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 »

V_Raman wrote:the main rationale for these super carriers is the massive pacific ocean. if they have long range UCAVs - then even carriers might come down in number
Carriers, when combined with surface combatants and aviation are extremely effective sea control instruments in addition to force projection. It is a mobile air-wing (PLUS) that can be anywhere you want it to be. It is any day more survivable than a fixed air-base that has nowhere to hide. Any long range UCAV, or even long range bomber (like B-2, B-1, B-21 etc.) are at best sea denial capabilities with limited payload, and limited flexibility when it comes to the type of payload. So while they have a role in a maritime context, their role is very specific and not comprehensive. Once you move away from control to purely being a denial force you've already ceded what you are trying to preserve in terms of the capability to maneuver within a region which is what the carrier force, the amphibious force, and the other joint forces capabilities provide you. USN and USMC's carrier aviation provides that (this is precisely what China is also, interestingly trying to replicate). They aren't merely the Navy's Air Force as are often dubbed. They serve a different role and have clearly defined missions that they lead and others where the USAF's Tac Air fleet leads.
ACC also never really had confidence that the $80 million URF number would be met either. But the program not only met it but beat it (JPO wanted it $80 by Lot 14, the program delivered $80 Million by Lot 13) a full year ahead of the contract year that was the target. It took some muscle from the negotiators and one unilateral award that the contractors had to legally accept. Left to traditional channels they'll probably get it close but may miss the $25 K mark. But they can get it lower than $25 K per hour if they are smart about it. Ditch the skinny PBL and go all in (this will need congressional waivers), and contract GE for an adaptive engine upgrade program and get some competition to P&W.

Much of that "accounting" CPFH is attributed to the mix of contractor and organic depot support (both mil and civilians). So it is directly tied to CAPEX to build up depot capacity and modernize existing capacity. Much of that is something the USAF has been putting off during the sequestered budgets. If they don't put that work upfront, then they will keep paying more and when that OPEX is tallied it will manifest in a higher per hour "accounting" number. Foreign partners and FMS customers are already using much higher PBL's than what the DOD is negotiating at the moment. So it isn't like a comprehensive PBL is not being offered. It is that the current DOD laws and regulations don't permit them to go for those type of contracting until M-C and also that the contractor would also want a minimum of CAPEX investment in the AF's own depot capacity. On the F-35, 52% of the O&S cost is through the channels provided by the OEMs (LM, BAE, Northrop Grumman operating via LM and P&W operating independently). 48% of the cost is operations and the USAF investments in creating and operating their facilities that support their operations. So no single partner can unilaterally ensure a CPFH reduction of X amount by a certain date (unlike unit cost). It isn't magic but a science and good business and operational practices in investing upfront.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

Steve Trimble @TheDEWLine wrote: Picked up an interesting new fact: After demonstrating swarming tech on existing weapons, the AFRL's Golden Horde program is now creating Colosseum, which will be a live, virtual and constructive environment for testing networked, collaborative and autonomous weapons.
Image
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

The Nimitz Carrier Strike Group is returning after operations in U.S. Indo-Pacific Command and U.S. Central Command areas of responsibility. It was the first carrier strike group to deploy under COVID-19 protocols. By the time the carrier strike group reaches home, the sailors and Marines aboard will have been gone for 321 days.

The Nimitz, the cruiser USS Princeton and the destroyers USS Sterett and USS Ralph Johnson made up the group.

The Nimitz Carrier Strike Group operated in the Persian Gulf in support of Central Command during a tense time with Iran. It also participated in maritime exercise Malabar 2020 alongside Indian, Australian and Japanese ships. The carrier strike group participated in dual-carrier operations with the USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Ronald Reagan carrier strike groups as well as operating in the South China Sea.

The strike group had the longest deployment since the Vietnam War. It was lengthened by COVID-19 protocols that called for a quarantine before departing and the elimination of port calls during the deployment. The Navy aims for deployments to be roughly six months. The Nimitz group have been away from family and friends almost double that.

The Nimitz was on its way home from the Persian Gulf when events in the region necessitated its return.

Overall, the carrier strike group traveled more than 87,300 nautical miles during its deployment. The carrier launched 10,185 sorties totaling 23,410 flight hours logged, the DOD announced.

LINK
AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 407
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by AkshaySG »

V_Raman wrote:the main rationale for these super carriers is the massive pacific ocean. if they have long range UCAVs - then even carriers might come down in number
The main rationale is essentially power projection and possessing the ability to send a CBG to any conflict Hotspot with days.

This hasn't changed and with rising ambitions and size of Chinese Navy I think there is little to no chance that carrier numbers come down, They'll hover around that 10-12 mark with each new Gerald Ford Class carrier replacing an older Enterprise class carrier
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

The Aircraft carrier count is codified into law-

"The naval combat forces of the Navy shall include not less than 11 operational aircraft carriers. "

No one has yet to interpret this "any surface vessel capable of launching fixed wing aircraft". So, this does not count towards the 11 :

Image

So this means 11 CVN's (for now) with Ford class (four are now funded with a fifth also early funded) replacing the Nimitz class starting with the USS Nimitz itself in a couple of years. To augment them in lower intensity conflict and to boost dual carrier ops, there will be nearly a dozen L-class vessels capable of sustaining F-35B operations. It is quite possible that the CVN count, over, time is reduced to 9 and the L-class count is brought up to around 14-15 to strike a batter balance.
AkshaySG wrote:
V_Raman wrote:the main rationale for these super carriers is the massive pacific ocean. if they have long range UCAVs - then even carriers might come down in number
The main rationale is essentially power projection and possessing the ability to send a CBG to any conflict Hotspot with days.
It is an essential element to sea control and the ability to maneuver forces as both a force projection posture, or against a near peer opponent in sea control or defensive capacity. Take the ability of the carriers to aid in sea control, and the ability of the BMD ships to provide protection then you have basically little chance of using an amphib force or being able to bring the joint forces to bear together where each maximizes the capability of the other. You are exclusively fighting away battles here. And some thousands of miles away. A bomber can fly a sortie. 100 can fly maybe 50 sorties a day over an AOR. But these are denial instruments at best. They fly and then they go away. A CBG persists (and can) and has a giant magazine and the ability and flexibility to set up air-defense, project force, aid in ASW, and provide the A2AD bubble needed to allow the other combat forces to maneuver. And it can do it with more flexibility than having to maintain expeditionary air bases.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Now painted F-15 EX out for a flight. The MAWS housing and the larger self defense EW/EA suite apertures are going to set this variant apart from the F-15E's in the USAF (besides the engine and the F-15C paint scheme).

Image

Image
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:
LakshmanPST wrote:@Brar_w sir...
OT to the thread...
Can you give a brief summary of total no. of jets in USAF and planned replacements...???
Sure here's a quick summary (numbers are not exact as I'm using my notes/memory)

Sure here's a quick summary (numbers are not exact as I'm using my notes/memory)

Legacy/4th/4+ gen. (1600+ aircraft)

- F-16 C/D - roughly 900 aircraft (all blocks) split roughly 60:40 between active air force units, Guard and Reserve AF.
- F-15C/D - Around 220 aircraft split 40:60 between active air force units, and Air National Guard (which has around 60% of the entire fleet)
- F-15 E - 200+ aircraft all with the Active Air Force
- A-10 - around 280, split roughly 50:50

5th Gen: (450+ aircraft)

- F-22A - Aprox 180 with one or two squadrons in the Guard/Res and the rest all Active AF
- F-35A - Should be around 270-280 now depending upon COVID deliveries. One guard and one reserve squadron has transitioned to F-35 so far

As far as replacements :
Here's some more context once orders and backlog are concerned (and to understand the stupid F-35 debate)

* The F-35A deliveries should be approaching 280 by now but it is hard to tell the exact number because of COVID related disruptions. But let's assume they have 280 all delivered. This leaves 186 F-35A's that have been ordered but not yet delivered (via approved budgets between Fiscal Years 2019 and 2021) and the 6 F-35A's that got passed on to the USAF by the Congress (ex Turkish aircraft). That's a combined 466 aircraft F-35A fleet that is in hand or on order (backlog). Once delivered (by end of 2023) this will be a larger fleet than the active air-force F-16C inventory for example (which is just under 450 aircraft).

And this is before the USAF really goes after the block 4 F-35A configuration which is what they are currently developing. That will be the mainstay of its future F-35A fleet with all F-35A's, LOT-15 onward built to that hardware/software configuration and most prior aircraft brought up to that standard. So 50-60 F-35A's a year post LOT 15 (first L-15 aircraft will be delivered in the second half of 2023) towards the end of the decade would mean 300-400 additional Block 4 aircraft (USAF F-35A) before the end of the decade at the very least for a combined fleet approaching 900 (all delivered by 2030).

* Based on current plans, all 136 of the currently planned F-15EX's should be delivered to the national guard by 2030 or 2031. This will allow them to replace as many F-15C's that they currently operate.

So if you count these two fleets, you are looking between 60-80 new aircraft delivered each year through the end of the decade. That's enough to modernize a chunk of the ANG fleet and a decent chunk of the active air force fleet. However plenty of F-35A's are going to go to ANG units as well and also to reserve units. For example, there is already an F-35A ANG unit in Vermont ( 20 aircraft) and one will be stood up in Florida (also 20 aircraft) in the next couple of years. Add to that an Air Force Reserve unit in Texas which is also expected to get stood up soon and will be the first USAF reserve squadron to get the F-35A. The F-15EX's of course will be exclusively used by the Air National Guard, though post 2030 time-frame the active air force could look at perhaps replacing some of its oldest F-15E's with brand new F-15 EX's (budgets permitting).

So the challenge is to identify capacity. If a decision is made to not life-extend and upgrade the pre Block 50 F-16's then what will replace the 300 or so aircraft? They will start phasing out by 2027-2028 or so. Let's assume that it is a 8 year gradual phase-out (though it could be more acute than that), we are looking at nearly 40 additional F-35A's each year to account for it. That would mean increasing the F-35A buy rate >50% from the 60 odd that exists today. That is going to be hard to do from an industrial perspective, from an CAPEX perspective and a sustainment perspective. If you plan to replace them with F-15EX's that would mean a 100% increase in that aircrafts buy rate. Not to mention that on a per unit basis, the F-15EX is already nearly $10 Million more expensive than the F-35A so again you run into CAPEX issues. So that is the conundrum that the fleet mix study is trying to further analyze and solve for. They can spend some time upfront because they have time (unlike the F-15EX decision where they had to chose door A (life extend the Guard's F-15C fleet) or door B (buy something new that Boeing already had in production) in relatively short time period.

Just before he departed his post, the last USAF Acquisition head (civilian) negotiated and signed a $62 billion, 10-year IDIQ contract with Lockheed Martin for the F-16V (Block 70) configuration definitization for FMS or any other use case. This contract was awarded back in August. So the USAF holds rights to purchase the F-16 block 70 for FMS customers (at an agreed upon rate) or even itself for roughly $55-60 Million fly-away cost. All this is negotiated and sealed and all that is going to be required go execute this (for a decade after which the contract would have to be renegotiated) is to budget for it. So they hold the right to order at a set rate anytime this decade (Taiwan is the first FMS customer to get aircraft from this deal). This is why there was talk about the USAF buying new F-16's to replace some of the pre Block 50 F-16 fleet. I think this is what the last administration wanted to do. They drove a hard bargain and got themselves a pretty good deal on the F-16's by most modern standards. The USAF can probably not even get a Gripen for under $60 Million not to mention that an F-16 for F-16 replacement would have meant very little additional cost for simulators, depot infrastructure, air-base upgrades etc etc. Those cost can be billions of dollars for a 300 aircraft fleet for example.

The current comments from the Chief point to a pause as he wants to see if there are other, perhaps cheaper or better, options than this. I think he is hoping that a T-7 derived attack aircraft can significantly undercut the block 70 in cost to buy and operate and that it can be developed and tested/certified in time for it to replace these outgoing aircraft. Regardless, they have some time and they have hot production lines for both the T-7 and the F-16.

Meanwhile, the F-35 has opened up additional capabilities that has previously not existed in the joint-force. Traditionally, if a COCOM wanted a strike fighter squadron to rotate through an AOR, it looked at the USAF. That almost always was an additional F-16C squadron sometimes from the guard and sometimes from the A-AF that got sent over. The Harrier equipped Marines couldn't really fill in as a multi-role strike fighter force and thus were only an option when additional CAS capability was needed. While the USMC had the classic hornets, a large chunk of those were wedded to the carrier wings and thus not readily deployable on land. But this is no longer the case. Qualitatively, the F-35B is a much superior to the F-16C in virtually all aspects relevant for a multi-role strike fighter, and even superior to the F-15E (EX) in many aspects and missions of interest to a potential COCOM. If given a choice of receiving one squadron of F-35B vs one squadron of F-16C from the USAF, most COCOM's, at least from the high end need's perspective, would prefer the former. This then gets to a broader fleet mix realm. If the Marines can deploy their F-35B's to meet COCOM needs, why then does the USAF ANG and Reserve force need to maintain F-16C like multi-role capability that is deployable if needed? Can it focus instead on fielding a more affordable, light attack aircraft instead? So they need to see whether assumptions that led to a certain force mix in the 1990's and 2000's (to support Iraq and Afghanistan combat mission and surges) is still relevant. Does the USAF need to maintain surplus deployable 4+ generation strike fighter capacity (i.e. a like for like replacement for ANG's F-16C's) or can it pivot those units to some other need and get the ANG to focus on its core mission areas which are homeland and cruise missile defense and deploy overseas less (just restrict overseas deployments to the F-35A and F-15EX units). These two studies (one by the USAF, and one more broadly by the Pentagon) are going to be looking at this exact mix. And we likely won't see decisions based on these studies for a number of years still. It will be a long time before budgets reflect this analysis.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

Strike Eagle proven capable of carrying 15 JDAMs on single sortie
Image
The 85th Test and Evaluation Squadron successfully flew an F-15E Strike Eagle carrying six JDAMs on a single side of the aircraft on Feb 22, 2021, showcasing a proof of concept for Agile Combat Employment, known as “ACE.”

The 85th Test and Evaluation Squadron successfully flew an F-15E Strike Eagle carrying six JDAMs on a single side of the aircraft on Feb 22, 2021, showcasing a proof of concept for Agile Combat Employment, known as “ACE.”

“Currently the F-15E is authorized to carry a max of nine JDAMs, but the success of this test expands that to 15 JDAMs,” said Maj. Andrew Swanson, F-15E Weapons System Officer, 85th TES.

Strike Eagle can now carry enough JDAMs for an active combat mission, land at a remote location, and reload itself and/or another aircraft – such as an F-35 or F-22 – for additional combat sorties,” said Lt. Col. Jacob Lindaman, commander, 85th TES.

While not all the JDAMs carried can be employed in a single mission, this proves the Strike Eagle’s ability to ferry JDAMs while simultaneously releasing them on an active combat mission – a key component to the ACE model. The combat tactic of reloading in a remote location previously took two C-130s to carry the necessary munitions and personnel. Once at the location, the JDAMs had to be assembled, taking extra time. The additional carriage on the F-15E allows fully assembled JDAMs to be transported, reducing the requirement to just one C-130 and saving eliminating onsite bomb building.

Coupling this capability with integrated combat turns increases operations tempo, getting armed fighters back in to the fight even faster, explained Lindaman.

Swanson, the director for this test, shared that establishing this new tactic filled a CAF request that originated at an annual Weapons and Tactics Conference and could be employed in theater in as little as one month.

While the 85th Test and Evaluation Squadron is ensuring the readiness and lethality of the Strike Eagle’s tactics, operational units recently practiced the ACE model at Agile Flag 21-1.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Supersonic weapons delivery, quite literally. Add that to the mix of bladders for the Jercules and you can begin deploying in twos and fours instead of a larger force utilizing a more established facility. Set up a temp base, establish a cadence of resupply, use C-17 and C-130 to move fuel, and the latter for hot pit refueling if required (if temp based has zero infrastructure to support even low ops tempo). This is a great way to keep generating sorties (even at reduced intensity) even during a salvo exchange or when your air-bases are taken out of action for XX hours as you do repairs.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Aditya_V »

These capabilities are for quickly laying runaways in remote Pacific islands and operating from them.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

It doesn't have to be in the Pacific. Snap exercises trying to develop and practice agile deployment have happened at a growing pace in Europe and Middle East (Jordan, KSA etc). And the idea isn't just to lay quick runways or extend older ones etc. Ultimately this is also about being able to rapidly gain access to perfectly fine airstrips in nations where the USAF may not traditionally deploy to or be based and thus have no pre-positioned infrastructure or long term support but may have to do in short order during conflict. C-17's can move fuel to airstrips that might not have infra to support combat aircraft deployment. C-130's can do the same and in addition to that transfer fuel to fighters as other infrastructure and resources are being brought in to slowly build capability. Same for armament. If you have a more robust facility then you can land refueling trucks and set up a larger operation (even C-130's can move some of the smaller trucks capable of supporting this). Or you could quickly setup up a light footprint and begin operations using the transporters themselves and then transition to somewhere else or back to home base if that is repaired and online. If you take losses you can spread out your forces while damage is being repaired etc and operate in pairs or 4-6 aircraft at each location, supported by the airlift fleet doubling as your gas station. They used to do a lot of this during the cold-war and are now again emphasizing this as a competency.

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 »

srai wrote:^^^
I was just pointing out that BM are relatively less precise weapons to destroy specific targets at an airbase. Basically 16 BM each with 1000kg warhead did not manage to do too much damage to the vitals of the airbase. Yes, they could have destroyed more assets if they had better intelligence and timed their strike accordingly. They were an hour too late.

Even with the BM, better to use multiple mini-smart warheads instead of one large warhead, IMO. The BM would get you to the airbase but the mini-smart warheads would then seek out to destroy specific targets on the ground.
I haven't seen any evidence that suggests (discounting the 4-5 missiles that apparently never made it to target which is a Mfg. and QC issue) that the ballistic missiles used were not precise enough to what is generally attributed to the Iranians, or that they did not manage to create the desired effect. In fact the US officer in charge of the base says that they knew they would be accurate and that they found out for real through this employment. How do we know that the end objective of the Iranian forces was to do vital damage to the airbase? What if they chose their targets differently? BM warheads and accuracy also can't make up for a complete lack of high quality ISR or for the fact that the US has a very sophisticated EW, ISR and CISR in the region. And BM's can be deadly accurate or as accurate as any other form of munition using the same guidance like INS or GPS/INS or augmented by a seeker. Iranians may have limits to BM technology, or long range strike in general (because they lack the ISR capability and networking) but that is of no fault of the said weapons technology. Same with warhead You don't have to stick to a particular warhead type but can chose something that is more appropriate for the targets you are trying to defeat or the effects you are trying to create.

Image
U.S. Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy reported in his speech at the Association of the U.S. Army conference that the Pentagon’s hypersonic missile hit within 6 inches of its target.

“Hypersonic missiles are hitting their targets with a variance of only a mere 6 inches,” he said during his speech at the virtual opening ceremony Oct. 13. LINK
The problem with long range strike is the same, independent of the type of LR strike weapon. It is that of having the ISR, closing the kill chain and deconflicting inside your opponents decision making cycle and being able to deal with deception, CISR, and other tactics (like a mobile force). It isn't the ability to launch long range fires or their accuracy. It is about finding the target in time, ensuring that it is still a relevant target, prioritizing and then closing the kill chain. That is something that has been demonstrated in conflict after conflict where a lack of adequate, timely targeting information essentially negated the effectiveness of very long range fires when there was a mismatch on the battlefield in terms of ISR and CISR. The problem for Iran, and similar regimes is that fielding a survivable (against a competent opponent) and capable ISR system in the air, space and land, and then being able to counter the other side's deception, denial, and CISR in general is very expensive and a lot more technically challenging than building a family of short to medium ranged liquid or solid fueled ballistic missiles. You can have dozens if not hundreds of missiles lined up in bunkers all around the region, but if the other side decides to not operate in a concentrated manner you won't have enough targeting to effectively use it. But the limitation is not the weapon but other technological areas.

Dynamic targeting, with having organic ISR much closer to the target, as in a fighter sweeping, capturing a SAR map or a LDP image, discriminating and launching a said munition is something that can be done though obviously it is more risky in many scenarios. But that too has its costs and limitations. One is obviously the presence of air defense. The second is that it requires a lot more mission planning, having adequate CSAR assets in place, and a different posture to direct targeting (vs having TEL's in the middle of open desert). It is more expensive and requires a more professional force (which they likely aren't). But the way networks, stealth, and ISR capability has advanced, you can't really rule out very highly effective precision targeting using vey deadly, non AB long range fires. The breakthrough is more, or at least as much, in the other things I've mentioned as it is with the technology (next gen. propellants, compact but lethal warheads, boost gliders, etc) of these new systems (See image below and intended target)

Image

The accuracy and lethality of tactical ballistic missiles should no longer be in question. This is like the debate from the 1990's on whether Precision Guided Munitions were actually precise or not. That this accuracy, to a large extent has proliferated (though survivability is another question), is also not very controversial. What is debatable, is how they can help shape conflict or an offensive operation. They themselves can't really get you a decisive advantage. But if you have other elements in place, then yes, they can be deadly when in the right hands. Otherwise, they will continue to overpromise and under-deliver.
The footage, which you can watch in full below, starts by identifying five ramps at Al Asad – named Bravo, Charlie, Foxtrot, Valley, and Voodoo – and how many aircraft were positioned at the time of the attack. The on-screen notes also there are usually 10 aircraft on the flightline and that 51 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters had evacuated the base ahead of the strikes. LINK
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

US Navy researching hypersonic anti-ship missile ‘Screaming Arrow’ for F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
The US Navy (USN) is researching what it would take to develop an air-breathing hypersonic anti-ship missile that could be carried and launched from the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

As part of its Screaming Arrow Innovative Naval Prototype programme, the service wants proposals for development and testing of a controlled hypersonic test vehicle, it says in a solicitation posted online on 2 March. The USN is aiming for three missile launch tests and says the development effort could become an on-ramp to a follow-on acquisition programme of record.

Image
Source: US Air Force :: X-51A Waverider under the wing of a B-52 Stratofortress

The USN wants to leverage existing hypersonic air-vehicle and propulsion development efforts, with limited design changes. It is ultimately aiming for technology readiness level six (TRL6) for the vehicle. Technology readiness levels are a type of measurement system used to assess the maturity level of a particular technology. NASA defines TRL6 as a prototype capable of performing in a relevant environment.

The Department of Defense is already funding several scramjet hypersonic cruise missile development efforts concurrently. Because scramjets skim oxygen out of the atmosphere, instead of carrying an oxidizer, the missiles can be made smaller than other types of rocket-propelled weapons, such as boost-glide hypersonic missiles. That ought to be helpful for fitting the missiles onto the F/A-18E/F fighter.

“The specific use case of Screaming Arrow is offensive anti-surface warfare. The threshold target set includes, but is not limited to, surface combatants and capital ships,” the USN says. “The need for Screaming Arrow technologies arises from a capability gap in propulsion solutions for servicing adversary targets at range within a compressed time of flight, which is not achievable with today’s sub-hypersonic weapon approaches.”

Analysts think that hypersonic anti-ship missiles fielded in the future by Russian or Chinese forces could make USN aircraft carriers vulnerable to damage or sinking. The high Mach speed of the missiles would give defending ships little time to respond. Having an F/A-18E/F orbiting over an aircraft carrier group, armed with hypersonic anti-ship missiles, might help serve as a deterrent. Such a missile could conceivably be converted into a long-range land-attack mission as well, which would help the Super Hornet stay outside of the weapons engagement zone of adversaries.

The USN says the desired speed of the missile has yet to be determined. However, it wants the weapon to be light and small enough that the Super Hornet could carry up to four of the missiles at once, notionally on weapons stations three, four, eight and nine. Though the service does not list a maximum weight, it notes that the F/A-18E/F ought to be able to launch and recover aboard a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier while carrying missiles.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

Mission Success: Lockheed Martin’s Extended-Range Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System Soars In Flight Test
DALLAs, March 4, 2021 – Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) successfully tested its next-generation Extended-Range Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (ER GMLRS) munition in an 80-kilometer flight demonstration at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. During the flight test, the ER GMLRS round was fired from the U.S. Army’s High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS®) launcher, built by Lockheed Martin, meeting test objectives.

“Our new Extended-Range GMLRS significantly increases the range of the current system, offering the choice of munitions for longer distances and improving options with the same reliability and accuracy our customers have come to expect,” said Gaylia Campbell, vice president of Precision Fires and Combat Maneuver Systems at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. “Our team is dedicated to conducting extensive developmental testing as part of our discipline to assure mission success for the U.S. Army with more flexibility for multi-domain operations."

The demonstration confirmed the missile's flight trajectory performance, range and validated interfaces with the HIMARS launcher and system software performance.

Lockheed Martin has produced more than 50,000 GMLRS rounds and is under contract to produce more than 9,000 new GMLRS unitary and alternative-warhead rockets, more than 1,800 low-cost reduced-range practice rockets and integrated logistics support for the U.S. Army and international customers. The systems are produced at its Precision Fires Center of Excellence in Camden, Arkansas.

For more than 40 years, Lockheed Martin has been the leading designer and manufacturer of long-range, surface-to-surface precision strike solutions, providing highly reliable, combat-proven systems like MLRS, HIMARS, ATACMS and GMLRS to domestic and international customers.

For additional information, visit our website: https://www.lockheedmartin.com.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Pratyush »

What's was once old will become new again. From all intents and purposes the US will have to do very little to develop such a weapon.

The Air Force Almost Got A Near Hypersonic Radar Plane Killing Cruise Missile Decades Ago
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

What's changed is additive manufacturing. Orbital ATK has made an entire scramjet engine using additive manufacturing and are now fully ready to begin their flight test campaign aboard DARPA's HAWC. This promises to get you unit cost economics at low volumes that would have taken a very large production run to complete using a more traditional approach. So the US Navy, which has very unique requirements in terms of its weapons elevators and the ability to resupply its CVN's when they are deployed, can still affordably hope to get a unique hypersonic weapon and not be slaved to an AF requirement that is going to always bias towards something that makes more sense for the GSC bombers instead of tactical fighters.

The folks who manage the USN weapons portfolios are highly conservative and they know that their objective inventories are going to be different from the AF and the same for budgets. So for any of this to work, the US Navy needs to be convinced that these things can be affordably built without the USAF's EOS added to it, since the USAF already has a conventional scramjet cruise missile in the works which is likely going to be built around the larger fighters and mainly the B-52 and perhaps even rotary launchers. So the challenge isn't just to develop something and put it out there. The challenge is also going to be to convince the USN to fund its development and to buy it knowing that if the proposed design cannot be within the USN budgets then they are going to be unlikely to proceed with the development work altogether. So the TRL-6/7 demonstration has to convince them of affordability which isn't easy when you are also pushing the technology limits of making something this fast, and compact for their needs.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

While Bell's V-280 has several advantages, some of which will persist even in the final built to spec configuration, this image from Sikorsky-Boeing, captures the one huge advantage its Defiant enjoys for the US Army's requirements.
Here's a neat shot from Boeing showing the relative footprint of the coaxial SB>1 Defiant and a Black Hawk helicopter.
Sikorsky and Boeing Defense are developing the #DefiantX for the US Army's #FLRAA competition LINK
Image

This advantage is significant. They are offering a rotary winged aircraft that has > 2x the cruise speed, > 2x the range, higher payload, and the ability to self-deploy from CONUS but with roughly the same footprint of the aircraft it is replacing.

Defiant X (the built to spec final configuration) adds signature optimization and some aero improvements but the footprint has not changed so this advantage will remain.

Image
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 »

It is not uncommon for notices, ID's, or solicitations to be scrubbed or withdrawn and then be re-posted particularly when budget documents are running late (which they are for FY22 by a couple of months) or are in transition (such as an election year budget). This happens quite often and is pretty normal.
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10032
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Mort Walker »

brar_w wrote:It is not uncommon for notices, ID's, or solicitations to be scrubbed or withdrawn and then be re-posted particularly when budget documents are running late (which they are for FY22 by a couple of months) or are in transition (such as an election year budget). This happens quite often and is pretty normal.
Correct. Many times there are technical errors in the solicitation or the requirements may change based upon mission and budget.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

Major hypersonic missile testing on the horizon
The Air Force prepares for its first booster test flight (BTF-1) of the AGM-183A Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW), expected in the next 30 days.

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

HACM will likely be analogues to DARPA HAWC and will probably be awarded to whoever does better in flight testing (to be completed in the first half of this year). So ARRW will be a 1500+ Km ranged missile with a Mach 15'ish top speed and an average speed of around Mach 7, while HACM will be a scramjet powered missile, likely half the range (my guess) with a top speed of Mach 6'ish but a lower average speed but very similar time to target and a potentially 2x the magazine capacity on the B-52/B-1.

While HACM is going to be more compact and potentially cheaper, it is interesting to see that the Global Strike command continues to lead the entire unclassified hypersonic portfolio for the USAF as opposed to the ACC. This bomber prioritization is probably why the USN wants a different, more tactical aircraft focused weapon as the USAF continues to emphasize it bombers as the objective integration platforms, so while the HACM is likely to be fighter compliant, it is probably not going to be used much by those units so is really being designed with the bomber force in mind.

Global Strike Commander eyes HACM hypersonic missile for B-52s

Global Strike Command commander General Timothy Ray said he is looking at the potential of equipping B-52 bombers with the in-development Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM) during a media roundtable at the Air Force Association’s virtual Aerospace Warfare Symposium.

The command also already plans to equip its B-52s with Lockheed Martin’s Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW).

Commenting on HACM, Ray said: “We’ve done some flight tests already on the ARRW. We’re looking to do some more later this year. I’m pleased with where that is. The progress continues. Certainly, we’re in the conversation for the HACM, as that gets developed.

Ray said the B-52 would be the first bomber to be fitted with the HACM, alongside ARRW, after which Global Strike Command would “look for the other opportunities.”

Ray deed: “I’m not in a place where I can give you the dates and times but as the Air Force looks at the threshold and objective platforms, how we continue to go down that path, I believe the HACM will give us an additional set of capabilities that will be both fitted for bombers and fighter aircraft.

“I think it’s a pretty special capability to keep our eye on and to keep that moving.”

Elsewhere Ray said, the number of bombers Global Strike Command needed was ‘north of 220’ adding that the ‘roadmap’ included ensuring the B-2 was still viable until the B-21 ‘ is coming off in appropriate numbers’.

Commenting on the bomber roadmap, Ray added: “I that roadmap is very well thought out now. We just finished talking to the Senate Armed Services Committee members to satisfy an NDAA requirement to walk them through that. That went really well.

“And as soon as I leave here, I’ll go sit down with all the House Armed Services Committee members, and but I do believe inside the Air Force, this is probably the more comprehensive and capable roadmaps that we have to go forward.”

Ray also said the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the B-52 re-engining contract should close ‘this summer’ adding that the project was ‘on time’. Ray added that ‘digital and physical prototyping’ had allowed for the project’s acceleration.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

Interim National Security Strategic Guidance

March 2021

Among other items:
..........

We must also contend with the reality that the distribution of power across the world is
changing, creating new threats. China, in particular, has rapidly become more assertive. It
is the only competitor potentially capable of combining its economic, diplomatic, military,
and technological power to mount a sustained challenge to a stable and open international
system. Russia remains determined to enhance its global influence and play a disruptive
role on the world stage. Both Beijing and Moscow have invested heavily in efforts meant to
check U.S. strengths and prevent us from defending our interests and allies around the world.
Regional actors like Iran and North Korea continue to pursue game-changing capabilities and
technologies, while threatening U.S. allies and partners and challenging regional stability........
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

US Air Force AMRAAM contract hints at future fighter integration

The Air Force has awarded Raytheon a $74 million contract to integrate the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile with existing fighter jets "and other current inventory or next-generation platforms that may join the Air Force or Navy inventory before the end of fiscal 2029," according to a Defense Department contract notice released today.

The notice did not name a particular platform Raytheon may be integrating AMRAAM with, and an Air Force spokesman did not immediately reply to Inside Defense’s request for comment. The service has two known efforts to consider future fighter jet options.

One is the Next-Generation Air Dominance project that is evaluating the use of digital engineering to develop new aircraft systems and technology and has already flown a proof-of-concept demonstrator.

The Air Force separately has begun a study to assess solutions for a new tactical fighter aircraft that will, in part, consider the merits of procuring a clean-sheet "4.5-generation" jet to conduct operations against low-end threats, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Brown told reporters last month.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

Admiral Offers Vision for Indo-Pacific
WASHINGTON -- Key to military success and supporting free and open societies in the Indo-Pacific region are: fostering innovation, thinking critically, developing expertise, challenging assumptions and working collectively to realize the full potential of the joint force, the commander of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command said.

To accomplish all of this, there are four key pillars, Navy Adm. Philip S. Davidson told the Armed Forces Communications & Electronics Association's TechNet Indo-Pacific 2021 virtual event.

The first pillar is to increase joint force lethality, he said. "The fundamental design is an integrated joint force that can deny an adversary's ability to dominate the sea, air, land, space and cyberspace domains and, in turn, support our ability to control and project in all domains — sometimes periodically and sometimes persistently."

The joint force must more fully integrate cyber capabilities, its space forces, its special operations forces and ground forces equipped with long-range precision fires, Davidson advised.

"We also must maintain a strong offense to fight and win should deterrence fail. Our investments in modernization efforts must harness the advanced capabilities provided by a network of leading edge technologies, such as integrated air and missile defense," he said.

These integrated air and missile defenses employ multiple sensors and interceptors, distributed across the region to protect not only the homeland and U.S. territories, but also U.S. forces. These defenses must protect allies and partners, as well, he said.

Davidson also mentioned the importance of space-based persistent radars to provide situational awareness of Chinese military activities. Other important enablers, he said, are artificial intelligence, quantum computing, remote sensing, machine learning, big data analytics and 5G technology.

The second pillar is to enhance force design and posture in the region, he said.

"Our force design and posture in the region must enable the convergence of capabilities for multiple domains to create the virtues of mass without concentration. This is accomplished by distributing a forward-deployed joint force across the battlespace, in breadth and depth, while balancing its lethality and its survivability," he said.

Persistent presence through foreign-based and rotational joint forces is the most credible way to demonstrate commitment and resolve to Beijing, while simultaneously reassuring allies and partners, he added.

The third pillar is to strengthen alliances and partnerships, he said.

"Our constellation of allies and partners is the backbone of the free and open international order. And it provides a powerful force to counter malign activity and aggression in the region," Davidson said.

Strengthening partnerships is accomplished through training exercises, which help to increase interoperability, information sharing agreements, foreign military sales, expanded military cooperation and international security dialogues, he noted.

The fourth pillar is to exercise experimentation innovation — not only within the joint force, but with allies and partners, as well, Davidson said.

"To accomplish this, we are pursuing the development of a joint network of live, virtual and constructive ranges in key locations around the region," he said.

Other venues for exercise experimentation innovation include ranges and training areas throughout the Indo-Pacom region, as well as throughout the U.S. These training sites need to be utilized by allies and partners, as well as the joint force, using the full range of capabilities in all domains, he said.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Admiral Davidson is retiring and transitioning the command to a non SWO. His replacement is a TOPGUN graduate, with an F-14 background and experience as an aggressor F-16 pilot.
Last edited by brar_w on 08 Mar 2021 23:02, edited 1 time in total.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Interesting, the attritable and non attritable components of the FoS has two main focus areas. 1) Be the EW, CID and FCR quality Tracking sensor system in areas where AWACS and JSTARS can't go, and 2) Provide persistent escort, magazine and self defense capability for high value assets (like AWACS, Tankers and other UAV's) in less contested environments so that they can get closer.

USAF seeks Next Gen Multirole UAS capabilities

The US Air Force (USAF) has issued a request for information (RFI) for its Next-Generation Multirole Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Family of Systems (FoS) requirement.

The ‘Next Gen Multirole UAS FoS’ RFI is in support of a USAF effort to field a family of attritable but reusable unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) on behalf of the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance/Special Operations Forces (ISR/SOF) Directorate.

“The Air Force Materiel Command, Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) in support of the ISR/SOF Directorate is seeking information to inform the establishment of a new capability development pipeline for integration on current and Next-Gen Multirole UAS FoS with reduced operating costs and greater persistence, survivability, and range. These Next-Gen Multirole UAS FoS may be comprised of attritable, expendable, survivable and reusable attributes, which can attain desired effects in various operating environments,” the RFI stated.

In the RFI, the USAF sets out three key focus areas for the required capabilities, namely Air Domain Awareness to provide early warning and fire control quality track/identification of enemy air operations in highly conjested and contested environments; High Value Airborne Asset Protection (HVAAP) to protect high value airborne assets, such as tankers and airborne early warning and control platforms, from long-range enemy fighters and other kinetic and non-kinetic threats; and Platform Multi-Role UAS FoS solutions to include attritable, expendable, survivable, and reusable concepts.
Image

An illustrative concept of a future unmanned aircraft that might field capabilities of the type that the USAF is now seeking for its Next-Generation Multirole Unmanned Aircraft System Family of Systems requirement. (Lockheed Martin)
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

More:

Air Force seeks rapid development pipeline for future UAS program

he Air Force is expanding its MQ-9 replacement search to focus on establishing a rapid development pipeline that can continuously design and field emerging capabilities as part of a multirole family of unmanned aerial systems.

That includes a mixture of platforms, like those participating in the low-cost attritable aircraft technology, Skyborg and other UAS programs, according to a request for information the Air Force released March 5.

Responses to this RFI, coupled with previous industry engagement on MQ-9 Reaper replacement options, will help the service develop an acquisition strategy that emphasizes multiple competitions for aircraft, ground-control systems, sensors and "data exploitation" technologies, the notice states.

The Air Force wants to field an initial capability package by 2026 or 2027 and follow-on capabilities by 2030. The first three focus areas seek solutions for air domain awareness, high-value airborne asset protection and aircraft that are attritable, expendable, survivable or reusable, according to the RFI.

The air domain awareness category includes sensor networks that use moving target indicators to track enemy air operations in highly congested and contested environments. Solutions in the second focus area, meanwhile, include weapons, electronic warfare, directed-energy and other platform-agnostic systems to defend against long-range adversary fighters and other threats.

The Air Force is also interested in aircraft that can operate autonomously, use software and artificial intelligence for data sharing and secure processing and employ government-owned architectures.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

As part of the Digital Design effort a company headed by a Deshi has developed software to make the digital twin replicate the degradation experienced by the real-life twin!

They have demonstrated it in civilian cases. And, have started work on a jet engine - talking to GE. They have proposed to the USAF to include a fighter - through SIBR.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

US Air Force receives first F-15EX

The U.S. Air Force officially accepted the first F-15EX from the Boeing Co. on March 10, 2021 at the company’s St. Louis facility.

The new fighter is a two-seat aircraft—though operable by a single pilot—with fly-by-wire flight controls, digital cockpit displays, and advanced avionics systems, to include the Eagle Passive/Active Warning and Survivability System, an electronic warfare upgrade also being fielded on F-15E models.

“This is a big moment for the Air Force,” said Col. Sean Dorey, F-15EX Program Manager with the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center’s Fighters and Advanced Aircraft Directorate, responsible for the acquisition, modernization, and sustainment of the aircraft. “With its large weapons capacity, digital backbone, and open architecture, the F-15EX will be a key element of our tactical fighter fleet and complement 5th-generation assets. In addition, it’s capable of carrying hypersonic weapons, giving it a niche role in future near-peer conflicts.”

The Air Force plans to acquire 144 F-15EXs from Boeing, to replace F-15C/D models and refresh the F-15 fleet.

At an average age of over 37 years, the F-15C/D fleet is fast approaching the end of its useful life and operating on the margins of structural integrity. The F‑15EX provides a cost-effective and expedient solution to refresh the F‑15C/D fleet and augment the F-15E fleet to meet National Defense Strategy capability and capacity requirements well into the 2040s, while preserving aircraft availability from significant impacts that service life extension and modernization programs would have on the F-15C/D fleet.

The process to acquire the F-15EX aircraft started in February of 2019, when Gen. David Goldfein, then Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force signed the F-15EX Rapid Fielding Requirement Document to address readiness issues with an aging F-15 fleet. From there, the directorate’s F-15 Program Office developed the acquisition strategy, awarded the contract, conducted design and verification reviews, and worked with Boeing to manufacture and test the aircraft in record time.

Following its acceptance, the new aircraft will be flown to Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. for testing. A second F-15EX will be delivered to Eglin by the end of April 2021.

The other six Lot 1 aircraft will be delivered to Eglin in Fiscal Year 2023 and will undergo operational testing.

To expedite the testing needed to declare the F-15EX ready for operations, the team will use previous testing data from F-15 foreign military sales variants and U.S.-only subsystems and Operational Flight Program software.

Aircraft in Lots 2 and 3 are on track for delivery in FY 2024 and FY 2025 to Kingsley Field and Portland Air National Guard Bases, both in Oregon.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

Russell Wald @russellwald wrote:
Today @StanfordHAI published a policy brief authored by @AmyZegart on the need for the U.S. Intelligence Community to adapt to new technologies such as #AI or lose the decision advantage in geopolitics the U.S. has historically benefited from. Read it here

The Moment of Reckoning: AI and the Future of U.S. Intelligence

Amy Zagart
THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY FACES A MOMENT OF RECKONING and AI
lies at the heart of it. Since 9/11, America’s intelligence agencies have become
hardwired to fight terrorism. Today’s threat landscape, however, is changing
dramatically, with a resurgence of great power competition and the rise of cyber
threats enabling states and non-state actors to spy, steal, disrupt, destroy, and
deceive across vast distances — all without firing a shot.

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

A Case for Light Carriers

By Norman Polmar
March 2021 Proceedings Vol. 147/3/1,417
Former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper caused considerable consternation in the naval aviation community late last year when he proposed a future fleet of 8 to 11 large aircraft carriers (CVNs) and up to 6 light carriers. It has been apparent for several years that the continued construction of 100,000-ton nuclear-powered carriers should be questioned.

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

Episode 14 - The Merge: Future of the F-35, Long Range Strike, and the Space Force

Time Marks:

1:53 – The roundtable discussion kicks off with Heather Penney discussing the F-35 program

7:05 – Lt Gen (ret.) David Deptula responds to Congressman Adam Smith’s comments on the F-35 program

18:34 – Col (ret.) Mark “Gonzo” Gunzinger lays down the mission capabilities necessary to conduct long range strike missions

21:47 – Doug Birkey explains how cost per effect is the best way to calculate the cost of long range strike missions

32:10 – Maj (ret.) Heather Penney explains how the Air Force’s core strengths play towards long range strike missions

34:20 – Lt Gen (ret.) David Deptula describes how and why the Space Force is currently undermanned and underfunded
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Not david axe:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/12/opin ... 9gLcmpwWAi

The Fighter Jet That’s Too Pricey to Fail

The F-35 is a boondoggle. Yet we’re stuck with it.

By The Editorial Board

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.

March 12, 2021

Last week, the new head of the House Armed Services Committee, Representative Adam Smith, said in an interview that the F-35 fighter jet was a “rathole” draining money. He said the Pentagon should consider whether to “cut its losses.” That promptly set off another round of groaning about the most expensive weapon system ever built, and questions about whether it should — or could — be scrapped.

Conceived in the 1990s as a sort of Swiss army knife of fighter jets, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was meant to come as a conventional fighter for the Air Force, as a carrier-based fighter for the Navy and as a vertical-landing version for the Marines. The problems, and there were lots of them, set in early. All three versions of the plane ended up at least three years behind schedule, and sharing less than a quarter of their parts instead of the anticipated 70 percent. Many of those already built need updates; hundreds of defects are still being corrected; the jet is so expensive to maintain that it costs around $36,000 per hour to fly (compared to $22,000 for an older F-16). At the current rate, it will cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion over its 60-year life span.

So, kill the monster and start looking for alternatives? Or declare it too big to fail and make the best of it?

Last month, the Air Force chief of staff, Gen. Charles Brown Jr., gave his answer when he said that the F-35 should become the Ferrari of the fleet: “You only drive it on Sundays.” For other days, Air Force officials recently said they were exploring less expensive options, including new F-16s, low-cost tactical drones or building another fighter from scratch. But the F-35 was here to stay, General Brown insisted: “The F-35 is the cornerstone of what we’re pursuing. Now we’re going to have the F-35, we’re getting it out, and we’re going to have it for the future.”

Representative Smith — a Democrat whose Washington constituency includes Boeing, which was beat out for the F-35 contract by Lockheed Martin — acknowledged in an interview that there was no easy way to get rid of the F-35.

The reasons are many: Contractors on the project are scattered among so many states that Mr. Smith would find few congressional allies for scrapping it. Several NATO and Asian allies have already bought into the F-35. Developing a new fighter from scratch would be prohibitively costly, and the F-35 replaces too many older planes for which there is no ready alternative. Older fighters in the American fleet simply lack the stealth needed in modern warfare.

Plus, as more F-35 are churned out, the price is dropping — the tag on the Air Force version has already slid below $80 million, less than some other advanced fighter planes. As problems are eliminated, the fighter is arguably doing better than some of the criticism suggests — the Marines have used it in Afghanistan, the Air Force in Iraq and Israel in Syria. Whatever its flaws, the F-35 is a sophisticated plane, capable of generating a dynamic image of the battlefield that can be shared with friendly forces. Its cutting-edge helmet for the pilot melds imagery from many sensors into a single picture — though that, too, took a while to get right.

In short, the F-35, whatever one makes of it and however overpriced, is here to stay for a few more decades as a deterrent in the skies against a resurgent Russia and a rising China. But as General Brown suggested, the program should be scaled sharply down below the 1,763 planes the Air Force is supposed to get — especially as currently there are not enough available air bases for so many — and complemented with a mix of less expensive, older fighters and unmanned drones for more routine tasks like patrolling American skies or hammering insurgents who pose no threat to a high-flying jet.

The Pentagon carries the primary responsibility for figuring out how to move ahead. But Congress must also resume the sort of close monitoring of the F-35 and other major programs that Senator John McCain practiced as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In 2016, he labeled the F-35 program a “scandal and a tragedy with respect to cost, schedule and performance,” and regularly grilled Defense Department officials at congressional hearings. Taxpayers need to know what they’re getting when they plunk down so many billions.

There’s no need for a scapegoat. The F-35 was conceived in a different era when the notion of a one-size-fits-all fighter jet seemed a good way to save money. But after two decades of development, the fighter flew into a world whose geopolitics and military challenges were far different than those for which it was conceived. It is essential not to repeat the mistakes that led to the mess.

Trying to replace four different airframes for three different service branches with one fighter was an obvious mistake. Another was attempting to develop too many technologies at the same time, which resulted in long delays when progress on one front disrupted planning for others. Above all, the time for developing a fighter cannot be the decades it took to bring out the F-35. There will always be new battlefields to contend with and new technical problems to solve; all sorts of new concepts are already on the horizon, including A.I.-operated drones. A shorter schedule and smaller budget would allow for quicker innovation, and would prevent projects from becoming too pricey to fail.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

So in summary, the F-35 is needed because it is the only modern stealth fighter currently in production in the US, and its capabilities are needed for the more sophisticated higher end fight against enemies who actually know what they are doing, and who actually have systems that could impose a very high cost on the F-Teens, and the A-10's of the world !

Which is pretty much what every person, objectively analyzing fleet modernization and procurement for the US DOD (including the last two US administrations - One Democrat and One Republican) has been saying. Including, the USAF's current Chief of staff just as his predecessor, and his predecessor's predecessor did in the past. The Marine commandant and head of aviation as well. The Navy too when it requested additional F-35C's in 2 of the last 3-4 budget requests. In fact, the US Navy actually wants to stop buying the Block III SH early and pivot to a 5+/6 generation fighter program because of this high end threat and need.

The F-35A is a sub $80 Million stealth fighter that can carry >18,000 lb of fuel, and up to 6 BVRAAM's internally along with the ability to self-designate, LPI directional communication, full L16 connectivity, towed decoy and other CM's, and an internal EW/EA suite. This is already more capability (even setting stealth aside) than what the more expensive F-15EX comes with stock.

Even the lower production rate F-35C is now a sub $100 Million fighter. From an acquisition perspective, it offers value to the US like no other aircraft. The CTPY numbers need to be improved and ultimately, as I've written in my last few posts on this matter, that will determine what the ultimate fleet mix is.

And if someone thinks that the USAF is going to advocate that F-35 money be spent on producing the 6th gen fighter, a demonstrator for which has already flown, then the CSAF shot that idea down as well just a few weeks ago -
“As far as NGAD versus F-35, we’re not going to take money from the F-35 to [fund] the NGAD,” Brown said. But, Brown said the Air Force will look to take money from “other parts of the fighter force” to “help fund” the NGAD project. LINK
So not only did he say that it is the cornerstone of USAF's tactical modernization, but it is also going to be protected and they aren't going to cut the present modernization to pay for future modernization.

So yes, NYT is right that topline number is going to be in flux. It will and should always be in debates and fleet mix studies. Does the USAF still need to replace the A-10 with the F-35A? Does a UCAV solution fit the fleet mix better? Can new F-16's replace A-10's more cheaply while still meeting some of the needs? Does the Guard need be a F-35A and F-15EX fleet, or can it be a F-35A+F-15EX+Light Attack (T-7?) fleet instead? Does the AF Reserve still need the F-35A's planned for it or can it get a cheaper platform etc etc.

These are the force mix decisions that they are talking about.

Ultimately, what is going to be the most influential factor is the bomber force. The focus on China will probably continue to drive the bomber force numbers higher and it is perfectly feasible that the USAF shrinks its tactical fighter force and commits those financial and manpower resources to a larger bomber fleet. It makes a lot of sense in a Pacific focused scenario.
Contractors on the project are scattered among so many states that Mr. Smith would find few congressional allies for scrapping it.
This is the recurring strawman argument that is used against many programs as if the industrial base is product, and not work specific. What these liberal hacks don't understand is that this is an industrial base issue not a program issue. Whatever replaces the F-35 in their hypothetical scenario, be it NGAD, F-16 or a 2nd generation fighter, those too will be produced by the same industrial base that IS scattered, and HAS BEEN scattered pretty much since WW2. Often around academic institutions that supported these industries when they were young.

You don't relocate the entire program industrial supplier base to one geographic location when a program is conceived. Radars have always come from a handful of geographic regions in the US. Same with engines. Other aero suppliers are based on other independent factors. Are you going to ask Northrop Grumman to relocate its businesses from California to Fort Worth just so that the NYT can claim that major structures are built in Texas? Northrop has had that facility for longer than the F-35 has been around. You can't exactly phone your local sheet metal fabricator down the road if you need say a central fuselage for a cutting edge stealth fighter. The first supplier you ring is probably one who has an award winning production facility already up and running to see if it wants to partner. At least that's where I'd start but then I don't ready the NYT so don't know if that is woke enough for the current times.

If you don't like a scattered Industrial base (which is a result of a case of defense and commercial factors and not purely defense factors) then come outright and say it and call for states to have an equal corporate tax policy, and not fight for high quality skilled jobs. And of course pass a law that all skilled workers have to be forced to migrate to a region so that the math works for the Times, and the POGOS of the world who continue to use this argument. And of course, if you aren't a defense producing state, you shouldn't be asking for university and federal grants or federally funded defense R&D facilities because new industrial suppliers often spring up around those.

Is a scattered IB a problem? No. It creates centers of excellence and high paying skilled jobs and states actually compete for these just like they compete for tech and other areas.

But the NYT's editorial board can't use the IB argument well here because their intentions aren't to advocate for cutting the F-35 and buying something in equal quantity (using the same IB). Their ultimate objective is to just cut it, just like they want to cut the ICBM modernization, submarines and whatever else they've taken a fancy to. Same too with Adam Smith's gripe. He wants to be seen delivering on Bernie's 10% defense cuts (as long as Boeing doesn't suffer too much) which have no popular support in Congress (hence budget toplines are to remain flat). So the gripe is more about not being able to do it because the US A&D industrial base is fragmented along geographical regions which has been the case for decades and is not something that the evil F-35 program cooked up in a lab somewhere.
Last edited by brar_w on 15 Mar 2021 23:06, edited 13 times in total.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

Via email
The U.S. Coast Guard is working 6,600 miles off the U.S. coast and about 2,700 miles off the Chinese coast, and its mission is "helping counter China's growing naval power in the Pacific," the Wall Street Journal reports this morning — starting with a December operation near the Pacific island nation of Palau.

The Coast Guard's extended reach will be nothing new to our podcast listeners, who may have heard CG Commandant Adm. Karl Schultz mention as much in our conversation last June.

There are, however, several new elements that have developed since that late spring chat, according to the Journal's Lucy Craymer and Ben Kesling: "In the past few months, [the USCG has] based two of its most advanced new cutters in the U.S. territory of Guam, nearly 4,000 miles closer to Shanghai than it is to San Francisco. One more is due to arrive in the coming months."

And that's not all: "For the first time, the Coast Guard has an attaché to the U.S. Embassy in Canberra, Australia, and another attaché will move to Singapore next year...The Coast Guard is also investigating stationing a ship in American Samoa." What's more, "The Coast Guard is investing more than $19 billion in at least eight national-security cutters, 25 offshore-patrol cutters, and 58 fast-response cutters," Craymer and Kesling write. If all goes to plan this year, at least eight of those ships will be deployed in a position to counter China."
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Captain Paul Lanzilotta, CO of the USS Gerald R Ford (CVN-78) provides an update on the first in class ship as it is winding up its testing and preparing to enter into full ship shock trials -

Post Reply