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
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by ks_sachin »

Philip wrote:The US's latest hyper bomber in the works?
Why one's been crying for aeons that the IAF are myopic not inducting a strategic bomber.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboo ... rld-185347
SR-72: The Mach 6 Bomber That Could Shake the World?
Not quite, but the much-hyped hypersonic aircraft has been likened to an SR-72 and it has some serious capabilities.

by Sebastien Roblin
Here's What You Need To Remember: Lockheed’s hyping of a hypersonic aircraft which may-or-may-not already exist seems explicitly intended to build support for additional funding. This may be because it’s pursuing the project with the Defense Advanced Research Programs Agency (DARPA), which focuses on innovative development of cutting-edge technologies often well ahead of capabilities in operational service, rather than fulfilling an Air Force requirement.

Hypersonic weapons—those capable of flying over five times the speed of sound—are the hot new buzzword of defense industrial complexes across the globe. China, Russia, and the United States have all vigorously and relatively openly pursued a diverse array of hypersonic weapons programs, adding fuel to the fire of a growing arms race.

While long-range ballistic missiles could already attain hypersonic speeds, they travel in predictable arcs and can be detected well in advance, giving military and political leaders time to react. Furthermore, an increasing number of air defense systems may be at least partially capable of intercepting ballistic missiles.

However, back in 2013 Lockheed executive Robert Weiss caused a stir when he told Aviation Week the aerospace titan was well into developing a hypersonic aircraft—and invoked the legendary SR-71 Blackbird spy plane by dubbing it the SR-72.

No manned aircraft in operational service has matched the remarkable long-distance Mach 3 cruises of the Blackbird. Until recently, SR-71s simply outran missiles fired at them on photo-reconnaissance missions over North Korea and the Middle East. Now the latest surface-to-air missiles render Mach 3 speeds inadequate to assure survival, but a hypersonic aircraft might again outpace the threats arrayed against it.

The SR-72 depicted in Lockheed’s concept art was described as capable of cruising at six times the speed of sound. The challenge, however, lay not so much in designing an aircraft that could attain hypersonic speeds as ensuring that it could also take off and land at slower speeds. The rocket-powered X-15 testbed, which in 1967 recorded the fastest flight by a manned, powered aircraft ever at Mach 6.7, had to be carried aloft and released mid-air by a B-52 bomber!

Weiss told journalist Guy Norris “…all I can say is the technology is mature and we, along with DARPA and the services, are working hard to get that capability into the hands of our warfighters as soon as possible... I can’t give you any timelines or any specifics on the capabilities. It is all very sensitive... We can acknowledge the general capability that’s out there, but any program specifics are off-limits.”

Reportedly, Lockheed and the firm Aerojet Rocketdyne made a breakthrough by developing a Combined Cycle engine involving both a turbine for speeds below Mach 3 with a scramjet engaged for hypersonic cruising. A scramjet generates thrust by sucking in air while traveling at supersonic speeds—meaning that a separate engine has to push the airplane to those speeds before the scramjet can engage. The Combined Cycle engine makes the dual-engine approach viable by having the turban and scramjet share the same inlets and exhaust nozzles.

Weiss made clear he hoped Lockheed would receive funding to build an optionally-manned sixty-foot long (jet-fighter-sized) single-engine test-bed aircraft that would cost “only” $1 billion. This would then lead to the development of an operational twin-engine one-hundred-foot-plus SR-72.

In the years following Weiss’ comments, Lockheed officials continued drawing atypical levels of attention to a supposedly secret program too sensitive to reveal to the public, teasing statements that kinda-sort-of implied they had already built an SR-72 testbed.

For instance, at a science convention in 2018, Lockheed vice president Jack O’Banion stated “Without the digital transformation [of three-dimension design technology], the aircraft you see there could not have been made. In fact, five years ago, it could not have been made.” However, Executive Vice President Orlando Carvalho subsequently said to Flight Global “I can tell you unequivocally that it [the SR-72] has not been built”, claiming O’Banions quotes had been taken “out of context.”

Lockheed’s hyping of a hypersonic aircraft which may-or-may-not already exist seems explicitly intended to build support for additional funding. This may be because it’s pursuing the project with the Defense Advanced Research Programs Agency (DARPA), which focuses on innovative development of cutting-edge technologies often well ahead of capabilities in operational service, rather than fulfilling an Air Force requirement.

While the U.S. Air Force is interested in deploying hypersonic aircraft in the long term, it already knows what it wants in the near future: lots of F-35 stealth fighters (also built by Lockheed) and forthcoming B-21 Raiders flying-wing stealth bombers. As the air warfare branch already can’t procure all the aircraft it wants, carving out funding for a highly expensive avant-garde concept won’t be easy.

Hypersonic Bomber

The Blackbird’s unique “SR” designation stood for “Strategic Reconnaissance,” reflecting that its job was to penetrate defended airspace on short notice and snap up photos of what was going on below before anyone could move or cover it up. However, the appellation SR-72 is arguably misleading for a number of reasons.

A hypersonic SR-72 would almost certainly be an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)—in other words, a drone normally receiving a “Q” designation. To what extent it would rely on man-in-the-loop (which might be susceptible to disruption) or pre-programmed control versus its own autonomous algorithms, remains an interesting question.

Furthermore, while an SR-72 would have an Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) role, it would also surely be intended to strike targets with little advancing warning—in other words, it would be a bomber. Traveling around 4,000 miles per hour, a hypersonic bomber could theoretically depart from a base in the continental U.S. to hit targets across the Pacific or Atlantic in just 90 minutes. Unlike the various hypersonic missiles under development, it could then return to base and load up for further sorties.

Weiss stated from the beginning the SR-72 “had strike-capability in mind.” The SR-72 project, in fact, is reportedly an outgrowth of the rocket-powered Falcon HTV-3 hypersonic test-bed, which was associated with America’s Prompt Global Strike program.

However, the cost-efficiency of a hypersonic bomber/spy plane is debatable. It would surely lack stealth characteristics, as the heat generated by travel at such high speeds would make them highly visible to sensors and burn away radar-absorbent materials. Thus adversaries would probably see it coming, even if they had relatively little time to react.

While it might exceed the capabilities of contemporary air defense missiles, the SR-72’s existence would surely further spur the development of surface-to-air missiles capable of engaging hypersonic targets. An SR-72 bomber would also require expensive development of munitions designed for launch at such high speeds.

The Blackbird was retired and not replaced because its ISR capabilities had become niche due to improving spy satellites and because of slow but stealthy long-endurance drones like the RQ-170. Sure, Blackbirds could rapidly penetrate defended airspace, but a stealth drone could do that more slowly but also more discretely, and sustainably orbit an area of interest, delivering real-time video feeds for hours. In fact, the Pentagon’s decision to contract Grumman to build ultra-stealthy long-endurance RQ-180 drones may be perceived as coming at the SR-72’s expense.

The SR-72’s promoters argue that “speed is the new stealth,” reflecting a growing belief in some quarters that improved networked sensors will eventually diminish the survivability of stealth aircraft, making speed once again more prominent as means of defense. Given the Pentagon’s blossoming interest in all kinds of hypersonic weapons, it’s possible Lockheed’s Schrodinger's cat of a hypersonic UAV may attract additional funding. However, that may place it at odds with the stealth-oriented paradigm the Air Force is currently committed to.
So what would you like to not spend on? Or have you a money plant that the MoD can use?
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by darshhan »

Is the US military establishment really this dumb? :roll:
We may not know the identities of all the mysterious craft that American military personnel and others have been seeing in the skies as of late, but I have seen more than enough to tell you that it is clear that a very terrestrial adversary is toying with us in our own backyard using relatively simple technologies—drones and balloons—and making off with what could be the biggest intelligence haul of a generation. While that may disappoint some who hope the origins of all these events are far more exotic in nature, the strategic implications of these bold operations, which have been happening for years, undeterred, are absolutely massive.

Our team here at The War Zone has spent the last two years indirectly laying out a case for the hypothesis that many of the events involving supposed UFOs, or unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), as they are now often called, over the last decade are actually the manifestation of foreign adversaries harnessing advances in lower-end unmanned aerial vehicle technology, and even simpler platforms, to gather intelligence of extreme fidelity on some of America's most sensitive warfighting capabilities. Now, considering all the news on this topic in recent weeks, including our own major story on a series of bizarre incidents involving U.S. Navy destroyers and 'UAP' off the Southern California coast in 2019, it's time to not only sum up our case, but to discuss the broader implications of these revelations, what needs to be done about them, and the Pentagon's fledgling 'UAP Task Force' as a whole.

Yes, I realize that the idea that an adversary is penetrating U.S. military training areas unmolested, and has been for years, using lowly drone technology and balloons, is a big pill to swallow, but as one of the people who have repeatedly warned about the threat posed by lower-end drones for a decade—warnings that largely were dismissed by the Pentagon until drones made or altered in ramshackle ISIS workshops in a war zone were literally raining down bomblets on U.S. and allied forces in Iraq—it isn't really surprising at all. Nor is the fact that the Defense Department is still playing catch-up when it comes to the realities surrounding the drone threat, and not just to its forces abroad, but also to the homeland overall. The utter lack of vision and early robust interest in regards to this emerging threat will go down as one of the Pentagon's biggest strategic missteps of our time.

The gross inaction and the stigma surrounding unexplained aerial phenomena as a whole has led to what appears to be the paralyzation of the systems designed to protect us and our most critical military technologies, pointing to a massive failure in U.S. military intelligence. This is a blind spot we ourselves literally created out of cultural taboos and a military-industrial complex that is ill-suited to foresee and counter a lower-end threat that is very hard to defend against.
.................
Read it all. If this report is true, then it is just a matter of time when China assumes numero uno position in the world. Passing off enemy surveillance using UAVs as UFO activity is the new benchmark of strategic bureaucracy's imagination.
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by darshhan »

ks_sachin wrote:
Philip wrote:The US's latest hyper bomber in the works?
Why one's been crying for aeons that the IAF are myopic not inducting a strategic bomber.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboo ... rld-185347
So what would you like to not spend on? Or have you a money plant that the MoD can use?
Spot on. Some people are simply too delusional to see the reality. Bharat's GDP is $2.7 trillion usd compared to $21 trillion and $14 trillion for US and China respectively. And they expect India to match them step by step. Not possible.

On top of it even this basketcase economy has been given a devastating blow through covid-19 and its economic aftereffects.

It is like somebody doesn't even have proper clothes to wear and you are taunting him to buy a luxury car.

Instead of focussing on conventional orbat, India would do well to go whole hog on assymetric warfare. Screw bomber. Invest in Swarm Tech, AI and biowar. Maximum returns for the least investment.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Manish_P »

What Philip sir simply wants to say in one sentence, but has used that rather speculative article, is - 'We should buy a squadron of the Tupolev Tu-22 or Tupolev Tu-160'

Philip sir, let the Super Sukhoi upgrade + Brahmos NG combo handle this role (not completely, i agree) till the GOI find funds for the IAF to consider LR strategic bombers.
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by darshhan »

Manish_P wrote:What Philip sir simply wants to say in one sentence, but has used that rather speculative article, is - 'We should buy a squadron of the Tupolev Tu-22 or Tupolev Tu-160'

Philip sir, let the Super Sukhoi upgrade + Brahmos NG combo handle this role (not completely, i agree) till the GOI find funds for the IAF to consider LR strategic bombers.
Manish ji, most of the world is moving towards UCAVs, cruise missiles and loitering munitions. India is also investing Ghatak UCAV alongside other programs. Where is the need for strategic bomber? By the time India actually finds funds(probably in 2030's) for this kind of project, warfare would have been changed totally.

But even if forces eventually decide that they need a strategic bomber, just develop a bigger version of Ghatak UCAV.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

There is no Mach 6 bomber. Not even the US can afford something like that. It's a National Interest article :rotfl: .

There is one bomber program in the USAF, and that is the B-21 and it much like the F-35 is designed for high rate production with Northrop on contract for the first 21 aircraft with 2 already in production.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Manish_P »

darshhan wrote: Manish ji, most of the world is moving towards UCAVs, cruise missiles and loitering munitions. India is also investing Ghatak UCAV alongside other programs. Where is the need for strategic bomber? By the time India actually finds funds(probably in 2030's) for this kind of project, warfare would have been changed totally.

But even if forces eventually decide that they need a strategic bomber, just develop a bigger version of Ghatak UCAV.
Exactly that, Darshan ji :wink:
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by darshhan »

brar_w wrote:There is no Mach 6 bomber. Not even the US can afford something like that. It's a National Interest article :rotfl: .

There is one bomber program in the USAF, and that is the B-21 and it much like the F-35 is designed for high rate production with Northrop on contract for the first 21 aircraft with 2 already in production.
Yup. Why would USAF induct mach 6 bomber anyway? They could just load their existing bombers, fighters and even the USN vessels with hypersonic cruise missiles and achieve more or less the same effects. Far more economical.

As far as India is concerned even a subsonic strategic bomber does not make sense because of the following reasons.
1. India doesn't have global obligations and liabilities unlike US and neither it should accept that role.
2. India doesn't have a gdp in the range of US or China. One should not wear shoes that are much bigger than your feet.
3. US has to cross a large ocean on one side and an even larger ocean on the other side just to get into its area of action. This does not apply to India. Most of its action will take place in its immediate neighbourhood. At the most its area of interest will be limited to northern Indian ocean which can well be taken care of Su 30 mkis loaded with cruise missiles like Rudram 3, Nirbhay and extended range Brahmos.
4. India is also developing SSNs which can be loaded with cruise missiles just to give an even farther reach.
5. Furthermore India is also developing Ghatak UCAV, a marinised version òf which can play an important role in dominating northern Indian ocean.
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/TheDEWLine/s ... 2087564290
DARPA has created a kill chain within 45 minutes between formerly incompatible sensors and shooters using a network patching tool called STITCHES, says Tim Grayson, director of DARPA's Strategic Technologies Office
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Philip »

One is not asking for a hyper Mach 6 bomber for the IAF.A supersonic bomber capability would do.What we lack is a strategic bomber to counter the dozens that China has albeit of Sov. era vintage.There is a limit to what even an SS can do.It does not have the legs of a dedicated strat. bomber,and requires refuelling even for Malacca strikes operating from the mainland as was demonstrated 2 years ago.. The 12,000km + reach we had with the Bear LRMP birds,still being used as frontline strat. bombers/LRMP duties by the RuAF and RuN,disappeared after their retirement. While the P-8Is are doing a fine job as far as ASW is concerned,the LR strike capability has vanished as P-8Is carry only subsonic Harpoon ASMs of a few hundred KMs range.The Ghatak UCAV will have precious little internal space for weaponry,and will be used more as a tactical weapon system against Pak and China.
After the retirement of our Canberras,the IAF just forgot about the bomber req. Dozens of TU-22 Backfires were offered to us for a song by the Sovs.,after the '71 war, but myopic ACM PC Lal reportedly ignored the offer.

In the context of the Ladakh crisis,the PRC has wisely kept its reserves some distance away from the LAC,out of range of our fighters,yet given the flat terrain of Tibet,easy to despatch to any hotspot of their choosing.how they took us by surprise .We need to be able to send strat. bombers well into the Indo-China Sea, Tibet,etc., equipped with a heavy load of LR stand-off ASMs,to strike key targets. LR Missiles like BMos will have ranges in the future of only around 800km max. Nirbhay is still a system in the works,and the Agni series are dedicated strat. deterrent weapons.Neither the Super Sukhoi,SU-57,or any other strike fighter around today can replace a dedicated strat. bomber,which could deliver both conventional PGMs plus N-weapons.
I add the fact that the PRC is fast establishing military bases around the IOR rim,from Djibouti,Gwadar,Hambantota,the E.African coast,W.African coast (!),Iran,all over the Indo-China Sea, with ambitions even in the Meditt. how will we be able to strike and destroy these bases from which our entire maritime trade,merchant fleet ,especially our oil and gas tankers will be at risk? We will have but just 2 CVs with limited aircraft aboard,plus our Kilo subs cannot carry more than 4 Klub/Kalibir missiles. The on-going Gaza spat shows that israel has had to make hundreds of repeated air strikes to deal with that pestilential entity and the job still hasn't been completed.

What aircraft we should acquire is left to the strat. defence planners. Even B-52s would be fine!
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7793
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Prasad »

We don't seem to have the money to place orders for the LCH. And you want India to build a strat bomber than will need a big engine and cost god knows how much.
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by darshhan »

Philip wrote:One is not asking for a hyper Mach 6 bomber for the IAF.A supersonic bomber capability would do.What we lack is a strategic bomber to counter the dozens that China has albeit of Sov. era vintage.There is a limit to what even an SS can do.It does not have the legs of a dedicated strat. bomber,and requires refuelling even for Malacca strikes operating from the mainland as was demonstrated 2 years ago.. The 12,000km + reach we had with the Bear LRMP birds,still being used as frontline strat. bombers/LRMP duties by the RuAF and RuN,disappeared after their retirement. While the P-8Is are doing a fine job as far as ASW is concerned,the LR strike capability has vanished as P-8Is carry only subsonic Harpoon ASMs of a few hundred KMs range.The Ghatak UCAV will have precious little internal space for weaponry,and will be used more as a tactical weapon system against Pak and China.
After the retirement of our Canberras,the IAF just forgot about the bomber req. Dozens of TU-22 Backfires were offered to us for a song by the Sovs.,after the '71 war, but myopic ACM PC Lal reportedly ignored the offer.

In the context of the Ladakh crisis,the PRC has wisely kept its reserves some distance away from the LAC,out of range of our fighters,yet given the flat terrain of Tibet,easy to despatch to any hotspot of their choosing.how they took us by surprise .We need to be able to send strat. bombers well into the Indo-China Sea, Tibet,etc., equipped with a heavy load of LR stand-off ASMs,to strike key targets. LR Missiles like BMos will have ranges in the future of only around 800km max. Nirbhay is still a system in the works,and the Agni series are dedicated strat. deterrent weapons.Neither the Super Sukhoi,SU-57,or any other strike fighter around today can replace a dedicated strat. bomber,which could deliver both conventional PGMs plus N-weapons.
I add the fact that the PRC is fast establishing military bases around the IOR rim,from Djibouti,Gwadar,Hambantota,the E.African coast,W.African coast (!),Iran,all over the Indo-China Sea, with ambitions even in the Meditt. how will we be able to strike and destroy these bases from which our entire maritime trade,merchant fleet ,especially our oil and gas tankers will be at risk? We will have but just 2 CVs with limited aircraft aboard,plus our Kilo subs cannot carry more than 4 Klub/Kalibir missiles. The on-going Gaza spat shows that israel has had to make hundreds of repeated air strikes to deal with that pestilential entity and the job still hasn't been completed.

What aircraft we should acquire is left to the strat. defence planners. Even B-52s would be fine!
Forget the analysis part. First answer my question. Do you have any idea of India's current economic condition?

Because if you were aware of Indian economic conditions, you wouldn't have been suffering from delusions best suited to Superpowers(US and China).

Now coming back to your analysis. The biggest flaw in your analysis looks like that you want India to go toe to toe against China i.e match their every step and counter their every move wrt strategic and military situation. But without achieving any of the economic or educational or any other human development indicator that they have achieved. Let me remind you once again China's GDP is atleast five times bigger than India's which basically means that Chinese military has atleast five times the amount for spending anything that India does and that includes military spending. They are world's manufacturing powerhouse. In cutting edge fields of AI, Quantum Computing, biowar and cybersecurity they are atleast one decade ahead. Look up their steel and electricity production figures and compare with us.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Yes China needs to be countered, but India can do it successfully only by using asymmetric warfare potential. And if India follows your recommendations, then it will be committing the same mistake committed by your beloved Soviets in 1980's against the comprehensive national power of US, leading to their disintegration.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Good chance to take the new jets on a 6000+ mile journey and to participate in what is now the US's premium electronic warfare large force exercise.

U.S. Air Force’s new F-15EX fighters join Alaska training exercise

The U.S. Air Force’s latest fighter jet, the Boeing F-15EX Eagle II, participating in a joint training exercise hosted by U.S. Pacific Air Forces, according to 53rd Wing Public Affairs Advisor.

The 53rd Wing said in a statement that the first two F-15EX fighters – both 001 and 002 – have taken to the Alaska skies for Northern Edge 21 joint training exercise.

The purpose of the F-15EX’s participation in Northern Edge is to allow for immediate deep-end testing in a complex jamming environment to gather essential test data for what works and what needs improvement. This is critical to expose the F-15EX to this environment now to make changes early on and allow for an aggressive test and fielding timeline.

“At Northern Edge we’re assessing how the F-15EX can perform in a jamming environment, to include GPS, radar and Link 16 jamming,” said Maj. Aaron Eshkenazi, F-15EX pilot, 85th Test and Evaluation Squadron. “The other main goal is assessing the EX’s interoperability with fourth and fifth generation assets. With more than 60 aircraft airborne during every vul (vulnerability period – the period of time when an aircraft is vulnerable to harm) at Northern Edge, we’re putting the jet in the role it will perform in once it’s fielded, and seeing how it does. So far, it’s been performing really well.”


While at Northern Edge, F-15EX pilots, test engineers and others from both the 85th TES, 53rd Wing and 40th Flight Test Squadron, 96th Test Wing, are gathering test data points and accomplishing test objectives, to include:

-Performance of technological advancements and subsystems, such as the advanced cockpit system, large area displays, and the new helmet, the digital Helmet Mounted Cueing System for the F-15EX,
-Eagle Passive Active Warning Survivability System performance defending both the F-15EX itself and other joint fourth- and fifth- generation platforms,
-Overall radar performance, and
-Interoperability with other platforms.


“As an Air Force, we are charged by the CSAF, Gen. Brown, to accelerate change; by bringing the F-15EX to Northern Edge already, we are getting after that objective,” said Col. Ryan Messer, 53rd Wing Commander. “Northern Edge is the ideal initial stress test for the platform, and we are fully integrating it just like any other aircraft participating. The objective of operational test isn’t for everything to go perfectly, but to identify what needs improvement, and Northern Edge, with its opportunities for fourth-fifth generation integration in a complex range environment, will show us exactly that.”

Eshkenazi explained that the F-15EX is able to come to an exercise like Northern Edge and safely participate in an operationally complex and dynamic environment because it’s not an altogether new platform. Much of the initial testing typically required on a new platform was accomplished during flight test of the other versions of the F-15. This has also allowed for seamless integration between developmental and operational test between the 53rd Wing, 96th Test Wing, and the Air Force Reserve Command’s 84th Test and Evaluation Squadron.

“Getting F-15EXes to Northern Edge on time to support the exercise was a massive undertaking by all involved given the tight timelines between aircraft delivery and now,” said Maj. Brett Hughes, F-15EX pilot, 40th Flight Test Squadron. “Despite arriving at Eglin less than one and a half months ago, and less than two weeks ago for EX-2, both aircraft arrived in time for Northern Edge 21. This speaks volumes about the integrated test effort and the confidence we have in the platform to deliver combat capability from the start. The end of the exercise will represent just the beginning of EX testing, but proves the rapid test efforts of DT/OT integration and showcasing innovation through integration.”

During Northern Edge, some pilots are flying the F-15EX for just the second time ever, which showcases how smooth the transition is from the F-15C to the F-15EX. Furthermore, The F-15EX is flying with Suite 9.1 “X,” a version of Operational Flight Program Suite 9.1, which is comparable to Suite 9.1 “RR” that F-15Es and F-15Cs are currently testing and preparing to field.

NE21 is a U.S. Indo-Pacific Command exercise designed to provided high-end, realistic war fighter training, develop and improve joint interoperability, and enhance the combat readiness of participating forces. This is done by providing a venue for large force employment training and multi-domain operations; tactical training for the full spectrum of conflict; execute and advance adaptive basing joint tactics, techniques, and procedures; advance live-virtual-constructive capabilities; and support U.S. Indo-Pacific Command’s experimental initiatives. The F-15EX’s participation supports the development of many of these objectives.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Philip »

A fleet of around 8-12 strat. bombers IS an asymmetric way of dealing with the Chins in the IOR+! If we can lease Akula SSGNs,A-330 tankers,ASW helos,etc. surely we can lease a handful of strat. bombers.No one ,least of all I am asking for a head count equalling the numbers that the PLAAF have.
If our eco. situ can afford leasing a myriad of other eqpt., I forgot the minesweepers and maybe amphib. aircraft too, there's no reason why we can hugely enhance our maritime strike capability with supersonic bomber capability. Just 4 Backfires for example can deliver 40+ Backfires for example,can deliver 40+ LR ASMs,which would require a total of 40 BMos equipped MKIs,that too requiring tanker service to strike at PLAN targets in the Malacca Straits! Any ingressing Chin CBG-would be mauled by such a flight of bombers, mind you its no joke. USN intel says that the Chin base at Djibouti is being massively fortified with outer walls resembling the Great Wall of China, ports for defensive guns,etc.,and dockside and infra facilities able to accommodate aircraft carriers.

It is also looking for even more bases in Africa on both coasts with Tanzania as a target. The Sri Lankan SC has just given the green light for the Colombo Port City to be administered by the Chins as a virtually independent enclave where Lankan sovereignty rules will not apply, a defacto Chin colony right on our doorstep. Djibouti,Gwadar,H'tota/Colombo and perhaps Tanzania are going to be regular ports of call with base facilities for PLAN CBGs,subs and flotillas of its huge navy. The IN has to have the capability of striking hard at PLAN assets even before they attempt to ingress into the IOR and any Chin military base on the IOR littoral rim as well as in the vastness of the IO. PLAN warships and subs ,apart from their carrier strike aircraft,will be well armed with hundreds of LR missiles aimed at the IN and the Indian landmass and island territories. each of its latest heavy DDGs,the size of cruisers,can carry a cocktail of around 120 missiles.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2 ... e70ca4066a
The Chinese Navy’s Unusually Heavily Defended Fortress Near The Indian Ocean

PS:https://www.airforcemag.com/b-52s-simul ... 0operating.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

There is no asymmetric or niche long range "fighting" capability that one could acquire besides Intermediate ranged (or longer ranged) strategic weapons and naval platforms capable of launching cruise missiles. Buying a handful of bombers does not equate to having the capability of fighting long range battles or being able to put any significant effects downrange. To fight at very long range, you need the ability to do OCA and DCA at that range, escort non-survivable assets at that range, need long range persistent ISR to help find targets, and EW/ESM systems to support for both targeting and survivability. It is delusional to think that you can have any meaningful impact by just fielding a handful of long range aircraft (with questionable survivability) that are capable of launching stand off munitions. Besides the obvious limitations (and cost) of those munitions, you are still limited by your opponent's ability to deny you their use through a combination of OCA/DCA, EW/Cyber, C-ISR and other things. To fight at range, you have to counter each one of those roadblocks that your opponent can place for that capability to translate to a meaningful ability to put effects at range. Otherwise its a token capability, with lots of talk and little substance in the way of meaningful options to fight long range battles or to change the course of war.
Just 4 Backfires for example can deliver 40+ Backfires for example,can deliver 40+ LR ASMs,which would require a total of 40 BMos equipped MKIs,
Great. Now go find targets for them, find a way for them to sneak through each and every measure the enemy may have in place or then dramatically increase the tanker, and long range AEW fleet to allow platforms to escort them through this entire journey. And of course, have the ability to counter other CM's the Chinese will place to deny long range stand off targeting of their vital military infrastructure. This requires a very large logistical and ISR investment to execute properly. Not as easy as just buying half a dozen long range aircraft and calling it a day.
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by darshhan »

Philip wrote:A fleet of around 8-12 strat. bombers IS an asymmetric way of dealing with the Chins in the IOR+! If we can lease Akula SSGNs,A-330 tankers,ASW helos,etc. surely we can lease a handful of strat. bombers.No one ,least of all I am asking for a head count equalling the numbers that the PLAAF have.
If our eco. situ can afford leasing a myriad of other eqpt., I forgot the minesweepers and maybe amphib. aircraft too, there's no reason why we can hugely enhance our maritime strike capability with supersonic bomber capability. Just 4 Backfires for example can deliver 40+ Backfires for example,can deliver 40+ LR ASMs,which would require a total of 40 BMos equipped MKIs,that too requiring tanker service to strike at PLAN targets in the Malacca Straits! Any ingressing Chin CBG-would be mauled by such a flight of bombers, mind you its no joke. USN intel says that the Chin base at Djibouti is being massively fortified with outer walls resembling the Great Wall of China, ports for defensive guns,etc.,and dockside and infra facilities able to accommodate aircraft carriers.

It is also looking for even more bases in Africa on both coasts with Tanzania as a target. The Sri Lankan SC has just given the green light for the Colombo Port City to be administered by the Chins as a virtually independent enclave where Lankan sovereignty rules will not apply, a defacto Chin colony right on our doorstep. Djibouti,Gwadar,H'tota/Colombo and perhaps Tanzania are going to be regular ports of call with base facilities for PLAN CBGs,subs and flotillas of its huge navy. The IN has to have the capability of striking hard at PLAN assets even before they attempt to ingress into the IOR and any Chin military base on the IOR littoral rim as well as in the vastness of the IO. PLAN warships and subs ,apart from their carrier strike aircraft,will be well armed with hundreds of LR missiles aimed at the IN and the Indian landmass and island territories. each of its latest heavy DDGs,the size of cruisers,can carry a cocktail of around 120 missiles.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2 ... e70ca4066a
The Chinese Navy’s Unusually Heavily Defended Fortress Near The Indian Ocean

PS:https://www.airforcemag.com/b-52s-simul ... 0operating.
I am not going to argue much with you. But I have some advice for you.
1.Your Platform centric views are irrelevant in today's actual warfighting scenario.

2. Stop using national interest articles as reference documents for discussions on defence technology and tactics.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Philip »

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/05/arm ... -howitzer/
Xcpts:
Army Tries Out Humvee-Mounted Howitzer
How do you safely fire a 105 mm cannon off the back of a Humvee? With a unique recoil-reduction system.

By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.
on May 18, 2021 at 2:28 PM
Breaking Media video still
A Humvee mounting a low-recoil 105 mm howitzer

WASHINGTON: The Army is checking out two sizes of a unique low-recoil howitzer system: a 155mm gun on a 6×6 truck, Brutus, and a 105mm on a 4×4 Humvee, Hawkeye. That’s an extraordinarily small vehicle to mount an artillery piece, and reducing recoil is the key to making it work.

The “soft recoil” system was developed by Mandus Group and integrated on vehicles by Humvee manufacturer AM General. By shifting the howitzer barrel forward and installing better hydraulics, the system reduces the recoil – depending on the elevation and range of the shot – anywhere from 40 to 60 percent, AM General CEO Andy Hove told me.

If you cut the recoil in half, the whole artillery system need be only half as heavy to absorb the stock, Hove went on. “You can save a tremendous amount of weight,” he said, which translates into a cheaper, lighter vehicle, with lower fuel and maintenance costs, that’s easier to deploy abroad and sustain in the field.

“Just on the gun itself, the soft recoil system has fewer operating parts that need to be maintained than the current recoil system,” he told me – and they’re under much less strain, so they’ll break down less.

The soft-recoil system scales up and down, so there are actually two versions.

The 155mm model, called Brutus, was touted as a contender for the Army’s new wheeled howitzer, meant to accompany highly mobile 8×8 Stryker vehicles into battle. Currently, Stryker units rely on towed 155s, which are much less mobile and take much more time to set up than self-propelled versions. The Army’s currently conducting an informal “shoot off” of four alternative wheeled howitzers; the reported contenders are American (AM General’s Brutus), Israeli (Elbit’s Iron Saber), Swedish (BAE’s Archer), and even Serbian (Yugoimport’s NORA).

The 105mm model, called Hawkeye, would presumably accompany light infantry units, which mostly move on foot and have a handful of vehicles, including trucks to tow artillery. When the company first rolled Hawkeye out in 2016, it emphasized the international market, because the US wasn’t pursuing such a vehicle. But this morning, AM General announced that it “recently received a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract from the United States Army to provide two HUMVEE 2-CT Hawkeye Mobile Howitzer Systems (MHS) for the U.S. Army’s characterization test.”
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

Will add more info when I get some time

This vid was uploaded a few hours ago

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

Here is an example of the changes that all US Services face while dealing with SCS. Some are starting ground up.

Army SOF Units Are Getting Smaller, More Self-Reliant as Focus Shifts to China, Russia
As the United States pivots away from the Middle East to face China and Russia, U.S. Special Operations Command will need new capabilities in the electromagnetic spectrum, new highly autonomous small drones for reconnaissance and strike, new night vision, and small computers. But special operators themselves will also need to become more technologically competent as they face more high-tech adversaries.

.........
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Manish_Sharma »

US Air Force’s sixth generation fighter engine completes testing

19 MAY 2021 • In News
A new engine that will power the F-35 and the US Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) programme has completed testing.

The GE engine, called XA100, uses an adaptive cycle design that provides a high-thrust mode for maximum power and a high-efficiency mode for fuel savings and loiter time.

NGAD is a family of systems currently in development by USAF and industry partners. At the centre of this programme is a sixth generation fighter to replace the F-22 (commonly referred to as F-X). Last September it was revealed that the fighter had been designed, developed and tested in the space of a year and flown.

GE initiated testing of the engine at its Evendale, Ohio, altitude test facility in December last year. The engine’s performance and mechanical behaviour were consistent with pre-test predictions and fully aligned with USAF’s Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP) objectives.

GE says this successful test validates the ability of the engine to deliver “transformational propulsion capability” to fighter aircraft.

“We were exceptionally pleased with how the engine performed throughout the test,” said David Tweedie, GE Edison Works’ general manager for advanced combat engines. “Bringing a new centreline fighter engine to test for the first time is a challenging endeavour, and this success is a testament to the great team that worked so hard to get us here. We’re looking forward to working with the Air Force and other stakeholders to identify the next steps toward bringing this revolutionary capability out of the test cell and into the hands of the warfighter.”

Key innovations of the XA100-GE-100 engineAn adaptive engine cycle that provides both a high-thrust mode for maximum power and a high-efficiency mode for optimum fuel savings and loiter timeA third-stream architecture that provides a step-change in thermal management capability, enabling future mission systems for increased combat effectivenessExtensive use of advanced component technologies, including ceramic matrix composites (CMC), polymer matrix composites (PMC), and additive manufacturing

These innovations increase thrust 10%, improve fuel efficiency by 25%, and provide significantly more aircraft heat dissipation capacity, all within the same physical envelope as current propulsion systems.

Assembly of GE’s second prototype XA100 engine is well underway, with testing on that engine expected to begin later in 2021. Once complete, that will conclude the major deliverables of the AETP program.

The XA100 is a product of GE Edison Works, a business unit dedicated to the research, development, and production of advanced military solutions. This business unit has full responsibility for strategy, innovation, and execution of advanced programmes.
https://www.aero-mag.com/next-generatio ... -19052021/
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Manish_P »

brar_w wrote:... It is delusional to think that you can have any meaningful impact by just fielding a handful of long range aircraft (with questionable survivability) that are capable of launching stand off munitions. Besides the obvious limitations (and cost) of those munitions, you are still limited by your opponent's ability to deny you their use through a combination of OCA/DCA, EW/Cyber, C-ISR and other things. To fight at range, you have to counter each one of those roadblocks that your opponent can place for that capability to translate to a meaningful ability to put effects at range. Otherwise its a token capability, with lots of talk and little substance in the way of meaningful options to fight long range battles or to change the course of war.....
Exactly and precisely put. If there are just the token 6 or 12 aircraft, then the name White Elephants will be more appropriate than White Swans. Anyway I have not really understood the thought process behind 'we must have long range bombers to counter their long range bombers'...
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Manish_Sharma wrote:US Air Force’s sixth generation fighter engine completes testing

19 MAY 2021 • In News

A new engine that will power the F-35 and the US Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) programme has completed testing.
I see this mistake being made by a number of news outlets. This engine will not power NGAD. When the adaptive engine technology development and subsequent demonstrator engine (transition of tech from lab to actual full fledged engines) programs were set up, the NGAD program was still being stood up and had no defined requirements (you can't build an engine without knowing the overall requirements for the aircraft, its power and thermal margins, weight, and other performance requirements). Not wanting to have the overall program slow down engine development, the US Air Force at the time required P&W and GE to develop an adaptive variable cycle engine that could be a drop in replacement for the F-135 on the F-35, with a scalable core that could be used to create an engine for both NGAD, and an F-22A upgrade if required. If the B-21 uses some sort of non-AB version of the F-135 (still no clarity on this), then this could be an option for B-21 as well.

Meanwhile, as this current adaptive engine program has led to GE rolling out the first engine and P&W getting ready to roll out their 3 engines as well, the "actual" NGAD adaptive engine program has been stood up which will use this technology and branch it into a formal engine program to power the future 6th gen. fighter.

The adaptive/Next-gen engine for the NGAD is being developed under the Next Gen Adaptive Propulsion effort (NGAP).

Budget Shows Flightworthy Sixth-Generation Fighter Engines Ready By 2025

Details of the first of two mostly secret initiatives to support the U.S. Air Force’s five-year-old pursuit of a sixth-generation successor to the Lockheed Martin F-22 are now released and reveal that a critical technology for the Next-Generation Air Dominance program could become flightworthy by mid-2025.

GE Aviation and Pratt & Whitney are scheduled to complete separate competitive designs for a Next-Generation Adaptive Propulsion (NGAP) system by the second quarter of 2022 and finish assessments on a full-scale engine three years later, according to Air Force budget documents.
For the most part, NGAP takes the technology developed during ADVENT, AETD, and demonstrated with the AETD and AETP efforts, and sizes a new engine for the program requirements. It will likely be an F-119 class engine though with significantly more thrust, higher efficiency and more cooling contribution to the overall thermals of the aircraft.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Philip wrote:The cost of a single PW F-135 engine amounts to approx. $16.2 M for a 40K thrust engine.
The latest contract has the F-135 CTOL unit cost at $12.5 Million (goal to get to $10.5 Million at FRP), for a 43,000 lb thrust class engine, Low observable nozzle, and other LO features that are included in the propulsion package (delivered by one supplier as one complete system). For reference, these 5th gen. fighter engines cost about 40% more than their previous generation modular counterparts (adjusted for similar thrust class) not built to the same requirements (around signature). Given that the single engine F-35 generates significantly more power compared to the twin engined heavy F-15 C or E, or even the twin engine F-22A, the premium for the propulsion solution is probably warranted especially with how it gels with the rest of the power and thermal sub-systems.

As per the latest fiscal year negotiated contract (which was signed last year), the F-35A Fly-Away cost is approximately $78 Million out of which roughly 15% is the cost of propulsion.

Image
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/AlexHollings52/stat ... 5728803845
James H. Flatley III is the only person ever to land a C-130 aboard an aircraft carrier, but he didn't just do it once. He did it 21 times... and proved these planes could operate from the Navy's flattops if they had to.

THE NAVY’S PLAN TO FLY THE C-130 OFF AIRCRAFT CARRIERS (THAT WORKED)
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 latest night-vision tech looks like something out of a video game

Unable to embed a vid
By
Dalvin Brown
May 24, 2021 at 9:18 a.m. CDT
The Army is training with futuristic night-vision goggles that transform lurking in the dark into a video-game-like experience.

The armed forces have released a stream of videos this year showing soldiers, objects and locations after dark outlined in a glowing white light. The footage looks like scenes from role-playing video games such as “Halo,” but it actually shows what the world looks like through the military’s new Enhanced Night Vision Goggle-Binocular (ENVG-B).

The product is part of a years-long push to modernize tools the military uses, officials say. The helmet-mounted device, loaded with thermal imaging and augmented reality capabilities, introduces technology found in smartphones and gaming systems to traditional night-vision hardware.

“It brings in gaming capabilities that kids are used to from video games. Now, they’re getting to use those when they join our military forces,” said Erik Fox, vice president and general manager at Elbit Systems of America – Night Vision, the company behind the devices. The firm is owned by Israel’s Elbit Systems, an international defense electronics company.

The goggles represent a shift away from the green-washed imagery typical of traditional night equipment, which can cause eyestrain and fatigue. The new image is easier on the eyes and provides more clarity, making targets easier to spot through clouds of smoke and in low-visibility weather.

“Night-vision goggles with the green tint seems cool and all, until you’ve actually been wearing those all night,” said Blake Gaughan, infantry platoon leader at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington state. “If you’re running continuous night operations, it just gives you a headache.” He has used the new goggles and is helping train others on how they work.

Image
Here's the type of imagery soldiers might see through the Army's enhanced night-vision goggles. (Elbit)

The new night-vision capabilities take center stage in several videos and screenshots posted online by the military combat squad the Lancer Brigade. In one video, soldiers are lit up under the night sky as they load ammunition into a machine gun for weapons training. In one series of photos, the soldiers are clearly outlined against a concrete wall at night.

Elbit began shipping the goggles to the Army last year in a deal worth up to $422 million for enhanced night-vision systems. The company, based in Roanoke, specializes in electronics for homeland security and says its next-generation binoculars infuse the latest in connectivity with old vacuum tube technology found in black-and-white TVs.

The military’s new gadget works by amplifying existing light, either from the moon, stars or sources on the ground. The device senses tiny amounts of photons reflected off seemingly dark objects. Then, the photons pass over an internal surface engineered to convert light into electrons. The electrons are amplified by striking a quarter-sized glass plate that has millions of tiny holes in it. Then, they pass a screen coated with phosphor, a fluorescent substance, to create an image.

Traditionally, a green phosphor is used, which is why green-hued night-vision imagery is well-known. But Elbit’s latest device uses white phosphor, producing black-and-white images, which officers say creates more contrast and greater clarity at night.

“Generally, when you think of night goggles, you think of ambient green light, which is helpful, but this is an improvement on that and allows for better accuracy,” said Daniel Mathews, public affairs officer for the Lancer Brigade.

Image
Elbit's enhanced night-vision goggles have thermal imaging and augmented reality capabilities. (Elbit)

The Army’s latest goggles include an outline mode, which creates glowing white outlines. There’s an augmented reality overlay that can display navigation instructions and maps. The goggles can also connect wirelessly to others in the platoon, so if a soldier spots something, they can mark that object in cyberspace and have it show up on other people’s binoculars.

The upgrade was built with an adjustable intensity tool that works in the daylight, where previous generations couldn’t.

“With a lot of the older models, if a flash bang went off, or if there was a bright light, you would be almost blind because the binoculars were taking in all that light,” Mathews said. “These have the ability to adjust, so you can use these during the day at dusk.”

And it’s not just the Army suiting up with next-level night-vision systems. The Marines also recruited Elbit to replace its night-vision tech with a pair of binoculars for greater depth perception. The project began in 2019 to replace the military branches’ old monocular system with updated binoculars.

The monocular goggles meant troops could see only nighttime imagery through one eye. And in April, the Marines announced that Elbit would upgrade its night-vision goggles through 2022. Part of that deal includes a helmet clip-on that detects infrared energy and enables troops to see thermal images.

The Army’s version has the heat-imaging system built in, and it outlines objects giving off heat in orange, making enemies in the field easier to spot, soldiers say.

The Army is deploying the goggles on a rolling basis.

“It’s a new piece of tech, and we want to make sure everyone has time to get properly trained” on how each of the modes work, said Gaughan, an infantry soldier who leads a battalion in Washington state. “It’s an ongoing process to get people properly trained rather than just handing them all out.”

Outdoor enthusiasts, hunters and survivalists can buy goggles powered by Elbit’s tech, too. The company supplies its technology to California-based US Night Vision, a corporation offering night vision goggles online for $11,800. Elbit’s tech is also used in goggles sold by Pennsylvania-based Night Vision Devices, which lists goggles online for about $7,500 plus additional costs for batteries and accessories.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Small Diameter Bombs Collaborate in Golden Horde Test

The munitions established communications with each other and a ground station using the L3Harris Banshee 2 radio network and then reacted to a new high-priority target.

The In-Flight Target Update demonstrated “the ability of Golden Horde weapons to interface with the larger joint all-domain command and control network,” AFRL said. This capability is key to developing future “networked, collaborative, and autonomous,” or NCA weapons, according to a press release.

The new mission called for two of the weapons to make a synchronized time-on-target attack on a single location, while two other munitions made synchronized attacks on two targets, something that had previously been tested.

The synchronized time on target algorithm, supplied by Georgia Tech Research Institute, “was able to flexibly support the new target requirement without any software changes,” the AFRL said.

AFRL Commander Maj. Gen. Heather L. Pringle said the test is a technological leap not unlike the advent of laser-guided bombs in the 1960s.
https://www.airforcemag.com/small-diame ... orde-test/
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by kit »

NRao wrote: Will add more info when I get some time

This vid was uploaded a few hours ago

the factory in a box is quite intriguing and interesting., just for example think such a factory being on orbit or the moon., Not too farfetched to think of scenarios of a full-blown space-based arsenals!
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

Army Takes Delivery of RCV Prototypes
The U.S. Army has taken delivery of eight Robotic Combat Vehicle (RCV) prototypes that will be used in a series of Soldier Touchpoints to further the Army’s Campaign of Learning.

The fourth and final RCV (Medium) prototype was delivered to the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command (DEVCOM) Ground Vehicle Systems Center (GVSC), which is based at the Detroit Arsenal, Michigan, on May 13th. GVSC previously took delivery of four RCV (Light) prototypes in December 2020.

“These prototypes have been purposely built utilizing what we have learned to date with RCVs and to give us an opportunity to further drive the RCV Campaign of Learning. The prototypes will be used by Soldiers in operational experiments to develop the tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP) that our Brigade Combat Teams will utilize to bring new levels of lethality to our forces through the combining of Manned and Un-Manned Teams (MUM-T),” said Maj. Gen. Ross Coffman, director of the Next Generation Combat Vehicles Cross-Functional Team.

While all of the variants are payload agnostic and can be equipped with a variety of modular mission payloads – such as Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear detection kits, smoke obscuration modules, electronic warfare and various weapon systems – the Light variant, under 10 tons, could likely support reconnaissance-related missions; the Medium, under 15 tons, could support direct fire augmentation; and the Heavy, 20-25 tons, could bring decisive lethality to its assigned unit.

With the RCVs now in government possession, work has begun to integrate autonomy on the systems, pair them with their manned control vehicle, and the move on to shake-out testing to prepare the vehicles for a Soldier Operational Experiment (SOE) to be held in summer 2022.

“We’re excited about the delivery of the final RCV (M) prototype,” said GVSC Director Mike Cadieux. “The work we’re doing collaboratively with the vendors, with industry, to integrate our Government owned and managed autonomy software onto these platforms is, I think, an ideal model for giving our colleagues and customers, and ultimately the Soldiers, confidence that the vehicles are being developed the right way.”

This summer both the RCV (L) and RCV (M) vehicles will undergo shakedown testing individually, in operations together, and eventually combined with the ground vehicle capability testbed, the Mission Enabling Technologies Demonstrators (MET-D) that serve as the RCV control vehicles during testing. MET-Ds are technology development tools that help the Army to evaluate emerging technology in a relevant tactical environment and decide if the new technology is worth integrating on new or legacy combat platforms.

In addition to the RCV (L) and (M) prototypes, the Army will utilize four specially equipped M113s to serve as RCV surrogates to shape and inform the future RCV effort with simulated larger caliber weapons systems. These RCV surrogates will couple with both the RCV (M) and RCV (L) to create the Army’s first Manned Unmanned-Teaming company during next summer’s SOE. During this experiment, Soldiers from the First Cavalry Division will employ the MUM-T company in offensive and defensive missions against a near-peer opposing force and conduct a live fire exercise as the culminating event.

“Taking these robotic vehicles to the field and getting real-time Soldier feedback as they operate simultaneously with all of the supporting capabilities that are required for success: this is what our Engineers really look forward to,” said Cadieux.

Brig. Gen. Glenn Dean, Program Executive Officer, Ground Combat Systems, highlighted the importance of collecting Soldier inputs not only to develop the TTPs for use of RCVs, but to further refine future requirements for the systems themselves.

“Utilizing Soldier inputs with these prototypes, while Government and industry engineers are out in the dirt alongside the Soldiers, allows us to ensure that when we move toward a production vehicle, we have all that input built into the system from the ground up,” Dean said. “We learned a lot by listening to our Soldiers during the Phase I SOE in the summer of 2020 at Fort Carson, using surrogate systems. The use of purpose-built, experimental prototypes in the Phase II SOE will increase our learning exponentially.”

Upon completion of the Phase II SOE, the Army team will make further refinements on the prototype and surrogate vehicles and then commence upon a Phase III cycle that would include an SOE in FY26. Decisions about Army acquisition and fielding of RCVs would be made following Phase III.
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by darshhan »

brar_w wrote:Small Diameter Bombs Collaborate in Golden Horde Test

The munitions established communications with each other and a ground station using the L3Harris Banshee 2 radio network and then reacted to a new high-priority target.

The In-Flight Target Update demonstrated “the ability of Golden Horde weapons to interface with the larger joint all-domain command and control network,” AFRL said. This capability is key to developing future “networked, collaborative, and autonomous,” or NCA weapons, according to a press release.

The new mission called for two of the weapons to make a synchronized time-on-target attack on a single location, while two other munitions made synchronized attacks on two targets, something that had previously been tested.

The synchronized time on target algorithm, supplied by Georgia Tech Research Institute, “was able to flexibly support the new target requirement without any software changes,” the AFRL said.

AFRL Commander Maj. Gen. Heather L. Pringle said the test is a technological leap not unlike the advent of laser-guided bombs in the 1960s.
https://www.airforcemag.com/small-diame ... orde-test/
US inventory of SDB munitions will now become much more potent. This development will also give them capability to better overcome the enemy's air defence systems.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

This was just a proof of concept demonstration but yes, the next step would be to add these communication and processing systems into the SEAD version of the SDB (The one with a HOJ seeker) at least. It will benefit new clean sheet munition designs (GBU-X like systems) the most.
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 »

When people do not talk to each other:

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

NRao wrote:When people do not talk to each other:

Image
This is not a case of lack of communication or miscommunication or anything of that sort. HAWC requirements evolved from the X-51 program (where the USAF was the requirements driver with DARPA, and NASA as the other main providers). It was an Air Force requirement set to develop not just a demonstrator air-vehicle to test the propulsion set (which is what the X-51 basically was) , but a full up weapon demonstrator for an Air launched cruise missile powered by a scramjet engine. USAF built the requirements for its fleet and AFRL led the program initiation. When they were short of funding, DARPA came in and pitched in 50% of the funding shortfall making it an AFRL-DARPA program with requirements set by the former and the effort being managed as part of the broader TTO portfolio that included other hypersonic efforts. Why would the USAF constrain its program to a naval requirement when the US Navy was not interested, never had any requirements for such a weapon demonstrator, nor was interested in putting any money down for a joint program? It just adds complexity, cost, and schedule and has no chance of surviving scrutiny because the interested party (US Navy) was not committed to funding such a demonstrator activity at the time. It would be dumb for the USAF to pay the cost (in terms of $, risk, and design trades) for the Navy's requirements when the service was not interested in such a thing at all. So the AF sized the requirements to meet its need (logical for an AF only program) and partnered with DARPA to develop and demonstrate it. From the very beginning, the customer for the TTO was the USAF with AFRL as the transition customer. If the USAF was to unilaterally size its requirements to naval needs then it would basically have zero heavy weapons that are not suitable for a CVN to support. Not to mention the dramatic cost increases in things like a future HPM weapon or even the LRSO.

Fast forward to today, the Navy has recently completed a couple of AOA's for its next generation of strike weapons - both air and ship launched. So logically, taking a look at what the USAF and DARPA has in the works, and seeing if that can be modified to meet the Navy's requirements is a good place to start. That, along with some other promising technology tracks, is what the Navy program has been doing. In fact, a Naval Tactical Boost Glide system was also part of the DARPA contract modification a couple of years ago. That program too started off with a USAF-RL requirement with DARPA as a 50% partner. Around FY-19 the OSD directed DARPA to consider if a naval application could be derived from the technology which DARPA is doing.

Developing a US Navy specific booster for HAWC is a good place to explore. This wasn't too different from the USAF's HCSW (HACKSAW) effort (now paused), where the Common Glide Body was being shared by all three services, with the Navy and Army developing one booster (for land, ship and submarine launch), and the USAF developing a smaller booster for its Air Launched application.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Lockheed aims to produce 169 F-35 fighter jets in 2022

Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) aims to produce and deliver about 169 F-35 fighter jets in 2022, the U.S. weapons maker said on Wednesday at a conference hosted by brokerage Bernstein.

The company said it expects the production rate for the jets to eventually plateau at about 175 aircraft per year after 2022, based on the demand by the United States government and partner countries. read more

Lockheed's decision to enter full rate production for the jets has been delayed as the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted operations at aircraft manufacturers and their supply chains. The company is expected to deliver between 133 and 139 jets in 2021.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Rapid Dragon experimentation campaign evaluates delivering long-range strike weapons via military cargo aircraft at Northern Edge 21

The Air Force Rapid Dragon Experimentation Program, along with partners from Air Force Special Operations Command, have successfully demonstrated beyond-line-of-sight (BLOS) Command and Control of a Palletized Weapon System. This milestone was achieved while participating in U.S. Indo-Pacific Command’s Northern Edge’21 exercise.

The operational utility of delivering long-range strike weapons en masse from military cargo aircraft is being assessed through the fast-paced experimentation campaign known as Rapid Dragon and is led by the Air Force Strategic Development Planning and Experimentation Office at the Air Force Research Laboratory.

The Rapid Dragon Program demonstrated the ability to transfer targeting data from the Standoff Munitions Applications Center (SMAC) to an airborne [AFSOC] aircraft,” said Dr. Dean Evans, Rapid Dragon program manager. “The data assigned a new routing and target to the on-board munition emulator, which set in motion the virtual launch of a ‘palletized’ Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM-ER) missile. Lockheed Martin Missiles & Fire Control, R4 Integration, SMAC, and Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren were integral to the success of this first-ever dynamic targeting capability.”

During this operational demonstration, which simulated the “closing of the kill chain,” an off-board sensor identified an emerging target and provided the location to the All Domain Operations Center-Experiment (ADOC-E). ADOC-E directed SMAC to dynamically retarget the palletized missiles, which was accomplished via BLOS communications. ADOC-E simultaneously directed the aircraft to proceed to the new simulated release area. Onboard the MC-130J, the JASSM-ER emulator achieved all-up-round (AUR) status, demonstrating the ability to strike the new targets in accordance with the updated orders.

According to Evans, a unique aspect of this demonstration is the retargeting took full advantage of the JASSM’s capabilities for survivability and precision strike, previously only available in missiles with missions planned before aircraft takeoff.

“This enhanced capability can provide combatant commanders additional targeting flexibility and control in the prosecution of the high-end fight. Additionally, the retargeting methodology used is transferrable to other strike platforms, potentially making all JASSM-capable strike assets more lethal in an increasingly complicated and dynamic near-peer conflict,” Evans said.

Achieving this milestone paves the way for the next flight test this summer, where SDPE will conduct a system level jettison test from an AFSOC MC-130J and an Air Mobility Command C-17. The current phase of the program will conduct a live munition test of this new capability by the end of the year.

Rapid Dragon offers a roll-on, roll-off capability that uses standard airdrop procedures without any modifications to the aircraft, thus transforming mobility aircraft into lethal strike weapon platforms that augment the strike capacity of tactical fighters and strategic bombers.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

First time that an unmanned refueling aircraft has successfully refuelled another manned/unmanned aircraft. The X-47B was able to receive fuel from a tanker but it never demonstrated the ability to offload fuel to another type (though Northrop did at one point do some internal ground testing with external pods before deciding to not offer the X-47 for the MQ-25 program).

MQ-25A Unmanned Aerial Tanker Refuels F/A-18 Hornet in Successful First Test


Image

Image
“During the flight, the receiver Navy F/A-18 Hornet approached the Boeing-owned MQ-25 T1 test asset, conducted a formation evaluation, wake survey, drogue tracking and then plugged with the unmanned aircraft. T1 then successfully transferred fuel from its Aerial Refueling Store (ARS) to the F/A-18.”

“The milestone comes after 25 T1 flights, testing both aircraft and ARS aerodynamics across the flight envelope, as well as extensive simulations of aerial refueling using MQ-25 digital models. MQ-25 T1 will continue flight testing prior to being shipped to Norfolk, Virginia, for deck handling trials aboard a U.S. Navy carrier later this year.”

“This flight lays the foundation for integration into the carrier environment, allowing for greater capability toward manned-unmanned teaming concepts,” Rear Adm. Brian Corey, head of the Program Executive Office for Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons said in a Monday statement. “MQ-25 will greatly increase the range and endurance of the future carrier air wing – equipping our aircraft carriers with additional assets well into the future.”

The company won a $805 million contract to build the first four Stingrays, beating out Boeing and Lockheed Martin to develop the unmanned carrier tanker. Last year, the Navy exercised a $84.7 million contract to buy three more.

The service is set to buy 72 of the MQ-25As for $1.3 billion.

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

These will field a significantly more capable ship compared to the Flight II destroyers currently in service - SPY-6 radar, SEWIP Block 3, upgraded SPQ-9B's (to be replaced by FXR in the future), and improved interceptors in the SM-2 IIA, SM-6 1B, SM-2 IIIC and ESSM-Blk II. 14 Flight III's have been approved for construction, 12+ additional ships planned in the FY-22-2028 timeframe.

First DDG-51 Flight III Destroyer Launched at HII
The first DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer to be built in the Flight III configuration, the future Jack H. Lucas (DDG 125), was successfully launched at Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), Ingalls Shipbuilding division, June 4.
..

Flight III destroyers will have improved capability and capacity to perform Anti-Air Warfare and Ballistic Missile Defense in support of the Integrated Air and Missile Defense mission. This system delivers quick reaction time, high firepower, and increased electronic countermeasures capability for Anti-Air Warfare.

The Flight III design contains modifications from the earlier DDG 51 class, to enable the SPY-6 radar, in association with Aegis Baseline 10, which includes larger electronically scanned arrays and the power generation and cooling equipment required to operate the powerful new radar.
Image

Image
Post Reply