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 »

Take A Look At This Mysterious Shape Spotted At Skunk Works’ Helendale Radar Cross Section Facility


Image
A pretty intriguing “object” was spotted in a video posted this morning on TikTok by our friend and OSINT researcher Ruben Hofs. A dark colored shape sitting on a trailer as it is moved at a location that was identified as Helendale Radar Cross Section Facility, in the Mojave Desert, not far from Lockheed’s Skunk Works facilities at Plant 42 in Palmdale, California.

Helendale is an aircraft research facility developed and operated by the Lockheed Martin Corporation and used to measure the radar cross section (reflectivity) of stealth aircraft designs. At this range, as happening at similar sites across the world, prototypical forms tested outside on the range are mounted on poles or hydraulic pylons that rise out of the ground through doors in the runway surface.

“I was just scrolling trough TikTok this morning it was the first video that was shown when i opened the app,” Ruben told us in a message. “At first I thought it looks like a movie prop but soon the construction on the background reminded me of an article about a RCS site. So I went to check it out on google earth and till my surprise it turns out to be the exact facility as the article I have read about on TWZ so that’s when i realized it wasn’t just a good looking movie prop but possibly some kind of proof of concept design that is being tested over there.”

“While it is impossible to Identify the concept model, as there are dozens of these shapes when searching the Internet, some people responded with the ‘Next Generation Air Dominance concept’ that seem to match quite nicely if you flip the shape upside down.”


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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Rakesh »

I fully expect to see a replica of this coming from a chop shop in Beijing, within the next 12 months.

And China's wolf warriors will claim it will exceed the capabilities of the American counterpart.

And then some folks on BRF will dhoti-shiver at the announcement.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

The Army's Big, Dumb Guns Aren't Dumb Anymore (and Now They Can Shoot Down Planes)
* A U.S. Army Paladin howitzer shot down a low-flying cruise missile.
* The project is part of an effort to repurpose existing weapons to do new things.
* U.S. Army guns, which were originally designed to rain explosive shells on the enemy, can now engage low-flying aircraft, cruise missiles, and likely drones.
https://twitter.com/WILLROP3R/status/14 ... 7505716234 ----->
It took seven years - from an idea at the Strategic Capabilities Office to final demonstration during a
@usairforce ABMS demo - to prove a cost-flipping #missiledefense solution is possible. Game changed.

https://twitter.com/MIL_STD/status/1440041004283744258 ----->
The AFRL's C-130 transportable Multi-Domain Artillery Cannon #MDAC for Air-Base defense. The US Air Force, in partnership with other DOD agencies has already demonstrated the ability to defeat Cruise Missile threats utilizing canon artillery. #ASC21
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

RAAF Tindal will house both the B-21 and the NGAD, both before 2035 at least on a temporary/rotational basis.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

A Q&A on hypersonics
Speed. It’s the one word Erin Kocourek hears every day.

That’s because she’s responsible for connecting the people and the programs working to deter and defeat hypersonic missiles – the fastest weapons ever built – and speeding the delivery of hypersonic systems to U.S. forces.

“Our adversaries are testing and flying hypersonic weapons at a pace that is frightening – significantly more flight tests a year than we do and on multiple variants,” said Kocourek, senior director of hypersonic requirements and capabilities at Raytheon Missiles & Defense, a Raytheon Technologies business.

We sat down with Kocourek to discuss hypersonic weapons and how the company is using decades of expertise to develop end-to-end technologies, both defensive and offensive.

What are hypersonic weapons, and why is it hard to defend against them?

Hypersonic weapons are typically classified by their ability to achieve speeds greater than Mach 5 and remain in the atmosphere during flight.

They fall into two categories: boost glide and scramjet. In a boost glide system, a rocket accelerates its payload to high speeds. The payload then separates from the rocket and glides unpowered to its destination. The air-breathing scramjet relies on high-speed for power. Basically, the air around the missile is moving so fast, the missile takes it in and uses it for propulsion.

What makes hypersonic weapons challenging to defend against, apart from their sheer speed, is their ability to maneuver. They do not fly a predictable flight path, making them difficult to track versus traditional and conventional ballistic weapons that do.

We’re investing in the development of kinetic weapons like missiles, and non-kinetic weapons such as electronics and directed energy to deter, target and defeat hypersonic threats.

How are hypersonic weapons different from intercontinental ballistic missiles?

Hypersonic weapons stay within the upper threshold of the atmosphere and do not have a predictable flight path because of their ability to maneuver, whereas ICBMs leave the atmosphere and fly a predictable trajectory. Since hypersonic systems hug the Earth’s atmosphere, they don’t necessarily need to travel as far as ballistic missiles do, so the time to target is less.

What makes hypersonic technologies hard to develop?

Heat management is one challenge – hypersonic weapons heat up as they accelerate through the atmosphere, so they require airframes that can withstand those blazing temperatures.

Another challenge is understanding the environment our systems will be exposed to during flight. We can use wind tunnels to emulate hypersonic flight conditions to a degree, but it’s unclear how well these ground tests accurately capture the shock, vibration and thermal stresses that happen in flight.

We gather vibration data in what are known as “freejet tests” to better understand the environment a scramjet creates for the rest of the system. But this data may not be as exact as we would like because the test article isn’t the same as the vehicle we would fly. Since we are flying these systems for the first time, there’s no historical knowledge to draw from to guide our designs.

To address these issues, we leverage data gathered from similar government efforts, implement best practices from other programs, and apply margin based on engineering judgment to ensure our designs are robust enough to handle uncertainties.

How can digital engineering help develop hypersonic technologies?

Digital engineering allows us to do iterations, real-time changes, incorporating new options and solutions exponentially faster. Building digital twins of actual weapons is much more agile than designing systems on paper. The interconnectivity among design tools eliminates unnecessary rework and offers greater confidence as well as accuracy of engineering predictions.

As we look to future development, we are using artificial intelligence/machine learning to help predict how the weapons fly and how to build systems to counter them. Our warfighters need industry to move faster, and modeling and simulation play a critical role in accelerating development by allowing us to validate test data.

Do we have enough engineers to work on hypersonic programs? How do we get more?

It’s no secret we have a national shortage of hypersonic engineers. Despite all the money we’re investing in this domain, it’s not enough to go at the speed of need.

Raytheon Technologies is strategizing with national laboratories and agencies on workforce development, and partnering with industry colleagues, academia and STEM organizations to inspire interest in hypersonics and develop curriculum for degree programs. We must recruit the best and brightest to this field because our adversaries certainly are.

We’ve also prioritized training to ensure our workforce is at the cutting-edge of R&D and innovation. Our engineers are becoming hypersonic engineers.

Should we expect to see more international cooperation?

Absolutely. One company and really one country can’t do the hypersonic mission alone because there aren’t enough sensors, test ranges and wind tunnels in the world to tackle this challenge.

Bottom line – this threat is not ours alone. The U.S. must partner with its closest allies to deliver these weapons at the scale our warfighters are expecting and on time – in the next five years.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

Virtual Reality brings T-7A tasks to life
Image



WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB, Ohio (AFLCMC) – The Air Force is looking to use three dimensional (3-D) models and virtual reality to certify and verify technical orders for the T-7A Red Hawk advanced pilot trainer.

Faced with the daunting challenge of verifying the accuracy and usability of over 1100 maintenance tasks in a 7-month period, the team hopes to continue the digital trend with this fully digitally-designed aircraft.

“The goal is to align with the Air Force Materiel Command Digital Campaign where the desire is to create a collaborative, integrated digital environment that guides, orchestrates, and delivers the means for each individual across the enterprise to access the data, functions and elements needed to do his or her job in a purely digital manner,” said Fred Tschirner, T-7A Virtual Reality (VR) Team Lead. “We have 13 personnel and 3 aircraft which makes this a pretty high-risk effort and requires an out-of-the-box approach.”

Collaborating with their Boeing Company counterparts, the Technical Order (TO) Team was forced to look for mitigations to reduce the risk of failure. The team considered several options, to include use of prototype aircraft and use of instrumented test aircraft. Unfortunately, nothing was acceptable based on current guidance and policy. Finally, The Boeing Company suggested the use of their virtual reality lab.

“The idea of completing tasks that are traditionally completed on a production representative aircraft, in a virtual environment, was met with differing levels of skepticism. However, the team agreed to evaluate this opportunity with an open mind,” Tschirner said.

The T-7A TO Team evaluated the Boeing Integrated Development Center (IDC) or VR lab that is operated in St. Louis, Missouri.

“The IDC consists of multiple systems, but we focused our evaluation on the HTC Vive gaming platform. It is a relatively inexpensive platform but the capabilities of this system provides the best support for our verification effort,” Tschirner said.

The team conducted an evaluation of 11 maintenance tasks in both the virtual environment and on aircraft. These tasks consisted of non-complex (i.e., doors and panels) to complex (i.e., engine removal). Utilizing a “blind study” process, two independent teams--one team in the IDC and one team on aircraft--were established with no interaction during tests and no discussion until each element completed all tasks in their respective environments.

Team members Christopher Teague and Master Sgt. Bryan Holloway worked on the actual aircraft. Bill Dean, Orlando Mack, Norman Watts, and Staff Sgt. Jacob Hamblen worked with the virtual tools while Tech. Sgt. Kyle Porter provided an in-depth technical evaluation of procedures.

“We determined that due to system maturity, only non-complex tasks like opening/closing doors and removal/installation of panels that do not have wires/coaxial cables attached can be completed at this time,” Tschirner said.

The aircraft has 144 doors and panels with around 110 of those considered candidates for virtual verification. Currently, there are between 1100 and 1287 tasks to be verified by performance. This equates to approximately 8 to 10 percent of the performance tasks.

The current T-7 verification schedule is very aggressive, according to Tschirner, so even utilizing the Boeing IDC for non-complex tasks will save valuable on-aircraft time.

“We will also mitigate a portion of the program risk associated with completing time-constrained technical order certification/verification effort, and advance the Air Force initiatives regarding digital engineering,” he said.

Currently, the TO Team received approval to complete verification of the approximately 110 performance tasks and is working towards development of a new VR verification process. Updates to the T-7A Technical Order Life Cycle Management and Technical Order Life Cycle Verification Plans will further define and clarify these program processes. Submittal of TO 00-5-3 policy change requests will provide recommendations toward achieving the Air Force’s vision for digital engineering, and the establishment of VR verification policy and guidance for the service.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

This, based on my understanding is the largest single commercial engine contract ever (more than 600 engines). Now the hard part - nuclear hardening a commercial FADEC system on a commercial engine.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Last of 17 Retired B-1s Sent to Boneyard as Air Force Preps for B-21s

The Air Force has sent the last of a batch of 17 of its oldest and most worn-out B-1B Lancer bombers to the boneyard.

The final plane flew out of Edwards Air Force Base, California, on Thursday, to the "boneyard" at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona, which houses the vast majority of retired Air Force aircraft. The first B-1 to be retired in this batch flew to the boneyard in February.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

Could not resist.

https://mobile.twitter.com/PSFAERO/stat ... 8622443520 ----->
There actually was a study by Boeing in the 1970s for an airborne aircraft carrier but it was deemed unpractical

Image

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

The first two operational Block III Super Hornets were delivered to the USN (in addition to the two test aircraft delivered last year). Article also notes that the cockpit and computers are making their way into the Block II Growler upgrades, and the same is true for the airframe service life increase. The Growler already has the S band targeting network and the processor computers to support cooperative targeting with other USN elements (this was moved from Growlers to SH with the blk 3 effort).

Boeing delivers first Block III Super Hornets to the US Navy

The U.S. Navy this month accepted the first two Block III F/A-18 Super Hornet jets from Boeing, the company announced Sept. 27, kicking off a process that will create a better networked and more lethal fighter fleet.

Boeing will build 78 total new aircraft in the Block III configuration, which includes an Advanced Cockpit System built around a touchscreen display; the Tactical Targeting Network Technology, or TTNT; and Distributed Targeting Processor-Networked, or DTP-N.

The network will help link all the sensors from aircraft and ships in the battlespace to create a better operational picture for smarter targeting decisions, and the new processor has 17 times the computing power of the precious mission computer, Jen Tebo, Boeing’s vice president of F/A-18 and EA-18G projects, told reporters Sept. 23. Tebo added that the new, open-design processor can take on yet-to-come upgrades and capabilities.

The Block III jets are also built for 10,000 flight hours compared to 6,000 hours for earlier jets, and they’ve been made stealthier and more survivable with additional treatments that reduce their radar cross section, Tebo explained.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

^^ While this is the fourth (known/acknowledged) Mach 5+ air-breathing engine to have been flight tested in the US, it is the first one that they've built exclusively using additive manufacturing.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

That's about a 7% reduction in annual delivery rates over Pre-COVID levels for the same term. While near term this is because of supply chain, it is also likely that they don't have the capacity at many sub-systems to ramp up before production Lot 19 given the significant hardware changes, and new hardware components (not in current F-35 version) that are being cut into production somewhere between Lots 15 and Lot 17 for Block 4.

Lockheed, Pentagon agree to F-35 'production smoothing' plan

The Pentagon and Lockheed Martin have negotiated a “production smoothing” agreement for F-35 deliveries to increase stability as the company’s production process recovers from the impact of COVID-19.

The plan calls for Lockheed to deliver 133-139 jets this year, 151-153 in 2022 and 156 in 2023 “and for the foreseeable future,” according to a statement the company released this morning.

The projected delivery rates for 2021 match what Lockheed’s F-35 Vice President and General Manager Bridget Lauderdale told reporters in June while negotiations were underway but are slightly lower in 2022 than the company’s projections at the time, which saw deliveries hitting the 160s next year.

At the time, Lauderdale said the production line and supply base were stabilizing “and we will expect to ramp back up and support cost-effective and high quality of product as we go forward.”

The delivery targets come as the program is finalizing negotiations on a production contract for lots 15-17 aircraft. Program Executive Eric Fick told reporters recently he does not expect a finalized deal this month but hopes it will be completed in October.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

https://twitter.com/TheDEWLine/status/1 ... 9540232194 ----->
From the @DefenseOne webinar today, where @MarcusReports asked Skunk Works chief Jeff Babione some questions.

Weisgerber: "Can you tells us anything about this?"

Babione: "I can't."

Weisgerber: "Has your security posture changed."

Babione: "We're good."
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

If this was a classified effort they wouldn't be rolling it out in the middle of the day (the customer owns security for that and not LM Skunk Works) totally uncovered and with construction workers working outside. This was likely some internal side project or RCS measurement test-bed or perhaps a new polecap for Helendale.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

The second adaptive engine is also well into testing. Let the next Great engine war commence :D

Pratt Tests First XA101 As F-35 Reengining Wins New Support

A completed series of tests on the first Pratt & Whitney XA101 experimental turbofan comes as the manufacturer adapts to new support from U.S. Air Force leadership to replace the company’s F135 powerplants on the Lockheed Martin F-35A.

The XA101—Pratt’s entry in the competitive Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP)—delivered “amazing” results in the first series of ground testing completed in mid-September, says Matthew Bromberg, president of Pratt’s Military Engines unit. A second XA101 engine will enter ground testing next..
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

While the article is about right, there are plenty around - in the US - who are too concerned about ethics. As a result the AI techs are not reaching the maturity they need to

The US Air Force's New AI System Will Help Identify and Destroy Targets
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

About 3 months behind sched, nonetheless a great achievement. Now a craft can be tested against a human in real.

https://twitter.com/physicsai/status/14 ... 8295719938 ----->
The PhysicsAI team is excited to begin Phase 2 of @DARPA 's Air Combat Evolution (ACE) program and to see our #artificialintelligence #deeplearning fly real fighter jet aircraft w/ @BAESystemsInc

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Interesting ultra-long endurance UAV demonstration. This particular UAS has some US Navy funding already to support an ASW application (which it is already doing in exercises) but a comms role is also natural given it can stay up for more than a week.

Vanilla Smashes World Record: >8 days, >12,000 miles, Comms Package

Vanilla Unmanned demonstrated 8 days, 50 minutes, and 47 seconds of continuous flight, breaking the world record for unrefueled, internal combustion endurance of an unmanned aircraft.

Vanilla launched from Rogers Dry Lakebed on Friday, September 24th and was recovered on Saturday, October 2nd having flown 12,200 miles over Edwards Air Force Base with a communications relay system & ample ballast to accommodate other sensors. The 8-day flight is a step change from Vanilla’s prior record of 5 days and is without comparison to other UAS. The flight was conducted in coordination with Edwards Air Force Base and has been submitted for ratification as an official world record.

The world-record flight was the last in a series of events at Edwards Air Force Base demonstrating Vanilla’s unique multi-day, multi-sensor capability. Several sorties over 50 hours each carried two EO/IR cameras, two satellite communications systems for BVLOS operations, and a customer-proprietary radar in addition to the mesh radio system.

“Vanilla has changed the definition of endurance. This is a tactical asset with strategic relevance,” says Dr. Dan Edwards, Platform Aerospace CTO. “The notion that tactical UAS must be VTOL and fly for less than 24 hours excludes a disruptive technology that could be fielded today. The value of inexpensive multi-day, multi-sensor coverage is immense.”

Unlike larger long endurance UAS, Vanilla is a tactical-scale Group III system that uses an internal-combustion engine for propulsion. Its smaller size enables runway independent launch from forward locations with minimal manning. Unlike solar-powered high-altitude systems, Vanilla is immediately responsive to operator tasking and flies at tactical altitudes, thereby accommodating smaller and lower cost sensors for the same C5ISR value. Vanilla runs on standard Jet-A fuel, easing logistics concerns during forward operations.

Vanilla’s airframe can carry up to 150 lbs of sensor payloads across five internal bays and external mounts, each receiving onboard power and datalink for sensor C2. A VTOL variant is in production with government sponsorship and will take flight in early 2022.


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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Raytheon Ends Air-Launched Hypersonic Vehicle Test Drought


Image
A demonstrator for a hypersonic missile flew faster than Mach 5 for 300 nm above 60,000 ft. over a Western training range in mid-September, finally breaking a nine-year drought of successful testing for an air-launched, U.S.-made hypersonic vehicle.
In the end, a Raytheon cruiser powered by a Northrop Grumman scramjet engine scored the long-awaited landmark test by DARPA’s Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC) program, marking a competitive coup for the missile company. The mission included the first U.S. scramjet-powered flight test at hypersonic speed since May 1, 2013, the day the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)/DARPA X-51 experimental vehicle achieved Mach 5.1 and 210 sec. of continuous combustion.

Although the results appeared similar, DARPA has another objective for the series of HAWC test flights. A decade ago, the X-51 proved that a scramjet engine fueled by a standard military kerosene mixture could achieve hypersonic speed over a mission-relevant distance. For the competing HAWC demonstrators, the goal is instead to show Air Force fighter and bomber crews that a scramjet-powered flight vehicle can be configured with sensors and other equipment necessary to function reliably as a cruise missile.

The HAWC flight tests also are scrutinizing the maturity and performance of the scramjet, outer-mold line of the cruiser, inner-mold line of the engine inlet and the compression surfaces and combustor inside the scramjet, Knoedler says.

Raytheon might have completed the first successful HAWC flight test, but Lockheed may not be far behind. Lockheed has already completed a previously undisclosed flight test that demonstrated a separation from the launch aircraft and ignition of the booster stage, Knoedler says. As planned, the Lockheed test did not activate the Aerojet Rocketdyne scramjet engine.

DARPA now plans to stage two more flight tests of the Raytheon/Northrop vehicle and three hypersonic tests of the Lockheed/Aerojet demonstrator. The agency hopes to complete the hypersonic tests as quickly as possible in order to feed performance data to the newly launched Southern Cross Integrated Flight Research Experiment (SciFire) program.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

https://mobile.twitter.com/AF_SBIR_STTR ... 9719891976 ----->
Princeton Infrared Technologies, Inc has received a #PhaseII SBIR award from the Office of The Secretary of Defense to fund the development of a Megapixel high-resolution seeker with extended wavelength detection capability covering the entire SWIR range.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

Geeky, but very interesting article

Weapons Bay Aeroacoustics
Design requirements of modern combat aircraft often place a high emphasis on radar cross-section reduction. Moreover, characteristics like transonic and supersonic persistence have become mandatory features in recent generations. A particular outcome of such requirements is the consequential adoption of a weapons bay into the aircraft configuration. Current and future bombers, fighters, and UCAVs will normally have to carry their weapons loads internally, to reduce signatures and to reduce form drag. Nevertheless, one of the major drawbacks of this design choice comes whenever the bay is opened to release the store. The typical weapon bay operational environment is highly demanding. Usually, the store is released at transonic and/or supersonic speed regimes and the associated local flow field will develop the following (usually undesirable) characteristics:

Unsteadiness, inducing in the store periodic and random oscillations during the release and separation procedures from the aircraft. Additionally, phenomena of aero-elastic coupling can be experienced by the weapons whilst still attached to the ejector racks.

Heavy acoustic loads, leading to acoustic levels of more than 160dB, with resonant tones, as high as 140dB. This harsh noise environment developed inside the cavity can lead to acoustic fatigue phenomena and avionics equipment damage.

Longitudinal pressure gradient, which might impose on the store, once released, pitch-up moments altering the drop trajectory and potentially even causing impact of the store within the cavity of the launching aircraft.

Hence, for the correct operational use of a weapon bay, all these aspects must be resolved, or, at least, must be controlled in a way to make the store release as safe as possible. Therefore, cavity flow problems have become a critical design point in many current military aeronautical applications.

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Some early background information on the US Navy's future attack submarine along with some notional procurement dates (2031 for first in class, and full production migration from the Virginia class starting the mid 2030s). Appears that they're leaning towards a larger displacement than the Seawolf class.

Report on Navy SSN(X) Next-Generation Attack Submarine
Since FY2011, Virginia-class SSNs (Figure 1) have been
procured at a rate of two boats per year, and a total of 34
have been procured through FY2021. Most Virginia-class
boats procured in FY2019 and subsequent years are to be
built with the Virginia Payload Module (VPM), an
additional, 84-foot-long, mid-body section equipped with
four large-diameter, vertical launch tubes for storing and
launching Tomahawk cruise missiles or other payloads.
When procured at a rate of two boats per year, VPM equipped Virginia-class SSNs have an estimated
procurement cost of about $3.4 billion per boat..

Under the Navy’s FY2020 30-year (FY2020-FY2049)
shipbuilding plan, the first SSN(X) would be procured in
FY2031, along with a single Virginia-class boat. In FY2032
and FY2033, the final four Virginia-class boats would be
procured, at a rate of two per year. Procurement of follow on SSN(X)s, at a rate of two per year, would then begin in
FY2034. The 30-year plan’s sustained procurement rate of
two SSNs per year would achieve a force of 66 SSNs—the
Navy’s current SSN force-level goal—in FY2048..


The Navy states that the SSN(X)
will be designed to counter the emerging threat
posed by near peer adversary competition for
undersea supremacy. Unlike the VIRGINIA Class
Submarine, which was designed for multi-mission
dominance in the littoral, SSN(X) will be designed
for greater transit speed under increased stealth
conditions in all ocean environments, and carry a
larger inventory of weapons and diverse payloads.

It will also be designed to retain multi-mission
capability and sustained combat presence in denied
waters, with a renewed priority in the antisubmarine warfare (ASW) mission against
sophisticated threats in greater numbers. SSN(X)
will be required to defend against threat UUVs
[unmanned underwater vehicles], and coordinate
with a larger contingent of off-hull vehicles,
sensors, and friendly forces.

A Navy official stated in July 2021 that the Navy wants the
SSN(X) to incorporate the speed and payload the Navy’s
fast and heavily armed Seawolf (SSN-21) class SSN design,
the acoustics (i.e., quietness) and sensors of the Virginia class design, and the operational availability and service life
of the Columbia-class design..
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

F-35 Completes Final Test for Nuclear-Capable B61 Series Weapons

The F-35A is the first fifth-generation fighter to near certification as a nuclear-capable platform after completing the first full weapon system demonstration and completing the nuclear design certification process. During the demonstration, two F-35s dropped B61-12 Joint Test Assemblies (JTAs), which mimic a real-world tactical gravity nuclear weapon, at the Tonopah Test Range in Nevada.

“It makes our potential adversaries think more about their game plan before launching it,” Air Combat Command deputy director for strategic deterrence Lt. Col. Douglas A. Kabel told Air Force Magazine.

“It can get closer to, further inside a combat area that may otherwise be impossible for non-stealth assets,” Kabel added.

Air Combat Command’s 422nd and 59th Test and Evaluation Squadrons, based at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., flew the final flight test exercise for the aircraft to receive nuclear design certification. Test data is now under review at the Department of Defense and Department of Energy to ensure the F-35A and B61-12 JTAs performed correctly.The next step is nuclear operational certification to ensure training and validation of maintenance and air crews at desired wing locations where nuclear-capable F-35 missions exist. Approval would mean the United States has a fighter capable of hitting targets with tactical nuclear weapons inside hostile territory without detection.

“What happened was for the first time, an operationally representative F-35 aircraft executed a drop of a B61-12 Joint Test Assembly, which is basically exactly like a B61 that comes out of the nuclear stockpile without the physics package in it—the part that makes it go ‘boom,’” Kabel explained. “It can get closer, and with a gravity type of weapon, the closer you can get to your actual target, the more likely it is you’re going to hit it.”

Lt. Col. Daniel Jackson, headquarters ACC strategic deterrence and nuclear integration division chief, said the B61 series weapons can be used on other dual-capable aircraft such as the F-15E and F-16 C/D.

“Having a fifth-generation [dual-capable] fighter aircraft with this capability brings an entirely new strategic-level capability that strengthens our nation’s nuclear deterrence mission,” Jackson said in an Oct. 4 press release.

The F-35s used for the JTA test required two major hardware component modifications to take on the nuclear weapon, a nuclear consent switch in the cockpit, and a mission select switch in the weapon bay.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

ldev wrote:AsBMs such as the Chinese DF-21 or DF-26 need to have a CEP of 300 m specially if they are targeting a behemoth like a USN aircraft carrier.
That is not the point. The point is that they need to A) have a seeker, and B ) need to manuever to strike a moving target. A solves the question of can a seeker be added and function as it needs to in that environment. It's possible. Pershing II fielded a fast, medium-intermediate range ballistic missile with a terminally guided maneuvering reentry vehicle back in 1983. Newer systems are far more accurate and with INS/GPS assist, you can delay when you begin using the terminal seeker. Networking is harder, since you want to have a data-link that works during the cruise (and not just the terminal phase) but even that problem has been solved (at least at the level of glider cruise speeds we're talking about here).
ldev wrote: And have they been truly tested against a ship target moving at ~30 knots such as a USN carrier group?
Given that ASBM focuesd long range carrier targeting is a program priority for the Chinese A2AD strategy, I would assume that they would be testing these or at least getting to a stage where they are increasingly confident or getting there (and you have to give it credibility as hoping that your opponent can't get their weapons to work properly isn't a very sound strategy). This is obviously besides the point since the question was about whether terminal seeker options can be added to very fast ballistic missiles or hypersonic gliders.
ldev wrote: I believe LRHW will achieve that kind of accuracy against fixed targets
The LRHW glider has already demonstrated 6 inch accuracy against fixed targets. That gets fielded in the first battery. Battery two onward, they plan on networking the glider, and adding a terminal seeker for moving target attack capability.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by ldev »

brar_w wrote: Newer systems are far more accurate and with INS/GPS assist, you can delay when you begin using the terminal seeker. Networking is harder, since you want to have a data-link that works during the cruise (and not just the terminal phase) but even that problem has been solved (at least at the level of glider cruise speeds we're talking about here).
I had heard/read about successful progress on networking the glider seeker, which would ensure greater accuracy i.e. not allowing too much drift to build into the path.
(and you have to give it credibility as hoping that your opponent can't get their weapons to work properly isn't a very sound strategy).
True
The LRHW glider has already demonstrated 6 inch accuracy against fixed targets. That gets fielded in the first battery. Battery two onward, they plan on networking the glider, and adding a terminal seeker for moving target attack capability.
Astounding 6" accuracy!! And networking and adding a seekr for moving target attack capability will make it that much more lethal.
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 had heard/read about successful progress on networking the glider seeker, which would ensure greater accuracy i.e. not allowing too much drift to build into the path.
You are looking at a 10-15 minute flight time given that a glider is slower than a Ballistic Missile. That's potentially a long time for some targets to move from when the launch occurred or for other more important targets to have appeared. A data link allows you to update the glider as soon as it enters the glide phase and begins its glide trajectory which for LRHW is >50% of its total flight trajectory.

Image
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by kit »

brar_w wrote:
ldev wrote:


The LRHW glider has already demonstrated 6 inch accuracy against fixed targets. That gets fielded in the first battery. Battery two onward, they plan on networking the glider, and adding a terminal seeker for moving target attack capability.
Amazing., with that kind of speed and accuracy., nukes are obsolete !!
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by kit »

and aha here they go

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/20 ... ashington/

Asked by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, if she personally believes in a “no first use” policy, Stewart deferred to the ongoing review and said the country has to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in a way that “extended-deterrence commitments to our allies remain strong and credible.”

It’s important to make sure our allies and parters understand that whatever steps we take, our commitment to their defense is unshakeable,” Stewart said.

Right :mrgreen:

Why not just say., we have better weapons now., don't need nukes as first options and better still why not get everyone else do that while we retain our edge in hypersonic weapons when they dont :rotfl:

Having your cake and eating it too , eh
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 59534?s=20 ---> Top US Navy official says that US wants cyber capability that will be able to stop the Chinese Navy from even leaving their own bases.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Manish_P »

Well they need it to stop bumping into them in their backyard :P

Attack Submarine USS Connecticut Suffers Underwater Collision in South China Sea
Almost a dozen sailors have been injured after a U.S. nuclear attack submarine hit an unknown underwater object in the South China Sea, USNI News has learned.

The Seawolf-class nuclear attack submarine USS Connecticut (SSN-22) suffered an underwater collision while operating in international waters on Oct. 2 and is returning to port in U.S. 7th Fleet, a U.S. Pacific Fleet spokesman confirmed to USNI News on Thursday.

“The Seawolf-class fast-attack submarine USS Connecticut (SSN-22) struck an object while submerged on the afternoon of Oct. 2, while operating in international waters in the Indo-Pacific region. The safety of the crew remains the Navy’s top priority. There are no life-threatening injuries,” Capt. Bill Clinton told USNI
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by kit »

What prevents the Chinese from building man made structures under the sea and mapping them , if the subs are not using active sonar they would get more than bumps !..better than mining !
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

kit wrote:What prevents the Chinese from building man made structures under the sea and mapping them , if the subs are not using active sonar they would get more than bumps !..better than mining !
What's to prevent others from knowing that the Chinese are creating man made structures under the water and also mapping them just like the Chinese?
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/SubBrief/status/144 ... 69024?s=20 --->

Initial report I have is the USS Connecticut bow dome is severely damage. Waiting on photos.

Post Reply