Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

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.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33728
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby shiv » 25 Aug 2015 06:44

The background reasons for starting this thread are explained in a post I made yesterday in the love and romance forum, which please read at the link below
viewtopic.php?p=1890624#p1890624

The US military and US mil tech is too big to be ignored or relegated to an "International Military discussion" thread. Heck even Myanmar and Congo military are "international military". US technology, hardware and geopolitics affects 100% of the world and one consequence of that is that there is an American answer and an American viewpoint to anything military. For any given article or book on say "Submarines in the Indian navy" we can find 100 books from America, As a result what gets discussed is an American viewpoint. It is important to note that there is an American viewpoint and a non American viewpoint. There are those who have fought against US weapons and lived to tell the tale. There are others who use US weapons but do not have full-broadside support of all US weapons the way the US uses them and therefore cannot fight a war just like the US despite using US weapons. For example in a war the US may have used F-117s and sub-launched Tomahawks for initial SEAD followed by F-16s. Pakistan has F-16s but will not be able to commence war with F-117s and Tomahawks.

We must acknowledge that the US is important and dominating, but we also need to acknowledge that US tactics and methods cannot be used by all for various reasons.

On BRF discussions we find people filling up forum space with US tech, weapons and tactics on every thread and this only adds to the US's heavy and dominant presence in information space - but for anyone who has followed Indian military history a lot of the stuff that is posted is both irrelevant and misleading and a lot of people simply do not understand why this might be so. Discussing US stuff may not be wrong and needs to find a place on the forum - but dumping US info on the missiles thread, the submarines thread, the aviation thread, the small arms thread simply swallows up the little info available about Indian movement and development and simply highlights the US viewpoint with no one being wiser about an Indian perspective. In other words those who know the Indian perspective know. Those who don't will never find out on BRF. Those who know an Indian perspective find no place for their voice on BRF and simply stop visiting, while BRF becomes a discussion forum for internet jingos talking about the latest and greatest about what the US is doing. That is not right for a forum that was started to further knowledge about the Indian military and Indian military history

BRF must evolve and find space for people who wish to discuss different things and yet retain space for discussion of Indian military stuff. I am starting this thread hoping that anyone who wishes to share information or discuss about US weapons, tactics and technology will use this thread to discuss something that cannot be ignored or stonewalled.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33728
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby shiv » 25 Aug 2015 06:57

Just one afterthought. We have a China and a Pakistan military watch. That is too local and too restricted in a world where 100% of countries are using US or Russian sourced arms. The Strat forum has taken the lead and we now have dedicated thread to discuss Indian relations with Japan, Korea, EU, Myanmar etc.

I think this forum too needs to loosen up and allow important military developments from major military tech producing countries to be discussed under an appropriate heading

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33728
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby shiv » 31 Aug 2015 19:17

Cross post - but is this news item even true?
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /71336130/
WASHINGTON — To gauge the joint strike fighter's ability to perform in a close-air support role, the Pentagon's top weapons tester has declared the sleek new fighter jet must face off against the lumbering A-10.

The Pentagon's Office of Operational Test and Evaluation plans to pit the full-up F-35 against the legacy A-10 Warthog and potentially other fighter jets to evaluate the next-generation aircraft's ability to protect soldiers on the ground. The tests will identify the assets the F-35 brings to the close-in fight, and where it falls short compared to legacy planes, according to DOT&E chief Michael Gilmore.

"The comparison tests on the close-air support mission will reveal how well the F-35 performs and whether there are gaps, or improvements in capability, compared to the A-10," Gilmore told reporters during an Aug. 27 gathering at the Pentagon. "There are going to be differences, absolutely, in the way the F-35 conducts CAS in comparison to the A-10, and that's yet another reason to do this comparison test, to understand what those differences mean."

The comparative tests are slated to take place in 2018 during the formal initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) phase of F-35 development, Gilmore said. The exercises will use the F-35's final Block 3F software, which provides the jet's full combat capability, he noted.

During the test period, DOT&E will send out F-35 formations and A-10 formations separately to conduct the same close-air support missions, Gilmore said. The team will vary the threat to better understand the advantages and disadvantages of each aircraft in battle, he continued.

DOT&E is also looking into the merits of testing the F-35 against other aircraft that perform the CAS mission, for instance the F-15 Eagle, Gilmore said.

"We're looking at all the missions and where it would make sense to do comparison testing and where it wouldn't, and we're going to be working with the services to develop that plan," Gilmore said. "I expect there will be comparison testing against other aircraft; I'm just not prepared at this point to tell you exactly which ones."

The planned comparative tests are not unprecedented, Gilmore noted. DOT&E conducted similar trials, between the F-22 Raptor and the F-15, during the Raptor's IOT&E, he said. These tests are crucial in determining the capability gaps of these complex new systems.

"You can't guess at what the improvements are, you can't guess at what the capability gaps are when we bring on these new complex systems," Gilmore said. "Our experience in operational testing has shown repeatedly — and in fact the F-15C [vs] F-22 comparative testing demonstrated -- that it's really not wise to guess."

DOT&E chose to pit the F-35 against the A-10, specifically, because the F-35's requirements directly state the next-generation plane will eventually replace the aging A-10 in a close-air support role, Gilmore said.

Gilmore said he expects the tests will show that in some scenarios the F-35 performs better, while in others the A-10 has the edge.

The single-mission A-10 is perfectly suited for the CAS mission in non-contested airspace, for instance in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Teal Group analyst Richard Aboulafia. The Warthog carries a wide range of ordnance, and can fly low and slow — unlike the F-35, which relies on its advanced technology to provide the pilot enhanced situational awareness of the entire battlespace.

"Can [the F-35] do close air support? Sure," Aboulafia said. "But there's nothing like an A-10 in a world where nothing shoots back."

Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch, deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, agreed the comparative tests may reveal shortcomings in the F-35's capabilities at that stage in its development.

"I do not doubt that there will be some areas in maybe a permissive environment where the A-10 may be able to do certain things that the F-35 at that stage of its development may not be able to," Bunch said during the Aug. 27 gathering. "We will utilize all of the resources that we have to be able to meet that CAS requirement if we find out that the F-35 is unable to do that at that point."

But JSF is designed to take advantage of modern technology early A-10 pilots never dreamed of, its proponents say. The fighter jet is equipped with advanced stealth, integrated avionics and an integrated sensor package. Meanwhile, the plane's groundbreaking new helmet provides a 360-degree digital view of what's going on around the aircraft, essentially letting the pilot "look through" the cockpit floor and walls.

"The helmet is much more than a helmet — the helmet is a workspace," Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said during an Aug. 24 press conference at the Pentagon. "It's an interpretation of the battlespace, it's situational awareness. Calling this thing a helmet is really — we've got to come up with a new word."

Meanwhile, the F-35 has proved its ability to conduct close-air support missions at night and during the day, Joint Program Office spokesman Joe DellaVedova said earlier this month.

However, Welsh noted the Air Force never intended to use the multirole fighter jet as a direct replacement for the A-10, which is a single-mission platform dedicated to close-in attack.

"The idea that the F-35 is going to walk in this door next year when it [reaches initial operational capability] and take over for the A-10 is just silly," Welsh said. "It has never been our intent and we've never said that, so that's not a plan."

Still, Welsh said in a statement following the press conference that he is confident the F-35 will be able to effectively protect troops in ground combat.

"With Dr. Gilmore's assistance, we will continue to test the F-35's capabilities as they come on line, and I'm confident the result will validate F-35's mature CAS capabilities before reaching FOC," Welsh said in an Aug. 27 statement.

Despite Welsh's remarks earlier this week in which he dubbed a head-to-head matchup of the two planes "silly," Gilmore said he has been assured Air Force leadership is fully on board with the planned test schedule.

"Delivering fires to troops engaged in close proximity to the enemy is a contact sport and we are committed to the F-35 as a critical component of this joint and combined team," Welsh said. "Any comparison with the F-35 must be part of a more holistic assessment of our CAS enterprise beyond just a flyoff between one aircraft vs. another. A comprehensive, formal testing program will ensure we continue to evolve as leaders in this critical mission."

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5923
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 01 Sep 2015 18:54

shiv wrote:Cross post - but is this news item even true?
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /71336130/


Yes Shiv, Its true. The DOT&E has an important task of testing out the various sub-systems but like any bureaucratic setup they have over the last many years not only become an institution within an institution but have unfortunately used their reports and processes to drive their own agendas and fancies. This stems from the fact that the major weapons programs are not run by the services as far as acquisition is concerned. They are run by Pentagon’s acquisition department which has bureaucracy (often with military backgrounds in the past) that compete with those of the DOT&E setup and have done so coming up their careers. In the Long Range Bomber for example the USAF Chief has absolutely no say in deciding who gets the contract..

What is the benefit of testing out the A-10 vs F-35? Well for starters the A-10 capability will be lost next decade (or earlier if the USAF gets its way) and the A-X plans from the late 90’s and early 2000’s were deemed unaffordable for a specialized (Permissive CAS only) platform. So,like NATO, and other armed forces the USAF will have to use its fast jet fleet for CAS and the DOT&E is going to assess what capability is lost, and what capability is gained. Of course the F-35 is not going to be able to go in low and use its cannon in ways the A-10 did or does…It lacks the protection (no titanium bathtub) or the ammo (cannon rounds are designed for few A2G bursts but mostly for A2A standards) because it is a multi-role fighter that is designed around a collection of mission sets. Ideally, you would want to compare the F-35’s CAS abilities to those of the F-16 but the DOT&E is not going to do that (for obvious reasons) partly because of their agenda but partly because the A-10 is the primary permissive CAS platform and while the F-16 will still be in service next decade, the A-10 is likely going to be phased out much earlier.

To the USAF’s defense, the A-10 cannot perform CAS like it has done in the past against a competent opponent that has modern MANPADS and other air-defenses. It will simply not survive. Additionally modern armor is designed around surviving its rounds. That leaves only one area where the A-10 excels over the F-35 or the F-16 etc and that is LOITER/ time on station (For the CAS Mission)..However the A-10 still gets to the CAS location in longer time compared to the F-16 or F-35 so if its there it can hang around longer but if it isn't the troops have to wait longer.The USAF has gone around that over the years by configuring their bomber fleet with Targeting Pods and clearing smaller munitions on them to provide the persistent CAS as and when needed. The Chief of the Air Force said it best when asked about the DOT&E’s intentions when he said that the “the F-35 is designed for tomorrow’s CAS mission, not yesterday’s mission”. The A-10 is great, against ISIS it can go low and pound the $hit out of the enemy using its gun. For that they have the A-10’s and even in the current accelerated withdrawal from service they’ll still have the A-10 for a few more years. But absent some magical funding for a highly complex, survivable dedicated CAS platform, the USAF would have to stick to the plans it came up with a decade ago i.e. to retire the A-10’s and basically invest in the F-35 that does both the F-16s mission but also that of the A-10’s. As one of the tactic-developers for the A-10 put it when the entire debate on the A-10 erupted “ CAS is not an aircraft, it’s a mission”. Unfortunately the DOT&E and some agenda driven politicians from Arizona think the USAF has the budget to sustain a dedicated CAS platform that costs as much more than the F-16 to operate, and that sucks up maintainers and support infrastructure in an era of sequester where there is a limit to how much capacity they can build…Some of these are the same folks that have A-10’s operating out of their districts and are bound to have an economic impact from its early retirement. On the flip side the other lobbying efforts come from the Army that thinks the A-10s loss wills somehow mean inadequate CAS when everyone in the world does CAS to their military’s satisfaction without the A-10 or similar platform. Marine Aviation that has primarily a CAS focused Mission provide support to their troops on the ground without an A-10 and have done so for years using the Harrier and F/A-18. In fact even in the USAF, the A-10 now performs a very small (Less than 20%) of all CAS ordinance delivery.
As far as how effective a platform for CAS the F-35 would be? Well its going to take a while for it to get up to the mark. There are a few things that will make an F-35 a much better CAS platform –

- HD Color Motion Video for the EOTS
- SDB II for CAS
- ROVER Capability
- Gen III Helmet

Out of the list the last bit is flying as we speak while the top 3 capabilities won’t show up until Block 4 starting early 2020’s. The Block 3F F-35 that winds up the System Development Phase of the program provides initial CAS capability that then gets built up through the enhancements listed above as they develop and field block 4 capability starting early next decade. But none of that capability is a deal breaker for fleet strength build up wont allow the USAF to start pulling out F-35’s from its First Day Strike missions for CAS till well into the 2020’s. The First few hundred operational F-35As will be doing first day strike (Mission set lost due to F117 retirement), supporting the F-22A’s in Air to Air and SEAD missions. While the A-10’s, F-16’s and F-15E’s will be doing permissive CAS until the follow on development that begins in 2018 and goes on practically forever provides enhanced capability for CAS. The baseline F-35 capability gets you the threshold performance, the objective is an ongoing process and they have already begun handing out initial contracts for future block development.

ARM's and SEAD has had an evolutionary path from the cold war where capability was enabled by the 1970's technology (that was deployed well into the 90's). That way of doing SEAD and DEAD has been forced out and replaced by better concept of operations enabled by both technology and operational realities in the way air-power is employed, and envisioned in current and future scenarios. From an ARM to SEAD mission, the concept of operation has evolved thanks to technology, and the evolution is ongoing. Earlier technology developed in the 70’s( HARM or similar weapons) used passive sensors that target the source of emission. As a result they were good SEAD platforms, but poor DEAD platforms. The concept at the time was to create a HARM – NET, force radars to switch themselves off or relocate and slip in a strike package. This however meant that SEAD would have to be a continuous process and you could never really begin offloading some SEAD platform sorties to strike sorties as war progressed (even if you have dedicated SEAD aircraft, the number of sorties you can maintain per unit of time depends in many situations on how many sorties you can support both logistically on the ground but also provide AEW too, provide Tanker support, fighter cover etc etc etc). This lack of flexibility was not desirable and actually an impediment to effective air campaigns and given the ever-increasing role of air-power in determining the way war is conducted – required change. As a result few things happened with future SEAD weapons. Firstly, they began to create ARM’s with secondary strike roles both for flexibility but also for mission-flexibility. Secondly, they made the ARM net-enabled. As a result the current ARM’s with the USAF have GPS/INS, have an active MMW seeker in addition to the passive seeker and the net enabled weapon allows the weapon to transfer a tactical message on the target right before impact. This is the ARM side of SEAD. However, since the Gulf War and the Balkan campaigns, sensitive and capable RWR’s have begun trickling into advanced versions of 4th, and 5th generation fighters. The USN for example is contemplating a PASSIVE GROWLER concept that uses existing growlers, and super hornets as forward deployed passive sensors without the jamming. What this basically means is that your SDBII type weapon is just as good at doing SEAD / DEAD in some instances than your much more expensive and payload limited ARM as long as you can pick up emissions, geo-locate threats, and have the ability to discriminate them. The future will have them net-enabled as well, since the data link portion already exists. Ideally you would want a coordinated attack with one ARM seeker followed by multiple SDBII type weapons and those using the MMW and other active seekers discriminate the threats (radars, C2C, fuel, AAA etc) in an effort to overwhelm the protection provided to protect the air-defense system from ARM’s etc. That is not very far out into the future. Most PGM’s are net enabled even those that aren’t powered (SDB family for example, or the glide JSOW). The object is to convert a lot of the SEAD to DEAD and to maximize sorties by having platforms in the air that can swing from ground attack or CAS to dropping a few standoff munitions in support of a pop up emitting threat. Much of this has been enabled by technology, miniaturization in electronics, battery technology etc but a lot of that has been driven by air forces around the world that don’t have access to the same sort of money that they once did, and have been forced to maximize capability with the resources they are likely to get.

While making dedicated SEAD platforms more effective is a goal, making SEAD a part of the larger multi-role combat fleet is the ultimate objective as now the sensor and the shooter need not be on one platform, and the munition need not have all the sensors built into it but must be able to operate in a net-centric environment where it uses targeting cues from other net-enabled weapons and sensors (could be an ARM, could be a net-enabled MALD or MALD-J, could be a loitering UAV etc etc). The net-enabled concept of SEAD is basically resulting in distributed SEAD as opposed to centralized SEAD that often results in SILOS within the fighting force that OWN the mission. Electronic warfare is going in the same direction, i.e. its also getting distributed from all the way to dedicated jammer-carriers, to forward deployed Passive sensors all the way down to MALD-J like use and loose systems..

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5923
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 03 Sep 2015 20:05

From the Indian Military Aviation Thread -

Anti-aircraft defences were preserved by the simple expedient of not turning them on, preventing NATO aircraft from detecting them, but forcing them to keep above a ceiling of 15,000 feet


The HARM-NET vs DEAD problem was a technology issue and has been largely solved. As stated in the post above the modern HARM replacement includes not only an ARH passive seeker, but an Active MMW seeker, GPS/INS in addition to satellite based communication to the command both to receive updates as well as to transmit terminal data right before impact. This was not possible using 70's or even 80's technology but is now. Here is a brief description (more in the post above) :



The other issues of decoys are being dealt with developing more sophisticated sensors, both embedded and remote. Back in the day sophisticated ESM and RWR's were only present on specialty Wild Weasel aircraft. Now every 5th generation and many 4th generation aircraft cover pretty much every operational radar or data link band. Furthermore, you have moved two generations in IR technology allowing modern Long range IR sensors to now give you High Definition imagery, and soon full motion HD color video. On top of that you have sensor fused information on an a2g threat that uses that IR spectrum, RF spectrum (SAR is standard on all NATO AESA's now) and most importantly has autonomous data sharing and extrapolationg (Higher L-16 modes and IFDL and MADL data links, plus WAN's enabled by things like Global Hawk and other manned net enablers). This helps a lot in being able to discriminate air to ground targets, and being able to effectively distinguish between decoys and actual targets. A lot of this has also to do with the sheer amount of bandwidth available to process the information in real time. A lot of this capability was silo'd to specialty aircraft 25 years ago (or even a decade ago) but with extensive upgrades to legacy aircraft and through the introduction of 5th generation strike fighters and UAV' have been extensively distributed at the tactical level. A lot of lessons were learnt on how to affectively execute an air to ground campaign following both the Gulf War and the Balkan air campaigns and the Naval War College is full of post-graduate level work that speaks of how this evolved decision makers in the Science and Technology community, and the acquisition community that supports them.

So in a way the technology and acquisition paths that followed these air campaigns (which were overwhelming victories) reflects that there has been a sizable effort to improve on the shortcomings demonstrated during these campaigns . An ARM transformed from a SEAD weapon that concentrating in a mission-kill to a strike weapon that could get you target destruction. The glide bombs could accommodate miniaturized batteries and processing that allowed you to put sophisticated multi-mode seekers on them allowing you to use those for sophisticated saturated SEAD attack and swing-strike missions...The Wild Weasel mission is more distributed with even air-superiority fighters being able to pick up emitting threats on the ground and swinging over to perform SEAD (a concept very hard to do back in the day when you needed additional sophisticated equipment in sensors, jammers and missiles)..and finally targeting has grown leaps and bounds over the last few decades through multiple leaps in IR targeting, passive detection, and AESA radars.

More on this later...
Last edited by brar_w on 03 Sep 2015 21:29, edited 1 time in total.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 851
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby shaun » 03 Sep 2015 20:19

no offence sir , those are a hell lot of technologies to grab :D

So HARM have evolved into HARM-E having a
1. A passive seeker for homing into active signals
2. An active MMW seeker for searching SAM sites or armored vehicles , etc against back ground clutter.
3. GPS for standoff general Guidance

If a SAM site is not switched ON or in passive mode , passive seeker of the missile can not find target. Here active MMW seeker comes into play , with its narrow beam , high frequency continuous wave propagation, it can detect metallic objects like tanks , armored vehicles , mobile SAM which are mounted on armored track or wheeled vehicle. But i don't know whether it employs scene matching area correlation technology (using MMW imagery) during terminal phase or else the seeker can not differentiate a decoy made of metallic object from the real one and how much efficient it will be in built up areas as it needs LOS.

However Brimstone missile with semi active laser and MMW guidance looks more promising.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 851
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby shaun » 04 Sep 2015 11:25

One question can a corners reflector camouflaging a SAM site spoof a MMW seeker ( MMW seeker mostly built for mobile targets )

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5923
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 04 Sep 2015 23:06

Spoof to what extent and for what affect? The MMW seeker is going to be used to develop a SA picture and use it to compare with the threat libraries and information being received through off board communication (Such as national satellites for those nations that have their ARM's pugged into that net). The MMW seekers would work hand in hand with the ARH and the GPS guided modes with the coordinates for the latter being fed in by off board sensors. Of course there will be credible decoys that even these advanced ARM's cannot and will be able to defeat, but the cost to make them will be significantly higher because these missiles are more capable now. Secondly, the ARM itself is not a be all end all solution to all Destruction of air defenses and that is why the holy grail here is to develop multi-spectral seekers at the lowest cost possible with the smallest power requirements..If you can package them into glide weapons you can toss a few of those along with an ARM. Electronics are advancing at a very rapid pace but these things (cooperative attacks) are still a few years (around a decade would be my guess) out.

This is of course on top of the soft Suppression using some extremely powerful Jammers. As mentioned elsewhere a single Next Generation Jammer Hi-RAT pod can generate as much as 60-90KW at a decent speed and above medium altitude.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 851
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby shaun » 04 Sep 2015 23:54

Talking about multi spectral seeker , I guess Europeans are leading with their
1. SMArt 155 having IIR and MMW , for anti Armour
2. ASTRID too having IIR and MMW for fixed and mobile targets

BRIMSTONE employs both LADAR , for producing high resolution 3D image and MMW seeker

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5923
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 05 Sep 2015 00:24

However Brimstone missile with semi active laser and MMW guidance looks more promising




A standard AARGM is a supersonic weapon (Mach 2.0) with a range of 100+Km. The AARGM-ER that is in development will have 2x that range. It is not a HARM. HARM was a raytheon product, AARGM is made by ATK but leverages the HARM body, warhead and motor but completely replaces the seeker and guidance and is operational. AARGM - ER changed the body and motor to include either a Variable Flow ducted Ramjet, or a multi - pulse motor. It will be operational by 2019-2020.

Talking about multi spectral seeker , I guess Europeans are leading with their
1. SMArt 155 having IIR and MMW , for anti Armour
2. ASTRID too having IIR and MMW for fixed and mobile targets

BRIMSTONE employs both LADAR , for producing high resolution 3D image and MMW seeker


Brimstone is a totally different weapon with a much shorter range to the AARGM or AARGM-ER. For stand off SEAD using subsonic glide weapons, the SDBII is worth noting (It was declared operational a few months ago) weapon employing a Tri-Mode seeker using MMW, IIR, GPS/INS and Laser targeting. Both the AARGM and SDBII are net-enabled so the end objective is to link everything into a coordinated attack. Brimstone II is much shorter range so it would require a lot of suppression from EW assets to get inside its deployment envelope for a credible threat that is moderately well defended.

As mentioned affective DEAD involves a lot more than an ARM missile against a very credible opponent and the same applies for a very expensive weapon like the Brimstone II. What you need to do very high end DEAD is a relatively cheap (less than $100,000) weapon that can target using a bunch of sensors but most importantly has a capable data link that can leverage a swarm like attack profile using an off board cue. Think of a data link equipped GPS Guided SDB I cued by a stand off weapon that has a sensor. In the interim you have to try to do DEAD to the best of your abbility but continue to execute SEAD since it doesn't utilize a lot of fire and forget expensive munitions. Against a very high end threat that has a lot of decoys including those that have realistic emission profiles you will need a lot of jamming and for that you need a very comprehensive feedback established. The current jammer tech in the USAF or USN is not capable of this, hence the Next. Generation Jammer with its GaN based agility and mind boggling amount of power generation, and a large AESA equipped fighter fleet that has sophisticated ESM capability in the -94 and Barracuda. As mentioned elsewhere, EMS warfare is a cat and mouse game. The day you can do whack-a-mole DEAD is the day you can turn all your EW assets totally passive! That day is unlikely to ever arrive however!!

Talking about multi spectral seeker , I guess Europeans are leading with their
1. SMArt 155 having IIR and MMW , for anti Armour
2. ASTRID too having IIR and MMW for fixed and mobile targets


The single most widely ordered multi spectral (Tri mode seeker) weapon for a fast jet usage is the SDB II. Both Boeing and Raytheon had a multi-seeker approach to this weapon. Lockheed has a dual and multi role seeker as well. I don't think Europe has any tri-mode seeker weapon currently operational. At the end of the day it comes down to cost and that comes from both the seeker design and volume production. Without either you cannot achieve the desired cost to create an effect through swarming. The best weapon would be that actually has a very high end data link but nothing else..If I can launch 5 weapons all slaved to a capable seeker weapon through a data link that then directs these 5 weapons to independent targets then I have the best swarm weapon. At the moment the cost equation is positive, i.e. I can launch many SDBII's from stand off Ranges for one AARGM or AARGM - ER..The goal should be to get the cost down further and that means either aggressively reducing the seeker cost of production through simplicity or removing some of the seekers.

Do remember that If the radar is turned OFF then that opens up the target to all sorts of Air to Ground munitions in the inventory in addition to something that is purpose designed for SEAD. That means a lot of cheaper munitions can be broguht into "Play" allowing me to more than account for the decoys. Hence the value of suppression and how long you can suppress an air defense before holding it at bay. With suppression using jamming do remember that without feedback it is a big and risky affair i.e. i need to know, quantify and analyze the effect of my jamming on the intended target and other surrounding targets. If there is no significant effect I need to switch strategy otherwise I am just one hot target for an HOJ missile. Similarly the folks that do jamming for a living (VAQ community in the USN, and the 3, and 6 community in the USMC and all the other dedicated jammer folks around the world using different kit for a similar mission) need to know what signals are being operated by friendly or even neutrals at all times..There was a famous incident where one very senior General in the US Army made a comment in Afghanistan that he does not want an EA-6 Prowler anywhere near his troops because (and I quote) " They F&%K up my Comms"...That is one example where the entire communication, awareness and feedback loop broke down in the heat of the moment.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 851
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby shaun » 05 Sep 2015 08:53

Yup this swarm tactics using smart glide bombs from stand off distance is the future , what they lack is speed
Just trying to clear up the air about SDB because it have several names during testing phases
1. Raytheon manufactured having dual mode ie IIR and MMW called SDB 1
2. Boeing manufactured , called LASER SDB
3. Again Raytheon developed GBU-53/B have tri seekers IIR , MMW and LASER called SDB 2

Cost comparison
SDB 1 US$40000
SDB 2 US$128,771
Brimstone US$159279

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5923
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 05 Sep 2015 15:47

Shaun if you use the search feature you'll find a lot more information on these weapons posted by me and others.

Also The SDB Is the GBU-39 and it is made by Boeing and it does not include anything besides GPS/INS. Boeing wanted a multi spectral weapon but since the production volume was large the USAF and USN wanted that to be a different weapon so as to have two distinct variants at different price points. Boeing had a a dual mode variant and a Laser SDB proposal that never were selected for production. The SDB II Competition was won by Raytheon that had a scalable, and modular tri mode seeker presentation and that was combined with the SDB (No I just SDB :) ) GPS/INS to get to the GBU 53/B. The same seeker was offered for the JAGM but the US Army chose a Lockheed Martin dual mode weapon instead.

Cost of these electronics is the primary concern. Interestingly there was a program way back (google LOCAAS) to develop very cheap seekers for swarm activities. While some of those were cancelled but the aim to get highly capable electronics for the cheap is a priority not only for the USAF but also for DARPA that has a few programs iirc under its TTO to this end (or did recently).

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60378
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Singha » 14 Sep 2015 13:15

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/m ... /71979146/

marine corps ran a 9 month exercise to compare the performance of teams with female infantry to all-male units.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5923
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 14 Sep 2015 14:02

Here Are A Few Things the New Air Force Bomber Will Do Besides Drop Bombs

Embedded antennas, targeting cameras, and a leap in processing power will turn the Long Range Strike Bomber into a versatile spy plane and airborne command center


The date of the SO CALLED announced has slipped from July/Aug 15 to September/October 15. If I were to take a wild guess, I would guess that Boeing had secured the contract in July/Aug. and Northrop filled a protest that gets decided in the next few days or weeks.
Last edited by brar_w on 14 Sep 2015 14:23, edited 1 time in total.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby TSJones » 14 Sep 2015 14:12

you need to take these kind of experiments with a pinch or two of salt.

infantry training in the Corps can be down right ugly-awful. not just anybody can do it.

prodigious upper body strength is mandatory.

the *male* drop out rate can border on 35 to 40%.

the average female is not going to be able to do it. the odds are stacked against her.

a female that can just complete the course must be exceptional. few and far between.

the mental strain in the form of personal abuse and insults only adds to the burden.

in other words, you to have a warped sense of humor just to complete the course.

women excel in repetitive, mutually supportive environments. the guys don't even come close to what the women can do in this regard.

the trick is, in my humble opinion is to find those military tasks that are suitable for the gender aptitudes.

women would be ideal for security monitoring, or mechanically assisted tasks in missiles and rockets, or artillery, aircraft maintenance, etc.

putting them in a Marine infantry outfit is asking to lower the crazy, physical, nature of the unit.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14485
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Karan M » 14 Sep 2015 14:57

>>prodigious upper body strength is mandatory.

errr.. seen many marines. the average jawan and troops from most other countries seems to be equally ripped and lean and mean.
they are fit, strong, no doubt, but infantry training worldwide will produce equally strong soldiers with +/- on the basis of technology available and facilities.
good discussion here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7088

Some excellent pics from USMC IA training, 2006.
Quote:
The US troops commended the Indian troops for their high endurance standards and excellent battle procedures.


Refer to Pg 5 of this document, Newsletter of 3rd Battalion, 4th Marines.
It has a description of the exercise they conducted in Belgaum with 8th Battalion of Maratha Light Infantry, 2009.

Quote:
The 8th Marathas had an incredible bias for physically and mentally challenging training. Furthermore, the Indian soldiers our Marines were partnered with, were well drilled, extremely well disciplined and had incredible physical endurance


no reason why the russians or british or anyone else will be any different.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33728
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby shiv » 14 Sep 2015 16:42

Image
Boeing Touts New 16 Air-To-Air Missile Carrying F-15 Eagle Configurations
The annual Air Force Association conference will kick off outside of Washington next week, where Boeing is putting its latest and greatest combat aircraft developments on show for industry and Washington power brokers. This includes new F-15 configurations that allow the 43-year-old design to lug 16 air-to-air missiles into combat instead of the standard eight it carries today.
According to Boeing artwork floating around the net, this includes the activation of the number one and number nine weapon stations on the outer wings, or possibly by hefting a multiple ejector rack capable of carrying a pair of AIM-120 AMRAAMs on the Strike Eagle’s conformal fuel tanks. It’s speculated that some modifications have been made to the Eagle’s existing conformal fuel tank design to make this possible. Additionally, a new pylon for the Eagle’s standard wing hardpoints capable of carrying four missiles instead of two looks to be a key part of the concept.

Like the F-15 Silent Eagle concept and its various sub-options that have yet to find any buyers, this new Eagle offering may not be exclusive to new-build aircraft alone and could be able to be applied to various Eagle variants to varying degrees, depending on the operator’s needs. Conformal fuel tanks can even be fitted to existing F-15C/Ds, so this type of modification may not be limited to the F-15 Strike Eagle series alone.

More air-to-air missiles is a good thing for the Eagle. As the the new AIM-120D AMRAAM comes on line and is paired along with the F-15C/D’s APG-63V3 and F-15E’s APG-82 Active Electronically Scanned Array radars, the Eagle will be able to sling missiles from about double the range they can today, depending on the engagement situation. More missiles means more tactical options when facing a robust foe, and it also means the Eagle may be able to work as an arsenal ship of sorts for stealthy F-35s and F-22s which have far less beyond-visual-range missile carrying capabilities.

By using the F-35 and F-22’s data collected forward of an Eagle’s position, along with the Eagle’s greatly enhanced radar data, the F-15 could provide missiles on demand from many dozens of miles away. This would also allow F-35s and F-22s to work as battle managers of sorts well ahead of the Eagle’s position even after their weapons bays are empty.


:D

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60378
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Singha » 14 Sep 2015 17:09

some of these battle managers could be cheaper and less risky as ELO ucavish drones than manned platforms.

so the F-15 will end its long life as a long range missile truck :)

in 2075 we will likely see the F-15 still lobbing 500 mile range micro-missiles at jihadis , with a payload of 64 such missiles , cued by VELO drones.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5923
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 14 Sep 2015 17:22

This was expected, as I had said earlier when Singhaji brought up the SILENT EAGLE, it was a poor example of how to best optimize an older airframe. They tried adding some stealth features with the redesigned vertical tails and more RAM and internal weapons but that is hardly going to yield meaningful reduction in even frontal RCS especially when you need an order of magnitude reduction to be tactically relevant. All that ended up doing was reducing the payload carriage which was the biggest advantage of the strike eagle to begin with. The current aircrafts have or are getting two rather large AESA radars in the 63V(2) and -82 and one in 2 or three will be getting LPI comms links with the raptors and F-35's along with a long range IRST. The Aim-120D gets them a weapon that has significantly more range than the A's, B's and the C's that they have been using for the last decade plus. All in a worthy upgrade worth spending money on vs what Boeing had been trying to sell for a few years as the silent eagle upgrade. The Saudis are already getting this capability with the exception that their FBW equipped strike eagles can carry 2 additional missiles on the wingtips.

What Boeing has finally realized is that there is a huge PK difference when an Aim-120D is fired from an F-15, vs an F-35 or F-22 especially in a stealth on non-stealth engagement. The stealth aircraft (include others as well such as J-20, PAKFA etc) can get a lot closer, and have freedom of maneuverability because of the wide gap in sensor engagement and tracking distances. This allows them to get into an advantageous position prior to weapons launch. In a Non-stealth on non-stealth engagement there would be active maneuvering joust going on between two adversaries to deny one another of that advantageous position by trying to negate any push to gain altitude and by turning to avoid lateral separation. In such a case having a 14 Aim-120D capability for the F-15C compared to the F-22A's 6, or F-35's eventual 6 is going to help out greatly especially when the tacticians have come out and clearly established that the current F-22 tactics are not to use the AMRAAM immediately but to penetrate the FEBA and provide SA to missile trucks in the back because those aircraft can't exist inside the FEBA without being actively pursued. Instead of launching its missiles immediately and RTB'ing, the F-22's would be tasked to hang on and provide sensor tracks to the F-15C's before using their own missiles. This is also how they will be working with the Typhoon. When you have a much smaller force you optimize tactics to compensate (the reduced F-22A fleet) and this is a result of that..

I wrote about this following the AFA conference in 2014. There was a significant disconnect in how Boeing perceived the F-22 and F-15 to collaborate vs what actually has been articulated for a number of years now. Perhaps they knew this hence did not really push very hard at Silent Eagle Upgrades to the USAF. I referred to the evolved tactics last year -

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 7#p1765533

so the F-15 will end its long life as a long range missile truck :)

in 2075 we will likely see the F-15 still lobbing 500 mile range micro-missiles at jihadis , with a payload of 64 such missiles , cued by VELO drones.



Some F-15C's will be cleared for 25,000+ airframe through upgrades (the program is being worked on right now) so the F-15C's at least would be good to go till 2035 or even 2040. For the Strike eagles they may boost the life to around 20,000 hours but these carry much heavier payloads and fly a lot lower so undergo significantly higher stresses. Both the aircraft are getting weapons upgrades (Aim-9X block II and Aim-120D), helmet upgrades (Digital, LED based color HMD), AESA, a ne digital integrated EA/EW active-passive system (EPAWS) and a MAPS pod that carries a long range IRST, its processing unit and a data link port for LPI communication with 5th generation waveforms. Some of the F-15C's may even get new wings and vertical tails to help them get to that 25,000+ hour airframe utilization.

Interesting how the internet works. Amy Butler over at Aviation Week wrote an excellent, in-depth article over at the paid section of the website with exclusive pictures. The famous news aggregator picked it up and ran away with it and IDRW picked it up from that blog :)


some of these battle managers could be cheaper and less risky as ELO ucavish drones than manned platforms.


That's what the Sensor Craft offshoot in the RQ-180 is supposed to do be doing. It was slated to have IOC'd this year and was already in Low Rate Initial Production as of late 2013. Separating the sensor from the shooter has an inherent advantage. Firstly when the shooter goes active, it does not give away the sensor (standard Special Forces tactics of separating the intel from the shooters) allowing the sensor craft to stay around longer. Secondly, this takes away some ELO requirements from the platform that now gets in, drops its payloads and gets out towards more stand offish distances. You can perhaps be liberal in more off the shelf sollutions when it comes to materials for the larger vehicle to bring cost down as opposed to going in and developing everything from scratch (as was done for the B-2). Its much easier to design an ELO platform for really high altitudes, loiter and some sensor payloads as opposed to one that has a massive payload capacity in addition to all this, at least from a cost perspective. The Next Generation Bomber that was cancelled by Robert Gates was supposed to be an all encompassing ELO stealth penetrator, plus ISR, plust EW etc etc, the current approach is a systems in the Long Range Strike Systems and that will include at least 2 vehicles if not more. The Bomber would still have an important SO EW role (allowing the USAF to shed its dependence on the USN) but it would not be required to conduct all the Long Range Strike Support missions organically. Smart and practical choice given that the B-3 will replace a much larger fleet of B-1 and B-52 as opposed to the B-2.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60378
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Singha » 15 Sep 2015 07:12

I would differ with TSJ here - just like a average male cannot pass the military drills without training, so cannot the average woman. what they intake is above average in strength and agility. now take any bar esp using upper body and anaerobic strength, there will be more men than women who are (a) interested in military service (b) can pass the bar. but does not mean deserving women who make the bar should be left out if at all its desired to level the playing field.

that exercise to throw the bag up 8 feet and then climb the wall, there is a exercise in crossfit gyms where they stand against the wall and throw up a heavy ball, catch it with a squat and then throw up again.

NSFW but look at these ladies, they can surely pass any mil entrance test if they be interested..traditional womens weak points like pull-ups are not an issue with such xfit types
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrzibHZOPts

wall ball: (this should be SFW) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUo2ONp4iGc

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby TSJones » 15 Sep 2015 08:24

Singha wrote:I would differ with TSJ here - just like a average male cannot pass the military drills without training, so cannot the average woman. what they intake is above average in strength and agility. now take any bar esp using upper body and anaerobic strength, there will be more men than women who are (a) interested in military service (b) can pass the bar. but does not mean deserving women who make the bar should be left out if at all its desired to level the playing field.

that exercise to throw the bag up 8 feet and then climb the wall, there is a exercise in crossfit gyms where they stand against the wall and throw up a heavy ball, catch it with a squat and then throw up again.

NSFW but look at these ladies, they can surely pass any mil entrance test if they be interested..traditional womens weak points like pull-ups are not an issue with such xfit types
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrzibHZOPts

wall ball: (this should be SFW) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUo2ONp4iGc


do you know how rare those women are? Marine body requirements are by the tens of thousands each year.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9818
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Vayutuvan » 15 Sep 2015 09:00

Why would a marine climb a non-knotted rope? Also, if the rope is that thick, an adequately equipped (read shoes) toddy tapper from TS backwaters would get into marines. Their ability to use a non-folding hunter's knife (to tap toddy) will equal any commando in the world.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15834
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby NRao » 15 Sep 2015 09:06

By using the F-35 and F-22’s data collected forward of an Eagle’s position, along with the Eagle’s greatly enhanced radar data, the F-15 could provide missiles on demand from many dozens of miles away. This would also allow F-35s and F-22s to work as battle managers of sorts well ahead of the Eagle’s position even after their weapons bays are empty.


#NetworkCentric

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33728
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby shiv » 15 Sep 2015 09:24

NRao wrote:
By using the F-35 and F-22’s data collected forward of an Eagle’s position, along with the Eagle’s greatly enhanced radar data, the F-15 could provide missiles on demand from many dozens of miles away. This would also allow F-35s and F-22s to work as battle managers of sorts well ahead of the Eagle’s position even after their weapons bays are empty.


#NetworkCentric


LOL Only you took the bait. Anyhow - nothing personal implied or intended. I was wondering if anyone would notice the highlight.

The questions that came to my mind when I read that passage were:
1. The plan is to send a virtually unarmed plane ahead into the danger zone- depending on its stealth alone. If it uses its missiles it will give its position away so it has to depend on an F-15 flaying way behind
2. What is the big deal about having one F-15 carrying Xteen missiles? Might as well use two more stealthy (read F-22/35) aircraft at the back. Those F-15s may get detected and alert an adversary to this trickery
3. Why use F-15s at all?

My own comments:
This looks like either
a. An attempt to extend the F-15's lease on life while keeping costs down and "rationalizing" (read reducing) numbers of F-35s
or
b. A backhanded way of saying "We-ell, F-22s and F-35s are great but they just don't carry enough firepower"

Reminds me of Wild Wesasel

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15834
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby NRao » 15 Sep 2015 09:53

What is the big deal about having one F-15 carrying Xteen missiles? Mi


I wish India was as eager to sell the LCA as Boeing is to promote the aged F-15. The big deal is PR, sales pitch, promotion, etc. Get the product out.

Did you check what the German leader said about immigrants flooding her nation? The kids will learn German!

The same leader who kicked up a stink when German was dropped in India as a language taught to kids.

But there are other angles. And many of those angles get a lot of bandwidth, but go no where. No use publishing papers when nothing comes out of it.

May be if you sell, someone may buy your idea, even if most others laugh at it. Up to you.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60378
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Singha » 15 Sep 2015 09:58

> Marine body requirements are by the tens of thousands each year.

wow, they intake that many fresh recruits every year ? but nevertheless, none are banning men from entering...a few 100 or few 1000 "low-fat" women may get in thats all.

the F-15 is sunk cost and at risk against a very wide spectrum rival as Cheen as shaping up to be.
so rather than junk 500 of the F-15 which have a lot of life left, they are using it in a new role ... just as we moved the Mig-21 from A2A to A2G and finally in bison to a bvr interceptor of sorts...and still doing it. we could also have purchased 125 Su27 instead of the Bison project if we could afford it.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby TSJones » 15 Sep 2015 09:59

shiv wrote:
LOL Only you took the bait. Anyhow - nothing personal implied or intended. I was wondering if anyone would notice the highlight.

The questions that came to my mind when I read that passage were:
1. The plan is to send a virtually unarmed plane ahead into the danger zone- depending on its stealth alone. If it uses its missiles it will give its position away so it has to depend on an F-15 flaying way behind
2. What is the big deal about having one F-15 carrying Xteen missiles? Might as well use two more stealthy (read F-22/35) aircraft at the back. Those F-15s may get detected and alert an adversary to this trickery
3. Why use F-15s at all?

My own comments:
This looks like either
a. An attempt to extend the F-15's lease on life while keeping costs down and "rationalizing" (read reducing) numbers of F-35s
or
b. A backhanded way of saying "We-ell, F-22s and F-35s are great but they just don't carry enough firepower"

Reminds me of Wild Wesasel


the purpose of using non stealth a/c in the future will be deliberate provocation.

in other words, they will be used to get a response from the enemy, to lite up every radar in the vicinity.

so wild weasel is indeed legitimate.

what you don't want are surprises from the enemy so you can plan for what is known..

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33728
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby shiv » 15 Sep 2015 10:00

NRao wrote:
May be if you sell, someone may buy your idea, even if most others laugh at it. Up to you.

Precisely. Except that others sell. We buy.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15834
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby NRao » 15 Sep 2015 10:01

the F-15 is sunk cost and at risk against a very wide spectrum rival as Cheen as shaping up to be.
so rather than junk 500 of the F-15 which have a lot of life left, they are using it in a new role ... just as we moved the Mig-21 from A2A to A2G and finally in bison to a bvr interceptor of sorts...and still doing it. we could also have purchased 125 Su27 instead of the Bison project if we could afford it.


Reinventing is the first step to selling. If you do not have a new story, what can you sell?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15834
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby NRao » 15 Sep 2015 10:06

shiv wrote:
NRao wrote:
May be if you sell, someone may buy your idea, even if most others laugh at it. Up to you.

Precisely. Except that others sell. We buy.


I am in IT and bump into deshies all over (in fact too many, impacted me negatively). But that aside, the narrative I have for them is that use your position as a coder/delivery position to sell.

When I see the LCA I see export.

About 20 years ago an American took me under his wings and taught me what is sales and how to sell. Till then I published a ton of papers.

And if you do not sell, no points for what is the alternative. Simple.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60378
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Singha » 15 Sep 2015 10:12

MALD drones will be used to light up radars, I think they are working on changing its RCS via some programmable means and even decoy radar emissions to truly simulate the speed and signature of a inbound fighter package or cruise missile.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60378
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Singha » 15 Sep 2015 10:13

soothing MALD vision from raytheon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0acJ3xyhaJo

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60378
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Singha » 15 Sep 2015 10:17

if we are going to be dropping dozens of MALD type long range (800km range) decoys for a major strike package, the key enabler is we need a cheap and mass produced turbofan engine locally , which the US certainly has but we do not yet. importing the 200 saturn engines we did for the Nirbhay bootstrap is not going to hack it, unless we establish a local production line or better yet develop our cheaper and smaller model as the payload is much lighter and airframe is smaller.

before we get cheap engines enmasse, all these soothing visions of NCW are maya for india.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby TSJones » 15 Sep 2015 10:18

Singha wrote:> Marine body requirements are by the tens of thousands each year.

wow, they intake that many fresh recruits every year ? but nevertheless, none are banning men from entering...a few 100 or few 1000 women may get in thats all.

the F-15 is sunk cost and at risk against a very wide spectrum rival as Cheen as shaping up to be.
so rather than junk 500 of the F-15 which have a lot of life left, they are using it in a new role ... just as we moved the Mig-21 from A2A to A2G and finally in bison to a bvr interceptor of sorts...and still doing it. we could also have purchased 125 Su27 instead of the Bison project if we could afford it.


out of 190.000 active duty Marines only 15,000 or so are assigned to infantry.

still, the Marines insist everybody takes 4 weeks of infantry training beyond boot camp, whether you are going to fix planes or tanks. everybody has a basic MOS of infantry. those that are actually assigned to infantry take further infantry training but by that time the non-hackers and shit-birds are weeded out.

what the women are complaining about is that combat infantry experience is considered by the Marines as the sine qua non of military leadership development and advancement into the upper echelons of rank especially for officers. so women hit a glass ceiling in the officer corps.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5923
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 15 Sep 2015 14:01

The plan is to send a virtually unarmed plane ahead into the danger zone- depending on its stealth alone. If it uses its missiles it will give its position away so it has to depend on an F-15 flaying way behind


That is what IDRW wrongly interpreted as the tactics. It is not sending unarmed planes into the FEBA (Forward edge of battle area), it is tactically deploying stealth fighters into the FEBA where they are not the first to use their offensive kinetic weapons.

as was the direct quote on these tactics
To be the last shooter in an offensive enterprise, and be the first shooter in a defensive enterprise


Somehow either the website (IDRW) or the blog that aggregated the article from a bunch of sources misrepresented the tactics that the F-15/E-Typhoon and F-22A have devised to collaborate with each other. In a high end conflict the USAF expects the AWACS to be pushed back considerably by multiple hard and soft measures employed by an opponent leaving only the most survivable aircraft in the inventory (F-22, F-35, LRS-B, future UCAV's etc) to be available to collectively provide the targeting Situational Awareness. Both the F-22 and F-35 come standard with a heavy passive suite of RF sensors and (F35) IR sensors in order to build organic SA to a degree that the fleet commanders refer to this capability as non-traditional ISR. These tactics are not merely rhetoric but are being backed by hard cash investments to make the capability work. In order to communicate all the SA gathered by the stealth fleet the F-15C's require LPI data links that they currently do not utilize and are therefore getting them through a MAPS program that would allow them to receive and transmit LPI and LPD data to the F-22's and F-35's.

What is the big deal about having one F-15 carrying Xteen missiles? Might as well use two more stealthy (read F-22/35) aircraft at the back. Those F-15s may get detected and alert an adversary to this trickery


It is about optimizing the platforms that you have i.e. You have 400+ F-15Cs and F-15E's and how best to use them with the 185 odd F-22A's that you have to get the most effect from tactics. The current Aim-120D extends the ranges out quite a bit but to really use these tactics the Aim-120E would need another 20-30% bump in range and accompanying NEZ. When the F-35's come into the fleet in large numbers these tactics would further evolve but the F-35's don't replace F-15C or E squadrons so in an air to air scenario the F-22 and F-15C would continue to find ways of how to best work with each other. Also the F-35 enters the USAF in 2016 as a multi-role strike fighter, it would be 2022-2024 before it is cleared for 6 Aim-120D carriage as the first many years and the SDD Block 3 software is concentrating heavily on clearing a ton of air to ground munitions to replace the sort of missions the F-16 and F/A-18's are doing now. 6 AMRAAM capacity comes only in 2022-2024 timeframe so the max. load of the F-35 in air to air till then would be 4 AMRAAMs (internal).

Why use F-15s at all?


Because when you take out the training squadrons, factor in the 70% Mission Availability rate of the F-22A and then divide the available jets over the active Air Expeditionary Units you do not have enough to rely solely on them for air superiority till the mid 2030's.The USAF is an expeditionary force and as such you thin out because you have to commit resources to various commands instead of holding back aircraft on two to three bases for homeland defense. Hence tactics, and technology are being upgraded to have 200-250 F-15C's perform alongside the F-22A's till that time and over the last may years they have charted out the best course to do this.

so rather than junk 500 of the F-15 which have a lot of life left, they are using it in a new role ...


True. The F-15C's don't do heavy air to ground work and have never done that so they have a lot of life left in them though upgrades and overhauls. They would have gone through accelerated retirement had 350 F-22A's been ordered but as things stand more than 200 F-15C's would remain in service well into the 2030's when the F-X fighter is expected to replace them and begin replacing some of the early F-22A's.
Last edited by brar_w on 15 Sep 2015 15:50, edited 3 times in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5923
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 15 Sep 2015 14:14

Singha wrote:soothing MALD vision from raytheon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0acJ3xyhaJo



The real benefit of MALD is its open architecture and how its developers are quickly able to reconfigure the payloads and still have basic capability. The USAF uses the MALD-J variant as its stand-in Jammer against some very specific threats, yet it still maintains the decoy capability despite the additional payload. The USN over a course of an exercise just recently added 4 separate jamming payloads for various threats and were able to change the payloads in no time prior to aircraft departure. Stand in Jammers require that sort of flexibility particularly with highly agile digital radars that exist today and are likely to proliferate in the future that require fine tuning your EW possibly in the theater.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 36457.html

Also the follow on is not expendable but required to be recoverable presumably allowing for more expensive payloads.

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/20 ... ir/119795/

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5923
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 15 Sep 2015 16:30

Kumar Vinod wrote:A Good read for VHF and long wave radars comined together plus effects of IRST systems.

http://m.aviationweek.com/technology/ne ... ion-claims


There are a number of measures that both offensive and defensive positions employ to negate some of the technology, tactics or numerical superiority of their opponents. In the constant battle of Access and Access Denial, the current crop of UHF and VHF AESA's are just one chapter. As I have posted in the past, if you can force your adversary to invest in these systems and rely on handoffs through an intermediary (either UHF or L band) and then the FCR you are on the right track. VHF AESA's are heavy, large not as mobile and significantly more expensive. Additionally they are an added capability as the kill chain only gets longer when you factor them in leaving you even more reliant on your C2C and networks to do those smooth hand-offs to the sensors that actually do the targeting. As has been mentioned earlier as well, stealth is all but one way of breaking the kill chain but it isn't by all means the only way of doing so. It solves some great access headaches that you get from the massive proliferation of targeting radars accompanied by SAM's in all shapes and sizes however there are multiple layers of capability that are required (have been and will be ) to solve the entire spectrum of the access challenge. Similarly VHF or even UHF radars are not the panacea of anti access strategies but just one layer. I'll post something far more detailed on how access vs anti-access fight has traditionally shaped up and is likely to shape up in the future with more availability of technology particularly in blending stealth with CEW (Cyber electronic warfare) that allows LPD attacks on networks supporting the back end. To sum up, these are some serious threats, but one is likely to be in for a rude surprise if one things they will effectively remove stealth from the design equation. As one scientist said recently " The answer to anti-stealth is not LESS stealth".
Similarly by opening up the domains not previously utilized (to such an extent) the IAD side is imposing cost implications that by themselves are a capable denial strategies. Cost implications in the sense that you need a multi pronged approach, from long range stand off weapons, to large amounts of stealth, to capabilities in electronic and cyber warfare all integrated. Both stealth and counter stealth are significant area of investment for both sides and it all depends upon priorities i.e. how significant is your need to develop a credible access strategy (it may not be of any use to a force that just wants to rely on strategic nukes as a deterrence for example) and how important is your need to deny your primary adversary of that ability (such as the investment tracks China is current pursuing).

Sweetman's often one sided reports must be taken in proper context. Its his job given his position at his employer to report extensively on foreign systems but he begins to get a little sketchy when he begins demanding that US classified capabilities be unveiled because somehow folks like him are entitled to more information. He also has a habit to go off on a tangent particularly with attacking some corners of the USAF and US Defense industry that made a mockery of him and his employer a few years back with the entire Aurora fiasco. He goes on and on about seeking more clarification for example on a lot of the capabilities that are under wraps in the US but makes no attempt to seek the same for some of the systems he reports on. Similarly he looks to attack certain OEM's in the US given his history with them but makes absolutely no efforts to justify wild claims of his own such as the " Gripen E is a sixth generation fighter ".


If you read his editorials you will find it tough to reconcile them with the realities that around the world stealth's application as a primary design feature is increasing at an alarming pace. From F-117 and B-2, stealth is on F-22, F-35, PAKFA, PAKDA, J-20, J31, Chinese UCAV, Japanese fighter, Korean F-X, Turkish fighter, AMCA, nEURon, Taranis, Long Range Strike Bomber, X-47B, X-45C, AURA Ucav, Mig SKAT and a host of other concepts. 20 years from now stealth would be a standard design feature on all new starts so its not going anywhere. But as was the case 20 years ago and as will be the case 20 years from now, a low-observable design would only one layer of your offensive or defensive capability either against a tactical aircraft or an integrated air defense - The object of stealth was and is not be unseen so as to go around circling in enemy air-space and declare victory. It was and is to be able to get into contested or even denied airspace, create kinetic or non kinetic effects, and get out with a reasonable degree/chance of making it back alive and as such RF stealth is one way you deal with the EMS (Electro Magnetic Spectrum) in a way forcing your enemy to operate in a region of the spectrum that is expensive, not tactically the best suited for targeting allowing you to target that region offensively. Similarly Electronic Warfare and particularly Electronic Attack is another way of dealing with the EMS through denying certain regions where the enemy can create a lot damage to your forces. EMS is vast and your enemy always has a vote so most air-forces are looking at the issue from both angles i.e. make their aircraft harder and harder to detect but more importantly target while also having offensive active capability to control or at least fight in the EMS in an effort to deny it to the opponent. When Cyber begins to be merged with EW you get into a world where you instead of attacking the neworks supporting combat and disrupting them begin to manipulate them to your own advantage...CEW is going to get a lot of emphasis over the next 2-3 decades as most air-forces look to merge electronic and cyber activities from a tactic development and execution point of view. What Sweetman fails to report is that employers of stealth have recognized this paradigm shift enabled by capability since the 1970's design of the F117 and have reserved one full Red Flag each year to opening up the Air-Space and Cyber domains to large force exercises in order to not only train with the capability that currently exists but to develop tactics that ultimately dictates how future capability is crafted. Creators of stealth, but more importantly those that employ it realize that no one can JAM the entire EMS, or be stealthy over the entire EM or IR spectrum. You blend capabilities and squeeze both sides and that is what designers around the world are doing at the moment. Look at it that way and you will realize why despite of what Sweetman claims no one looking design an offensive aerial vehicle be it a fighter, UCAV or a bomber at the moment is NOT looking actively at reducing the radar cross section.

Its a cat and mouse game but one is severely out of touch if one either believes that stealth will basically equate to invisibility and therefore invincibility against ALL RF emitters and threats, or if one still subscribes to the notion that stealth is being relied upon (by designers) for being the only way to actually fight through an integrated air defense system.

Image

^ This graphic is from a Turkish Naval War College academic paper presented earlier this year. CEW is not a monopoly for any one air-force but a domain that most modern air-forces are working on (but would speak little about publicly). It is but another layer in the offensive capability to solve the access issue much like stealth is. The objective with merging cyber and electronic warfare is to have the effect much closer from the time-point of view from those that require it and those that have the ability to measure it. It is also a realization that the counter to "hard to detect and target aka stealth" is a deeply networked and integrated air defense system and behind this network is a series of C2C structures and nodes each one of which can be targeted by CEW. The best use of Cyber is not to seek information from the network or to shut it down, but to manipulate it and even though this is hard and not by itself a be all of all strategies (just as EW by itself isn't going to win you the access challenge) it is a part of a multi-layered approach. Also note that the secretive pod being developed for the F-35's outside of program development is not an Electronic Warfare pod but is being called a Cyber Pod most likely highlighting its purpose. This came as a surprise to many of us because if more EW capability was to be added to the F-35 there were two antenna boxes available in the airframe (like the F-22's 4) and there is enough space in the avionics bay to sustain avionics growth for the next 2-3 decade. When it was revealed that it will be a cyber pod many suspected that the complex waveforms and antennas required for such a task would be too complex to mount internally, think the NGJ minus the EW just for cyber target insertion. This also comes back to Bill Sweetman who much like others is left to only assume the capabilities of the only classified element of the F-35 (Its EW System) and assume that the gallium nitride LO payload Northrop Grumman had briefly highlighted a few years ago never made it into the requirements because if it had it would have resulted in delays. I think the USAF would take the F-35 and F-22 into the CEW world as was claimed by General Mike Hostage the then commander of the Air Combat Command a few years ago.


One of the most recent suspected employment of CEW was with the IDF in Syria -

http://theaviationist.com/2014/09/06/op ... niversary/

http://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview. ... -defenses/

From a Paid AvWeek Article -

U.S. aerospace industry and retired military officials indicated the Israelis utilized a technology like the U.S.-developed “Suter” airborne network attack system developed by BAE Systems and integrated into U.S. unmanned aerial vehicle operations by L-3 Communications. Israel has long been adept at using unmanned systems to provoke and spoof Syrian surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems, as far back as the Bekka Valley engagements in 1982.

Air Force officials will often talk about jamming, but the term now involves increasingly sophisticated techniques such as network attack and information warfare. How many of their new electronic attack options were mixed and matched to pull off this raid is not known.

The U.S. version of the system has been at the very least tested operationally in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last year, most likely against insurgent communication networks. The technology allows users to invade communications networks, see what enemy sensors see and even take over as systems administrator so sensors can be manipulated into positions where approaching aircraft can’t be seen, they say. The process involves locating enemy emitters with great precision and then directing data streams into them that can include false targets and misleading messages that allow a number of activities including control.

Clues, both good and unlikely, are found in Middle East press reports. At least one places some responsibility for the attack’s success on the U.S.

After the strike, the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Watan reported that U.S. jets provided aerial cover for Israeli strike aircraft during the attack on Syria. Similar statements of American involvement were made by Egyptian officials after the 1967 and 1973 wars with Israel.

More interesting is the newspaper’s claim that “Russian experts are studying why the two state-of-the-art Russian-built radar systems in Syria did not detect the Israeli jets entering Syrian territory,” it said. “Iran reportedly has asked the same question, since it is buying the same systems and might have paid for the Syrian acquisitions.”

Syria’s most recent confirmed procurement was of the Tor-M1 (SA-15 Gauntlet) short-range mobile SAM system. It uses vehicle-mounted target-acquisition and target-tracking radars. It is not known whether any of the Tor systems were deployed in the point-defense role at the target site struck by Israeli aircraft. If, however, the target was as “high-value” as the Israeli raid would suggest, then Tor systems could well have been deployed.

Iran bought 29 of the Tor launchers from Russia for $750 million to guard its nuclear sites, and they were delivered in January, according to Agence France-Presse and ITAR-TASS. According to the Syrian press, they were tested in February. Syria has also upgraded some of its aging S-125s (SA-3 Goa) to the Pechora-2A standard. This upgrade swaps out obsolete analog components for digital.


Title : Israel used electronic attack in air strike against Syrian mystery target Date: Oct 8/2007

So the access challenge would require one to look at the threat and come with the best operator specific mix of low-observability, support, tactics, electronic warfare and cyber capabilities. The exact mix and how it is employed would be different for different operators and is ultimately a function of what the threat is and how that capability allows one particular user to utilize its assets to counter the threat. If you enjoy a significant military and economic advantage over your potential adversaries you can make do with taking out $10,000 targets with a $300,000 stand off weapon, or taking out a fixed target with a multi Million $ Stand off weapon. You can reduce your upfront investment in adding stealth to your combat aircraft and simply procure a decent number of SO weapons (the European strategy). If you are relying on beating a near peer you may wish to do things differently. Similarly, if you are technologically or economically inferior you may wish to choose certain very specific high payoff areas and mixes. No matter what the focus of your military strategy is, stealth by no means is going to be the silver bullet that destroys IAD's and enables offensive ops deep inside enemy territory all by itself (against a capable opponent), however VHF radars are also not going to force everyone in the world designing stealth to stop doing so no matter how much uncle Bill wishes it to be the case!! Case (indian context) in point - AMCA and AURA.
Last edited by brar_w on 16 Sep 2015 14:46, edited 21 times in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60378
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Singha » 15 Sep 2015 17:25

As a coincidence I saw a dream last week of a future tank battle where a formation of charging mbt are disabled by electronic attack on the fly OTA.... Their engines stop, gun refuses to fire and thermals refuse to mark targets...adversary had used their inter tank network to send malware

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby ArmenT » 16 Sep 2015 11:23

TSJones wrote:out of 190.000 active duty Marines only 15,000 or so are assigned to infantry.

still, the Marines insist everybody takes 4 weeks of infantry training beyond boot camp, whether you are going to fix planes or tanks. everybody has a basic MOS of infantry. those that are actually assigned to infantry take further infantry training but by that time the non-hackers and shit-birds are weeded out.

To be precise, USMC recruit training (boot camp) is 13 weeks long, after which graduating recruits can call themselves as Marines. After graduating from boot camp, Marines with MOS of infantry go to School of Infantry (SOI) for a 59 day training period and every non-infantry Marine attends the Marine Combat Training (MCT) course for 29 days (about 4 weeks), where they learn basic rifleman tactics. Therefore, every Marine is a rifleman first, before they go on to their specific MOS. Infantry marines may also attend the Advanced Infantry Training Battalion course afterwards depending on their MOS.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby TSJones » 16 Sep 2015 11:50

it all depends. you have so many "T-days". you miss more than a couple, they set you back in training, or if they do not like your progress. when you get up in the morning every day, you pray that you will not get set back. you fear that more than anything else.

attempted suicides caused lock downs, hated those too. shit-birds and non-hackers, and Dear John letters. ugh.

last I heard, they stop doing Motivation Days. thank God and the Commandant for that!
Last edited by TSJones on 16 Sep 2015 12:08, edited 3 times in total.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A Sharma, ajacob, brar_w, Dileep, Jeffrey, nam, ravikr, UlanBatori and 47 guests