithstanding the addition of EPAWSS to the F-15EX and maybe retro-fitting it to the older F-15C/E inventory, the survivability of the F-15 in a penetrative role against a near peer adversary integrated SAM system is expected to be low. In such a scenario is it possible for the F-15EX to act purely as a missile truck, stay 100 nm away from threats and yet have the ability to launch a long range Meteor which can then be guided from the point of launch onwards by an F-35 which can be closer to the threat given it's LO character or be guided by any other networked asset. The Meteor will not be formally integrated with the F-15EX but can it be used only as a transport/launch platform? What is the bare minimum interface that the Meteor would need to have with the F-15EX in such a role? I guess the same set of circumstances could be applicable to another long range AAM, the AIM-260, but isn't that going to be integrated with the F-15EX in any event?
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

ldev wrote:Meteor integration with the F-35 is ongoing and is expected to be completed "mid-decade" according to the RAF and thereby presumably also for the USAF/USN/USMC
The F-15EX is a Air National Guard asset and the primary responsibility for these (the F-15C squadrons that will be upgrading to the F-15EX) ANG units is homeland defense. So first and foremost it will be tasked with fending off Russian bombers, and other homeland defense tasks (like Cruise missile defense) etc. ANG homeland defense aircraft do on occasion deploy but that's mostly for the same mission (DCA in support of the joint forces). The F-15EX is a multi-role platform, unlike the ANG's F-15C's it is replacing so it is conceivable that the Combatant commanders begin tasking the EX's for multi-role deployments in which case them as tactical launch platforms for JASSM's, and hypersonic weapons is likely a more pressing issue.

On the Air to Air side, why would the USAF buy the Meteor? It has the AIM-120D and is about 18 months away from fielding the AIM-260, which will go down to all platforms eventually (and ANG's Air to Air focused EX will be one of them after the F-22 and F-35 get it).

The concept you describe (using AIM-260/Meteor with less survivable aircraft very far back) needs something kinematically superior to the Meteor and likely also the AIM-260. You need something much faster, and with the ability to loft much higher. It must be able to cover a long distance in just about the same time as a missile fired from much closer. That's always a challenge and demands something a lot faster. The Meteor is also a rather poor design to equip 5th generation aircraft (which is what is driving weapons development and procurement now for the USAF). It also doesn't address the advanced targeting, communication and other survivability needs to defeat the 5th and 6th generation threats so I doubt it will be considered by the USAF.

That said, Raytheon flew a booster-less SM-6 on a F/A-18 a couple of years ago. Something like that carried by the F-15EX could get significantly longer ranged shots compared to the AIM-260 or Meteor but from a doctrinal perspective, and from a need perspective it may not be very easy to use at those ranges (though a fairly easy option in case they want to get a modern day longer ranged AIM-54 like capability). If the Chinese H-20 threat becomes real then having 5th and 6th generation aircraft use something like that could make the concept useful but right now, at least from an air to air perspective, most of the F-22A's (8 missiles carried internally) and F-35A's (six missiles carried internally with block 4 upgrades) should be able to handle the combined OCA/DCA needs without needing additional capacity in the form of very large and potentially very expensive ultra long range missiles which may end up costing 2-3 times that of what a standard JATM may cost.


The Weekly Debrief: Air-Launched, SM-6-Like Missile Exposed In New Test Photo


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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by ldev »

I understand that from a doctrine standpoint the US may not need the combination of Meteor/AIM-260 that I described. But using your example of the SM-6, which is a much better example and which appears now to be a very versatile hypersonic, defensive and offensive weapon, could the guidance be done from an entirely different platform from the launch platform? e.g. in the Pacific theater could something like a P-8 be adapted to carry larger numbers of the SM-6 vs a range/payload limited fighter like the FA-18 but have guidance right from the point of launch be done by other networked assets?

Added later: Answered by own question:

Navy To Supersize Its Ultra Versatile SM-6 Missile For Even Longer Range And Higher Speed
It's a networked-enabled weapon that can use third party targeting—such as that from aircraft, ships, satellites, and land-based sensors—to engage enemies over very long distances.

In other words, it doesn't really matter what the launch platform is, or to some degree where it is, in order to be employed successfully. For instance, if a Super Hornet's air-to-air missile stores run dry, an SM-6 could be launched from a ship a hundred miles away at an aerial target that is in the shadow of the ship's radar horizon or even beyond its detection range as a whole. It would use the Super Hornet's targeting data to get within range on its own active radar seeker. Once it is locked on organically, the target has a very low chance of survival.So even if an FFG(X) doesn't have the radar capable or targeting threats at the ranges a SM-6 Block IB could reach, it could simply act as the remote launch platform if it is closest to the target and is equipped with the missile.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

ldev wrote:I understand that from a doctrine standpoint the US may not need the combination of Meteor/AIM-260 that I described. But using your example of the SM-6, which is a much better example and which appears now to be a very versatile hypersonic, defensive and offensive weapon, could the guidance be done from an entirely different platform from the launch platform?
It is a tricky thing to do but of course you can launch a remote missile with forward targeting supplied by another platform and you can continue to use disparate sources to provide the missile with a mid-course update. The SM-6 already does that as a naval SAM with a forward deployed F-35 or EA-18G providing targeting information (Block III Super Hornet would be able to do so as well) to AEGIS and SPY radars using that information (instead of its own radar acquired track) to update the missile. Some of the more advanced missile communication capabilities that the USAF has worked on in the lab (in the last decade to decade and a half) have to do with weapon to weapon communication and being able to have multiple sources simultaneously providing information into a missile (STAR antennas and other technologies) that would allow the missile to potentially communicate with multiple platforms at the same time.

It is definitely possible to do things like that but again depends on how much you want to spend. The SM-6 is very capable but also nearly 2x the diameter of the AIM-120, and with a nearly 2X larger antenna. The costs add up, and you have to build a respectable inventory for it to be tactically relevant. If the AIM-260 goes after advanced threats (which appears to be the driving factor) then it will likely have some of those along with likely a reduction in fly-out time (despite longer ranges) which puts even more burden on some of the missile communication choices used. But as I said, for something really far back you really need a much more kinematically powerful weapon like the SM-6 example. The distances at which the F-15EX would have to stand off given the J-20+ Long range missile threat means that the AIM-260 or Meteor won't cut it.
Pacific theater could something like a P-8 be adapted to carry larger numbers of the SM-6 vs a range/payload limited fighter like the FA-18
The USAF has considered an arsenal plane like concept but given a subsonic platform, you really need to have it at the right place at the right time otherwise it is not very useful because most of our OCA or DCA platforms will be required to cover a large area and are supersonic as a requirement. I think the B-21 will have some residual Air to Air capability (either for self defense or offense). It may not have it at the beginning but it will likely play some role there perhaps as a sensor. NGAD is where the USAF is investing in for future air-superiority. Investing a lot into the F-15EX is almost a waste. It does what it needs to in terms of support ANG modernization but as an offensive A2A option it is likely not very relevant in the Pacific.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by ldev »

brar_w wrote:
It is definitely possible to do things like that but again depends on how much you want to spend. The SM-6 is very capable but also nearly 2x the diameter of the AIM-120, and with a nearly 2X larger antenna. The costs add up, and you have to build a respectable inventory for it to be tactically relevant. If the AIM-260 goes after advanced threats (which appears to be the driving factor) then it will likely have some of those along with likely a reduction in fly-out time (despite longer ranges) which puts even more burden on some of the missile communication choices used. But as I said, for something really far back you really need a much more kinematically powerful weapon like the SM-6 example. The distances at which the F-15EX would have to stand off given the J-20+ Long range missile threat means that the AIM-260 or Meteor won't cut it.
I guess the SM-6 as an AAM would be like the AIM-54 on steroids, range, weight and dimensions wise. Hypothetically speaking if you wanted to target something like an H-20 from a considerable distance, would the LEO satellites being developed for detection of hypersonics be able to detect it? Japan is also talking about using UAVs with IR sensors flying close to adversary territory in conjunction with LEO satellites to detect hypersonics. And as you have pointed out, what about missile guidance/communication at that range?
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Yes space will play a role and this has been publicly said but we don't know how advanced those capabilities are and when they'll get there. But if you won't have access to large AWACS (too vulnerable to penetrating aircraft and long range missiles and also single points of failure given cost), and you don't have much ground (mostly water) or territory to mount ground radars then space seems like a domain worth investing in. For hypersonic defeat, you can do missile communication from the ground. Communicating a track to a missile isn't the problem (for gliders you are still talking about fairly significant altitudes). The problem is generating the track from a ground based sensor that is fixed because LOS limitations (you restrict yourself to just terminal defense). There a space based transport layer and tracking layer will get the data into your command and control and that data can be communicated to the interceptor using whatever sensor it is paired with.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by ldev »

brar_w wrote:The problem is generating the track from a ground based sensor that is fixed because LOS limitations (you restrict yourself to just terminal defense). There a space based transport layer and tracking layer will get the data into your command and control and that data can be communicated to the interceptor using whatever sensor it is paired with.
Thanks brar_w. That's what I thought. You are always very comprehensive with your responses!!
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Another daytime capture of the RQ-180, this time over Philippines likely on a flight from Guam either going to the US or performing a mission in the Pacific.

Mystery Flying Wing Aircraft Photographed Over The Philippines


Image

Compared to a clearer daytime picture captured over Edwards air force base California

Image

Difficult to see why they would deploy it in the daytime if it wasn't already operational and its existence at forward bases not already verifiable by known Chinese space capabilities..
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by ldev »

brar_w wrote:Another daytime capture of the RQ-180, this time over Philippines likely on a flight from Guam either going to the US or performing a mission in the Pacific.
There you go. Another communication node, ISR platform and electronic attack capability in defended airspace, all rolled into one!! It can go where the Global Hawk and MQ-9 cannot.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Not sure something like the RQ-180 would be tasked with Electronic attack because of survivability requirements, but it's main job appears to be survivable ISR and targeting for other systems like B-21 etc. In fact, when the 2010 Next Gen Bomber was cancelled (for affordability reasons) and the Long Range Strike bomber (program that the B-21 came out of) program was stood up in its place, the idea was to break the mission into two to three platforms and the RQ-180 is the first fielded part of that family with the B-21 being up next. I think airborne electronic attack is probably best suited for either manned platforms standing off, or through the employment of expendables.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Let’s talk about the mysterious flying wing aircraft that flew over the Philippines a few days ago.

On Sept. 2, 2021, at 06.15AM LT, Michael Fugnit took a photo of a rather mysterious aircraft at high altitude flying with a southwestern heading over the Philippines.

“I didn’t hear any sounds from the aircraft,” told us Michael in a message. “I was waiting for the sunrise since it is my daily routine to capture sunrise and sunsets when I took the photo from the top hill of Brgy. San Roque Municipality of Sta. Magdalena Province of Sorsogon”.

Analysis on the only photograph Michael took of the aircraft suggest that the image is genuine and not doctored.

The shot features what seems to be a large-span flying wing with straight trailing edge and trails two contrails, suggesting closely paired twin turbofan engines: in other words, the one photographed over the Philippines a few days ago appears to be strikingly similar to the mysterious UAS (Unmanned Aircraft System) spotted flying over Palmdale, California, in 2020, a UAS thought to be a either the highly classified Northrop Grumman RQ-180 drone, or a Lockheed Martin P-175 Polecat derivative.

This is what we wrote in November 2020, when the image of the UAS flying over California first appeared online:

The photo, which was claimed to be taken, “…in California just north of Edwards [AFB]”, shows an aircraft trailing two prominent contrails, suggesting the altitude of the aircraft at the time the photo was taken was in excess of approximately 25,000 ft. Contrails require moist, cold air to freeze the water vapor expelled during normal jet engine combustion. Considering the altitude of the aircraft at the time the photo was taken, the size of the aircraft in the photo may be significant. Published estimates of the wingspan of the RQ-180 drone claim it may be as large as 130 ft. Estimates of the wingspan of the Polecat suggest it is about 90 ft.

The U.S. Air Force does not acknowledge the existence of the RQ-180 drone, but a number of factors seem to support theories of its existence and even operational deployment. One theory that supports the operational deployment of the RQ-180 is the reduction in the number of RQ-4 Global Hawk reconnaissance drones. It’s possible a newer, more capable RQ-180 may have taken over missions previously assigned to RQ-4s


Provided they are the same type, the main difference between the sighting last year and the one of a few days ago is that the latter proves the mysterious (most probably unmanned) aircraft would be already conducting operational missions around the world. In fact, based on the location where the aircraft was spotted, it seems reasonable to believe it was returning from a mission in the South China Sea where there might have been interesting Chinese activity to surveil. Dispatching a HALE (High Altitude Long Endurance) low-observable drone from either the U.S. or a forward operating location (like Andersen Air Force Base, in Guam, that already hosts the RQ-4s) to cover some specific time-sensitive target, would totally make sense. These missions could require the aircraft to cross some unpopulated areas of the Philippines during daylight conditions (as happened on Sept. 2), when chances to be spotted from the ground are scarce.

Obliviously, there are many other intriguing theories, including the one that the aircraft overflying the Philippines could be a Chinese H-20 stealth bomber, but we have no details suggesting the Chinese have reached a phase of the development of their aircraft that would allow them to fly it in daylight inside enemy airspace.

Dealing with the RQ-180, the existence of a secret unmanned aerial system (UAS), designed for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions, and scheduled to be operational with the U.S. Air Force by 2015 was first revealed by Aviation Week & Space Technology, Senior Pentagon Editor Amy Butler and Senior International Defense Editor Bill Sweetman in December 2013.

Developed by Northrop Grumman since 2008-2009, the stealthy RQ-180 is designed to operate in “contested” or “denied” airspace, as opposed to the non-stealthy RQ-4 Global Hawk that are intended for “permissive” scenarios.

In their analysis back then, Sweetman and Butler said: “It is similar in size and endurance to the Global Hawk, which weighs 32,250 lb. and can stay on station for 24 hr. 1,200 nm from its base. The much smaller RQ-170 is limited to 5-6 hr. of operation. […] The aircraft uses a version of Northrop’s stealthy “cranked-kite” design, as does the X-47B, with a highly swept centerbody and long, slender outer wings. Northrop Grumman engineers publicly claimed (before the launch of the classified program) that the cranked-kite is scalable and adaptable, in contrast to the B-2’s shape, which has an unbroken leading edge. The RQ-180’s centerbody length and volume can be greater relative to the vehicle’s size.”

The RQ-180 is nicknamed the “Great White Bat” or sometimes “Shikaka”, a fictional sacred white bat from the 1995 movie Ace Venture 2, AW&ST reported.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by ldev »

brar_w wrote:Not sure something like the RQ-180 would be tasked with Electronic attack because of survivability requirements,.
True. So the RQ-180 and the B-21 have been revealed as the ISR and the penetrative attack platforms respectively. It will be interesting to what shape and form the electronic attack component consists off.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

ldev wrote:
brar_w wrote:Not sure something like the RQ-180 would be tasked with Electronic attack because of survivability requirements,.
True. So the RQ-180 and the B-21 have been revealed as the ISR and the penetrative attack platforms respectively. It will be interesting to what shape and form the electronic attack component consists off.
Penetrating - ISR (PISR) is the RQ-180
Penetrating - Long range strike is the B-21
Penetrating Counter Air is NGAD

P-AEA is likely to be an expendable (possibly recoverable)payload launched either by B-21 or a transport platform .
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by ldev »

brar_w wrote:[
Penetrating Counter Air is NGAD
Will this have the range to bridge distances in the Pacific to be truly "penetrating" counter air in a hypothetical match up with China? e.g. one way distance from Guam to Hainan Island (PLAAN SSBN base) is 3750 km.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

They have to be able to provide Counter Air for those platforms so expect a 2-3 times greater range/loiter compared to the F-22. I doubt that there will be many aircraft deployed from Guam. Guam will likely not survive (with anything better than 20-30% capacity to generate sorties) the first few days of any conflict with China and trying to protect it (with air defense) is foolish. You can absolutely get a ultra long range counter air platform. It is just going to be very large, particularly if they don't relax some other requirements (like speed). NGAD may take a fundamentally different view to how this mission is done given that new reality in the Pacific.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

U.S. Marine F-35Bs to Operate off Largest Japanese Warship Later This Year

U.S. Marine F-35B Lighting II Joint Strike Fighters will operate off a Japanese warship later this year, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger said on Wednesday.

By November, the Marine F-35Bs will embark on one of the two 24,000-ton Izumo-class helicopter destroyers in an exchange that could lead to a similar program in which a U.S. Marine JSF squadron embarked aboard U.K. Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) this year, he said.

“We’re not going to go on deployment but we’re actually going to fly U.S. Marine Corps F-35s off of a Japanese ship,” Berger said on Wednesday during a U.S. Naval Institute – CSIS Maritime Security Dialogue.

The Japanese government approached the Marines in 2019 to consider the exchange of aircraft in parallel to the retrofit that would allow Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force warships JS Izumo (DDH-183) and JS Kaga (DDH-184) to embark F-35Bs, USNI News reported at the time.

The warship will likely be JS Izumo (DDH-183). Izumo completed the first phase of the modifications to accommodate F-35s in July, according to Naval News. The modifications include adding lines to the deck and heat-resistant coatings.

“In this second modification, the bow shape of the Izumo will be changed from the current trapezoidal shape to a rectangular shape to make it easier to operate the F-35B, and other changes to the ship’s interior compartments are also planned,” reported Naval News.

The modification of Izumo and Kaga are paired with a planned JSDF buy of 42 F-35Bs to operate from the two ships. The first of the JSDF F-35Bs are set to arrive in Fiscal Year 2023.

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

Anti-sub + anti-torpedo, Very Light Weight Torpedo (designed by Penn State Research Lab):

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »



GE initiates testing on second XA100 adaptive cycle engine

GE has initiated testing on its second XA100 adaptive cycle engine as part of the U.S. Air Force’s Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP). Testing began on August 26, 2021, at GE’s Evendale, Ohio, altitude test facility. This is GE’s final planned prototype engine as part of AETP.

Full-scale prototype engine testing in the AETP program is the capstone of a multi-year technology maturation and risk reduction effort to bring an adaptive cycle engine to full maturity in close partnership with the U.S. Air Force. GE’s first XA100 engine tests began in December 2020, marking the world’s first ever run of a flight-weight three-stream adaptive cycle engine. Tests successfully validated the engine’s ability to deliver transformational propulsion capability to current and future fighter aircraft. Engine prototypes assembled as part of AETP are designed to fit and integrate directly into the F-35.

The XA100-GE-100 engine 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 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. The engine will also operate on any U.S. Air Force-approved biofuels.

Testing on the second XA100 will allow GE to continue gathering high-quality test data and further mature the engine’s advanced componentry and revolutionary three-stream design. Once first phase testing is complete in Evendale, GE plans to test the engine at the U.S. Air Force’s Arnold Engineering Development Complex (AEDC) to finish out all planned AETP testing activities.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18196
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Rakesh »

I wonder if these presentations are given just to increase funding. Brar, your take?

China’s ‘Carrier-Killer’ Missiles, J-20 Jets Give Beijing A Decisive Edge Over The US In Indo-Pacific: US Experts
https://eurasiantimes.com/chinas-carrie ... perts/?amp
05 Sept 2021
“We are at a disadvantage with regard to China today in the sense that China has ground-based ballistic missiles that threaten our basing in the Western Pacific and our ships,” former US Pacific Command (PACOM, now INDOPACOM) commander Admiral Harry Harris, said in testimony before the US Senate Armed Services Committee in March 2018.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Rakesh wrote:I wonder if these presentations are given just to increase funding. Brar, your take?

China’s ‘Carrier-Killer’ Missiles, J-20 Jets Give Beijing A Decisive Edge Over The US In Indo-Pacific: US Experts
https://eurasiantimes.com/chinas-carrie ... perts/?amp
05 Sept 2021
“We are at a disadvantage with regard to China today in the sense that China has ground-based ballistic missiles that threaten our basing in the Western Pacific and our ships,” former US Pacific Command (PACOM, now INDOPACOM) commander Admiral Harry Harris, said in testimony before the US Senate Armed Services Committee in March 2018.
There is nothing really inaccurate with that statement. China has built up, over the last several decades, a very impressive long range fires capability to include conventional cruise and ballistic missiles. All these hold most fixed US bases close to China at risk. They have also invested fairly significant amount of money in their space, counter-space, and ISR capabilities. With the J-20 (in the maritime context) they add a low-observable strike option against fixed or moving targets. This is a capability the US has not had to previously account for. At the same time, the US could not deploy a ground based long range fires capability in excess of 499 km until August 2019 when it terminated the INF. It will take more than decade if not a lot longer to build up capacity to close that gap with China. So yes, countering China's ability to hold targets at 2,000-3,000 km at risk is the number ONE priority for the US air, land and sea based fires programs. The entire hypersonic weapon portfolio is basically going after that threat to push back their ability to deny US forces the room to maneuver.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18196
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Rakesh »

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

A Duck-Nosed Aircraft Tested Upgraded Warfare Systems for F-16 Fighters
By Ameya Paleja

Image

For all those who are bored of the 'ugly duckling' story, here is an engineering equivalent that you can tell others the next time, with the same morals.

The defense manufacturer, Northrop Grumman has two Bombardier CRJ700 aircraft that do not look like regular airplanes, even the other CRJ700s. The aircraft raise eyebrows everywhere they go, but underneath the not-so-pleasing exterior, there is the testing apparatus for the Next Generation Electronic Warfare (NGEW) for modern fighter aircraft, according to a company press release.

The two aircraft, with US civil registration codes N804X and N805X, were developed over a decade ago and have been working as surrogate platforms for testing systems and weapons that Northrop Grumman has developed over the years, The Drive reported.

Recently, they served as testbeds for the NGEW and AN/APG-83 Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR) and even demonstrated their interoperability in a realistic environment. During the exercise, the Volk Field Combat Readiness Training Center generated a high-density radio frequency environment simulating the near-peer electromagnetic spectrum environments.

The APG-83 SABR enables the F-16 to detect, track and identify a large number of targets. It also features all-weather, high-resolution synthetic aperture radar mapping that provides a large surface image to pilots allowing for precise target identification and strike capabilities. The NGEW uses open-system, ultra-wideband architecture to counter modern threats.

During the exercise, both the systems demonstrated full pulse-to-pulse and multi-function interoperability. The SABR engaged multiple air and ground targets successfully, while the NGEW identified advanced threats and defeated them by deploying advanced jamming techniques. Once flight certified, F-16s will be equipped with an NGEW system, beginning next summer.

James Conroy, vice president, navigation, targeting, and survivability at Northrop Grumman said, “With the radio frequency (RF) spectrum becoming increasingly contested, this critical set of capabilities will support the F-16 for many years to come.”
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Have friends on this program and they are doing some pretty cool things despite their budgets not being a very high priority. The 500-550 USAF F-16s that are receiving these two systems will be very capable as complements to 5th and 6th gen systems for a couple of decades at least. I hope the Congress allows the USAF to retire the A-10 fleet and at least partially replace it with block 70 F-16s. The service wants to do it but no leader is brave enough to use up all their political capital in fighting that battle with Congress.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Pratyush »

One of the fallout from Afghanistan withdrawal could be that the need for a CAS platform can no longer argued for.

So that might free up resources for the F16.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

There are entrenched constituencies (Army, ex-USAF, basing and support districts etc) that will be hard to break without a fight. Unfortunately, an Air Chief and senior leadership are only there for 3-4 budget cycle planning and can't really afford to devote majority of their time fighting this political battle at the expense of much higher priorities. Pealing at a few squadrons and modernizing those to blk 70 F-16's seems doable but even that will require a lot of work to convince the politicians. The Trump admin was preparing to place an order for F-16's hoping to knock off some of the oldest A-10's instead of overhauling them. That quietly got set aside by the new Air Chief and won't likely happen till mid decade at the earliest.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

GE Says New Engine for F-35 Possible by 2027, but Not on STOVL Version

Engine makers should be able to meet House defense policy bill language calling for a new F-35 powerplant based on the Adaptive Engine Transition Program by 2027, but only for the conventional takeoff versions, a GE Aviation executive said.

“We would be eager to step up to the challenge to meet the 2027 deadline” that the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act included, David Tweedie, general manager for advanced combat systems at GE Aviation, said in a Sept. 10 interview, adding that doing so is “certainly within the art of the possible.”

He said, “We were encouraged by both the direction [to the Joint Program Office] to provide a transition plan, as well as authorization for an additional $257 million of funding above the President’s Budget request, so we are encouraged on all those counts.”

After $4 billion in investment by the Air Force, through several successive technology programs, GE is in the final stages of testing its XA100 engine and Pratt & Whitney is also testing its XA101. The AETP program is a risk-reduction effort designed to make sure the technology is available if the Air Force wants to move on to a new powerplant for its fighters. Tweedie said the plan was always to develop an engine that could be applied to the F-35 at midlife, and to other, future aircraft, but not as a retrofit to the F-15, F-16, or F-22. The AETP engines were “optimized to the F-35 … from the beginning,” he said.

However, the AETP engine will not be able to power the F-35B, the short takeoff/vertical landing version of the Lightning II, Tweedie said.

While “we think we have a very competitive offering for the F-35A and the F-35C, … we did not design the AETP engine to integrate with the F-35B. It was beyond the scope of what we set out to do,” he said. While Tweedie did not comment on how hard it would be to adapt AETP engines to this application, he did say it would be “beyond the budget and timeframe” set by the House to accomplish.

The … AETP is in the very early stages of development and is not currently an F-35 requirement,” an F-35 JPO spokeswoman said. The Joint Program Office is “working with the AETP program office and our industry partners to evaluate this new engine technology for possible use in the F-35.”

GE announced on Sept. 7 that it has begun testing the second all-up example of its XA100 AETP engine at its Evendale, Ohio, plant, which Tweedie said would likely be a “two-month effort, plus or minus.” The company says its version of the engine surpasses the F135 by 10 percent in thrust and 25 percent in fuel efficiency, along with a “significant reduction in carbon emissions.”

It’s unclear how exactly the program will advance beyond this final stage; Tweedie said the contractors are “looking forward to what’s in the fiscal ‘23” budget request, as the 2022 version did not include out-years spending plans. “We have not seen a … finalized Air Force acquisition strategy,” he said.

But in a Sept. 7 Defense News conference, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. said it’s important to press on with it, even if it isn’t used in the F-35.

“You’ve got to continue the R&D [research and development] … so that you have options in the future,” Brown said. “If we stop the R&D on this, we basically shut ourselves off from having an option to go forward.”

GE would “need to see something in the ’23 budget to keep this momentum going,” Tweedie said of Brown’s comments, paraphrasing Brown as saying, “’You can’t stop.’ And that’s true of any major development effort. There’s a lot of cycle time lost if you bring that effort to a complete halt.”

The Air Force has had superior fighter engine technology for generations, Tweedie said, and “10 years ago, the Air Force came to industry and said, ‘We need to earn that again; we need the next generational leap in technology.” The AETP program, and other such projects before it, were focused on being “ready to go launch that next full-scale engineering and manufacturing development program … We’ve met the Air Force’s objective to burn that risk down.”

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, Boeing Conduct First MQ-25 Refueling Mission with F-35C


Image
The U.S. Navy and Boeing have used the MQ-25TM T1 test asset to refuel a U.S. Navy F-35C Lightning II fighter jet for the first time, once again demonstrating the aircraft’s ability to achieve its primary aerial refueling mission.

This was the third refueling mission for the Boeing-owned test asset in just over three months, advancing the test program for the Navy’s first operational carrier-based unmanned aircraft. T1 refueled an F/A-18 Super Hornet in June and an E-2D Hawkeye in August.

“Every test flight with another Type/Model/Series aircraft gets us one step closer to rapidly delivering a fully mission-capable MQ-25 to the fleet,” said Capt. Chad Reed, the Navy’s Unmanned Carrier Aviation program manager. “Stingray’s unmatched refueling capability is going to increase the Navy’s power projection and provide operational flexibility to the Carrier Strike Group commanders.”

During a test flight Sept. 13, an F-35C test pilot from the Navy’s Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Two Three (VX-23) conducted a successful wake survey behind T1 to ensure performance and stability before making contact with T1’s aerial refueling drogue and receiving fuel.

“This flight was yet another physical demonstration of the maturity and stability of the MQ-25 aircraft design,” said Dave Bujold, Boeing’s MQ-25 program director. “Thanks to this latest mission in our accelerated test program, we are confident the MQ-25 aircraft we are building right now will meet the Navy’s primary requirement – delivering fuel safely to the carrier air wing.”

The T1 flight test program began in September 2019 with the aircraft’s first flight. In the following two years, the test program completed more than 120 flight hours – gathering data on everything from aircraft performance to propulsion dynamics to structural loads and flutter testing for strength and stability.

MQ-25 is benefitting from the two years of early flight test data, which has been integrated back into its digital models to strengthen the digital thread connecting aircraft design to production to test to operations and sustainment. Boeing is currently manufacturing the first two MQ-25 test aircraft.

T1 will be used to conduct a deck handling demonstration aboard a U.S. Navy carrier in the coming months to help advance the carrier integration progress.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

Image

MC-130J Commando II Amphibious Capability (MAC) 3 c AFSOC

Behind a pay wall:

AFSOC aims to design, build and fly amphibious C-130 in 17 months
By Garrett Reim15 September 2021

US Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) plans to design, build and fly an amphibious retrofit kit for the Lockheed Martin MC-130J in 17 months.
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:Aggressor F-117's seen playing red-air at Red Flag that is currently underway -
..
While it's been widely known (through OSINT and spotter community) that aggressor F-117's have been playing stealthy Red Air at Red flag and other large force exercises, this below is the first time the USAF has officially admitted to an aggressor role for these and also as embedded training given they will be at a location supporting a ANG wing for about a week's worth of training. This may be a new rotational model for the F-117 that could see them deploy to different air-wings from time to time for local training outside of large force exercises or other larger events. The F-15C there is the second or third squadron to transition to F-15EX in a couple of years.

I envision at least a handful of F-22A's will transition to a similar roll around 2030 with most having done so by 2035-2038.

144th Fighter Wing Welcomes F-117 Nighthawks for Training


Image
The 144th Fighter Wing welcomed the arrival of two F-117 Nighthawk aircraft Sept 13, 2021 to the Fresno Air National Guard Base, California, to conduct dissimilar air combat training missions.

U.S. Air Force Col. Troy Havener, 144th Fighter Wing commander, said, “We have the distinct honor of being the first Air Force unit to host them for a full week of training,” referencing the Wing’s deliberate partnership building efforts and their demonstrated operational proficiency as critical to securing the training opportunity.

Over the next few days the 144th FW’s F-15 pilots will conduct multiple dissimilar air combat training missions with the F-117 pilots.
“This week we reap the benefits of two plus years of careful communication and determined coordination with agencies and leaders overseeing these unique USAF assets,” said Havener. “The training against integrated forces that include the F-117 will challenge and sharpen pilots, as well as build confidence in tactics and systems needed to defend our nation.”

Lt. Col. David Allamandola, 144th FW Advanced Programs Officer said, “Our Griffin pilots, operations, and maintainers, are thrilled to be able to participate in this unique opportunity. It is a very special privilege to do open air training missions with the F-117 Nighthawks.”

“This training offers incredible value for everyone involved and presents new challenges to test difficult tactics in a realistic environment. Not everyone gets to do this, so it’s been exciting creating the ground work with our partners to make this a reality,” said Allamandola. “The enthusiasm is contagious. We are incredibly thankful to our guests for their tireless efforts over an extended period of time to make this a reality. It’s been fantastic to see this plan come together.”

This is the first time that F-117 Nighthawks have landed in Fresno. Their presence immediately received interest from multiple media outlets and some members of the community.

Although officially retired, many F-117s remain airworthy and are used to support limited research and training missions based on overall cost effectiveness and their ability to offer unique capabilities.

As of January 2021, the U.S. Air Force has 48 F-117s remaining in its inventory, and is disposing of approximately four aircraft each year. As airframes are disposed, they are offered to museums though the USAF Strategic Basing program and the National Museum of the USAF.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Some additional pictures of the F-117 from the most recent citing in Fresno:

Behold F-117s On Their Historic Deployment To Fresno In These Stunning Shots


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 »

Five B-21 Raider Stealth Bombers Are Now In Final Assembly

The U.S. Air Force now has no fewer than five examples of its secretive Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider stealth bomber in a process of final assembly. That’s three more airframes than we knew about before today and further indication that the new flying-wing bomber is making significant progress, albeit well away from the public gaze..
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Post Reply