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: 32914
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby shiv » 07 Jan 2017 06:29

DARPA wraps up first phase of program developing temporary underwater fiber-optics communications networks to ensure connectivity when tactical networks are unavailable
Image
DARPA’s Tactical Undersea Network Architecture (TUNA) program recently completed its initial phase, successfully developing concepts and technologies aimed at restoring connectivity for U.S. forces when traditional tactical networks are knocked offline or otherwise unavailable. The program now enters the next phase, which calls for the demonstration of a prototype of the system at sea.

TUNA seeks to develop and demonstrate novel, optical-fiber-based technology options and designs to temporarily restore radio frequency (RF) tactical data networks in a contested environment via an undersea optical fiber backbone. The concept involves deploying RF network node buoys—dropped from aircraft or ships, for example—that would be connected via thin underwater fiber-optic cables. The very-small-diameter fiber-optic cables being developed are designed to last 30 days in the rough ocean environment—long enough to provide essential connectivity until primary methods of communications are restored.

“Phase 1 of the program included successful modeling, simulation, and at-sea tests of unique fiber-cable and buoy-component technologies needed to make such an undersea architecture work,” said John Kamp, program manager in DARPA’s Strategic Technology Office. “Teams were able to design strong, hair-thin, buoyant fiber-optic cables able to withstand the pressure, saltwater, and currents of the ocean, as well as develop novel power generation concepts.”

Supplying power to floating buoy nodes on the open sea presents a particular challenge. During the first phase of the program, the University of Washington’s Applied Physics Lab (APL) developed a unique concept called the Wave Energy Buoy that Self-deploys (WEBS), which generates electricity from wave movement. The WEBS system is designed to fit into a cylinder that could be deployed from a ship or aircraft.

Having now entered its second and final phase, the program is advancing to design and implement an integrated end-to-end system, and to test and evaluate this system in laboratory and at-sea demonstrations. As a test case for the TUNA concept, teams are using Link 16—a common tactical data network used by U.S. and allied forces’ aircraft, ships, and ground vehicles.

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby TSJones » 07 Jan 2017 08:57

TUNA? really? good grief...... :roll:

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5526
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 07 Jan 2017 18:28

DARPA has always had some really interesting graphics. This one shows an X-32 (Not the F-32 since the wing is still that of the X-32).

Nothing beats BaE system's use of the YF23 to showcase their EW capability at the AFA event last year. BaE's electronic systems was on the other team during ATF and was later acquired by Lockheed Martin (who them sold them to BaE).


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5526
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 09 Jan 2017 20:21

Navy releases new surface-forces strategy focused on 'sea control'


The Navy has released a new surface-forces strategy focused on a "return to sea control" through applying the service's nascent "distributed lethality" concept.

The world is entering "a new age of seapower," with state and non-state groups alike testing the global maritime dominance held by the U.S. Navy since the end of the Cold War, the new strategy asserts. The document was signed out in December by Vice Adm. Thomas Rowden, commander of Naval Surface Forces.

In a Jan. 5 phone interview, Rowden said the Navy is moving from an era of uncontested power projection to dealing with both "re-surging and emerging" near-pear competing nations that challenge the United States' control of the seas.

The surface force's answer to countering these new challenges and tactics is "distributed lethality," a concept first unveiled by Rowden nearly two years ago.

Rowden said he wanted to publish the strategy to help guide the surface fleet, but also to help the rest of the Navy and the joint force understand where the surface forces are going.

"I wanted to have a one stop shop where everyone could pick this thing up and say, 'OK, I got it,'" Rowden said.

The three core tenets of distributed lethality are increasing the offensive capabilities of Navy ships, spreading them out over a wide geographic area to hold enemy targets at-risk, and providing surface forces with "the right mix of resources to persist in a fight," according to the strategy. The third tenet is achieved by upgrading their defensive capabilities, leveraging their ability to defend each other and ensuring they can fight through battle damage in a degraded command-and-control environment, the strategy continues.

The Navy is testing out the concept by deploying "surface action groups." Last year, the service deployed the first such group when it sent a trio of guided missile destroyers to the Western Pacific, where they operated under one command-and-control structure, even when they were dispersed.

Rowden believes the Navy needs to continue deploying surface action groups in novel ways. This year, the service is expected to deploy an "up-gunned expeditionary strike group," according to Rowden, which will combine a three-destroyer surface action group with an amphibious ready group.

The deployment will "start to explore what we can do tactically not only with the assets that we have assigned to the amphibious readiness group in the execution of the sea control mission, but also beef up our ability to fully support the United States Marine Corps in the execution of operational maneuver from the sea," Rowden said.

The idea of a surface action group may be new to many people used to the Navy operating as either carrier strike groups, amphibious ready groups or independent deployers, according to Rowden. He said the Navy needs to start the "education process" on what it means to be operating in these new formations.

Beyond the up-gunned expeditionary strike group, Rowden said he'd like to explore establishing surface action groups within carrier strike groups, as well as have surface action groups train to support amphibious operations, while amphibious ready groups train for sea-control operations.

The three-star admiral said his main goal is to provide leadership with a "menu of options" on what the surface forces can accomplish.

"This is a menu of capabilities we can deliver from the deployed forces we have, and oh by the way, they're fully trained in order to be able to go execute all of the menu options," Rowden said.

The new strategy highlights how the Navy can achieve sea control through distributed lethality by laying out four broad "surface force investment objectives."

The first investment objective is to increase the firepower of surface ships by continuing "to modify existing weapons and expand the procurement of improved surface launched anti-ship, anti-air and land-attack missiles," the strategy states.

In addition to anti-ship missiles, Rowden said the undersea domain is also important. The strategy highlights the need to "expand the capability of long-range, anti-submarine weapons."

"We think about anti-ship, but I also concentrate and think a lot about anti-submarine," Rowden said. "Clearly, given the threat from potential adversary submarines, I think it's important we get after this particular piece."

The second investment objective entails supporting the Navy's long-range shipbuilding plan and modernization programs. The new construction and upgrade of air-and-missile defense destroyers is key to the goal, as is extending the life of the service's cruiser fleet, according to the document.

But it also states that increasing the lethality and capacity of Littoral Combat Ships, frigates and amphibious ships is a "cornerstone" of the surface force's future success.

Rowden said he is "fascinated" by the potential role amphibious ships could play within the surface force's strategy. While he said the primary role of amphibious ships is transporting Marines to shore, the opportunity exists to loop them into the sea-control battle, particularly with the transition to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

"What opportunities might be presented in order to take advantage of those capabilities in the Joint Strike Fighter in the execution of missions beyond just kind of the traditional operational maneuver from the sea," Rowden said.

Additionally, he pointed to the ability of San Antonio-class amphibious ships to house vertical launch systems. While the ships do not currently have VLS installed, LPD-17 was designed with a potential space for VLS, Rowden said.

"The engineering work, the vast majority of it's been done, it's just a matter of making the decision that we're going to increase, I would say, the firepower of the LPD-17 and then making the modifications to the ship in order to be able to install that capability," he said.

Improving battlespace awareness is the strategy's third investment objective. The document points to electromagnetic maneuver warfare technologies, like the Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP), as key to that end.

"This objective includes continued development of combat systems capabilities with improvements to mission planning software, battle management software for Warfare Commanders, and tools to manage unit and force level emissions," the new strategy states.

The fourth objective is instilling "high velocity learning," a priority of Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson, across the surface force.

Rowden and others are expected to discuss the strategy in-depth at this week's Surface Navy Association symposium in Arlington, VA. Rowden said the strategy is not meant to be put on the shelf now that it's been released, but rather discussed and refined as necessary.

"It'll adapt if necessary to adjust with the changing times," Rowden said. "But I think we've got a good view and I think we've got a good characterization of how to go forward."


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5526
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 11 Jan 2017 01:19

The first USMC F-35B Operational Squadron (VMFA 121) has departed MCAS Yuma for its deployment to its base of Iwakuni, Japan making it the first time the aircraft will appear in the Pacific Command. Both the F-22 and F-35 will now be available to the COCOM. The squadron with its 10 aircraft will be permanently based there.

USAF too will be pushing its first OCONUS F-35 squadron in support of PACOM, with 2 operational units going to Eielson AFB Alaska to support PACOM starting 2020. In that interim it will be the Marines with the F-35B's that will have the only permanent F-35 presence in the region (The USAF will likely rotate a security package through there much like they do with other aircraft until they have permanent units to offer ).



Marine Corps F-35Bs with Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA-121), 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, departs Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona enroute to Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Japan on January 9, 2017. With its relocation to 1st Marine Aircraft Wing at Iwakuni, VMFA-121 is the first operational F-35B Lightning II squadron assigned to the Fleet Marine Force.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5526
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 13 Jan 2017 04:40

Air Force begins new round of massive bunker buster improvements after successful 2016 testing

The Air Force is moving forward with a fourth round of upgrades to Boeing's Massive Ordnance Penetrator -- a 30,000-pound bunker-busting bomb designed to hit targets such as deeply buried clandestine nuclear-weapons development sites -- after a variant of the GBU-57 with a third round of classified upgrades passed muster with the Pentagon's top weapons tester.

The Air Force, which is buying and upgrading the largest conventional explosive in the U.S. military arsenal to attack deeply buried and hardened bunkers and tunnels, conducted three key tests of the Enhanced Threat Response Phase 3 variant of the MOP in 2016, according to a new report by the office of the Pentagon's weapon tester.

“The ETR Phase 3 testing was successful in demonstrating weapon effectiveness with the current weapon configuration,” J. Michael Gilmore wrote in his fiscal year 2016 annual report to Congress and the defense secretary. While a success, the outcome was not exactly as expected, he wrote: “[S]ignificant differences between pre-test modeling predictions and actual test results indicate the need for provision of additional modeling capacity, such as that available using the department's High-Performance Computing facilities.”

The annual report by the Pentagon's weapon tester provides one of the few unclassified insights each year into development of the MOP capability.

The B-2 bomber is the only aircraft equipped to employ the MOP.

During two tests in 2016 at White Sands Missile Range, NM, the Air Force demonstrated effectiveness of the ETR Phase 3 variant of the MOP, according to the report.

In March, a single B-2 dropped a live ETR Phase 3 weapon on a “representative” target to evaluate weapon functionality, according to the report.

Three months later, in June, two B-2s dropped three MOPs on a representative target, Gilmore reported. “This testing was to evaluate weapon effectiveness,” according to the report.

A fourth ERT phase will commence testing in FY-17, according to the report. The Air Force's FY-17 budget request seeks $7.4 million for ETR Phase 4, including “development of an acquisition strategy for incorporation of M-code,” a new military signal on the Global Positioning System satellite constellation.

The MOP is being developed as part of the Air Force's Deep Strike Penetrator Systems project, which aims to provide policy makers the options to strike hard and deeply buried targets while using fewer weapons, which helps reduce the number of missions necessary to defeat targets -- thus increasing, according to the Air Force, chances of mission survivability.

“The Direct Strike Penetrator provides critical global strike capability not met by inventory conventional weapons,” according to the Air Force's FY-17 budget request to fund further MOP development. “It will hold at risk the best defended and protected high priority assets essential to an enemy's warfighting ability.”

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 59437
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Singha » 13 Jan 2017 09:04

brar_w iirc you once said LRASM was cancelled after a POC demo. but it seems on track for B1/F18 and soon on ships too

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... else-19028

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 59437
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Singha » 13 Jan 2017 09:08

Image

Image

does US defence industry face a aeging problem...dont see much young fbook/googler type crowd in their publicity pix

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1820
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Cybaru » 13 Jan 2017 09:26

Singha wrote:does US defence industry face a aeging problem...dont see much young fbook/googler type crowd in their publicity pix


These are phone/device free work locations! :) That might explain it!

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 59437
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Singha » 13 Jan 2017 17:21

:rotfl:
and probably no free food 24x7, free backrubs and dual 27" apple monitors

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5526
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 13 Jan 2017 19:06

Singha wrote:brar_w iirc you once said LRASM was cancelled after a POC demo. but it seems on track for B1/F18 and soon on ships too

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... else-19028


I never said that it was cancelled but rebutted someone else that had claimed that it was on occasions. Here is our last exchange on the LRASM -

viewtopic.php?t=4752&start=1800#p1806250

It is an urgent needs request and as such goes out once that capability is provided to the F-18 and B-1 fleets. That's around 200 weapons iirc. The Increment-1 program of record does not cover surface ships. It must re-compete if it want's to provide that capability for the surface ships, or the attack submarine since there are legal protections afforded to the competitors that prevent an urgent needs weapon from becoming the mainstream weapon after circumventing the usual acquisition hoops on account of the fast track process to get it into service.

Lockheed has spent company money in demonstrating LRASM-A from the VLS and is developing a launcher for both ship (LCS) and land use. But there is no program of record for that. Instead there is the Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare ( OASuW) Increment-2 program (Increment 1 was the fast track development and acquisition of LRASM) in which the LRASM-A has to compete with the new Tomohawk with the new RF AESA seeker, the JSM (for LCS) and the Harpoon-ER. LRASM program can be seperated into two categories..the portion funded by DARPA (seeker) and the USN (integration on F-18 and B-1 and testing) and that funded privately by Lockheed (VLS integration, demonstration and the new launcher). Lockheed would have hoped that the USN just rolled Increment 1 into the Increment 2 but there is a process, and the requirements need not be the same. If for example they want Tomohawk range, then Lockheed would be forced to base their weapon on the JASSM-XR which will require quite a bit of work.
Last edited by brar_w on 13 Jan 2017 21:35, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby TSJones » 13 Jan 2017 20:23

Singha wrote::rotfl:
and probably no free food 24x7, free backrubs and dual 27" apple monitors


no back in the day it was all bull pen hey-who's-got-my-chair? development.

just getting travel vouchers are a pain in the butt.

way different from silicon valley stds.

I applied for a job at rocky flats nuclear facility colorado now defunct. it was a hell hole. glad I didn't take the job.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5526
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 13 Jan 2017 20:26



Tech companies vs defense firms is an unfair comparison..They are much larger in size..Just compare revenues for the top 3 there with the big three Defense primes.

The DIB has to be robust enough to support the defense industry work and other commercial aerospace overlap so it tends to scale up and down with investments there.
Last edited by brar_w on 13 Jan 2017 20:33, edited 1 time in total.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1820
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Cybaru » 13 Jan 2017 20:31

Singha wrote::rotfl:
and probably no free food 24x7, free backrubs and dual 27" apple monitors


Now if they add that to the outside, it might change dynamics.. The selfie statue from Texas!

Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 59437
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Singha » 13 Jan 2017 21:32

For a moment i thought the left girl had nothing on under the shirt. Had to zoom my screen to ensure i was wrong

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3264
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Rakesh » 13 Jan 2017 21:36

:mrgreen: :D

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby TSJones » 15 Jan 2017 20:26

can Trump expand to a 350 ship navy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3hm63jfMLE

prolly not.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5526
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 15 Jan 2017 20:29

TSJones wrote:can Trump expand to a 350 ship navy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3hm63jfMLE

prolly not.


It's going to be a multi decade process. To his credit Obama and Ray Mabus have done a far better job with respect to ship building than the previous Bush administration. He's put the Bush budgeted 274 ship navy to be on a path to be at a 304 or so by the early to mid 2020s. Any strategy to get to a 350 ship navy has to first involve decisions that get the wheels in motion that prepares the DIB to deliver on that. That's all Donald Trump can do but any increase in ship count depends upon what future POTUS's and the Congress this and wishes.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5526
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 16 Jan 2017 01:17

One of the KC-Z tanker concepts that apparently did not advance

Image

Image

http://www.janes.com/article/63974/afa- ... c-z-tanker

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5526
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 17 Jan 2017 02:29

The first proposals for the new Trump/GOP defense budget has been floated by the SASC Chairman John McCain. Notable additional procurement over the 5 year period starting FY18 (Over and above what the Obama Budget had budgeted)

- F-35A - 73 Additional aircraft for the USAF (On top of the 280 the USAF is expected to get between FY18 and FY22)
- F-35B - 20 Additional aircraft for the USMC ( While exact B and C breakup is tough to dig up, the total DON purchase for FY18 - FY22 was 186 aircraft that he's proposing to be upped to 206)
- F-18E/F - 58 Additional aircraft for the US Navy (The USN had not budgeted any in that time-frame but there was always unfunded demand for them)
- EA/18G - 16 Additional aircraft ( The USN was not budgeted any in that time-frame but there was always unfunded demand for them)
- 36 Additional KC-46 tankers (On top of the 75 Tankers the USAF is expected to get )
- Double Virginia Class SSN production from 2 subs a year to 4 subs a year
- Adds an A-X POR which based on funding looks like a Scorpion type

On top of this considerable additional funds are being proposed to the Compass Call recapitalization, Penetrating Counter Air aircraft, and a host of other programs. Total increase to 3rd Offset R&D programs is $30 Billion over 5 years.

Document - http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/_ca ... ower-7.pdf

Expect a similar proposals from the HASC Chairman (Mac Thornberry). Most of these increases actually begin to take effect in FY19 and beyond. Even though Trump's first budget will technically be FY18, there are only a few months to float it so it's generally a tweaking of the previous administrations budget and not a completely new budget.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32914
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby shiv » 22 Jan 2017 12:37

http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-air- ... 5885c93a1b
The U.S. Air Force chief of staff endorses the idea of buying 300 low-cost, light-attack fighters for counterterrorism missions as a “great idea.”
<snip>
In a white paper out this week, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, suggested that in addition to using the A-10 for close air support, the Air Force should buy 300 light-attack fighters. They could help perform close air support and other missions where air defenses are not a problem and help bring pilots up to speed. “The Air Force could procure the first 200 of these aircraft by fiscal year 2022,” the paper says.

It is not the first time that top Air Force officials have mentioned the idea. In July, officials discussed the possibility of an “OA-X” program to supplement the service’s light attack force. Sierra Nevada’s A-29 Super Tucano and the Beechcraft AT-6 Wolverine were mentioned as possible platforms.



brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5526
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 22 Jan 2017 19:43


shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32914
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby shiv » 24 Jan 2017 22:06

On the general question of what it takes to take out a "nukular" plant
Saddam Hussein Seriously Feared a U.S. Nuclear Strike During the Gulf War
On Jan. 19, 1991, the Americans launched an enormous air raid aimed at taking out Iraq’s Tawaitha nuclear research facility near Baghdad, home of the Osirak nuclear reactor — previously bombed by the Iranians and, more famously, the Israelis.

The Package Q Strike consisted of 56 F-16s raining down unguided Mark-84 bombs on the facility and other targets in Baghdad. But the jets encountered heavy Iraqi air defenses. Two F-16s were shot down and Tawaitha remained in operation. A follow-up strike by radar-evading F-117 stealth fighters three days later also failed to destroy the nuclear facility.

Consequently, U.S. planners assigned 48 F-117s the sole task of destroying the nuke site. These Nighthawks flew a total of seven more strikes over the course of the following 32 days. The largest stealth strike package came on day 19 of Operation Desert Storm, when 17 of the iconic stealth aircraft attacked the area.

The F-117s dropped 66 bombs throughout the course of these strikes, leading the Defense Intelligence Agency to conclude that the Tawaitha facility had been severely degraded.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5526
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 24 Jan 2017 23:15

This was Pre-B2 so you didn't have the option of higher survivability plus higher payload. Although not representative of the type of target or the munition of choice but it kind of demonstrates the flexibility of range and payload that a survivable long range strike aircraft provides compared to a tactical strike aircraft which the F117 essentially was -



Image

For reinforced targets I believe the paylaod is 8 x 5000lb GBU-37's or a pair of the 30,000 lb GBU-57 .

http://www.stripes.com/news/new-bunker- ... er-1.73214

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5526
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 25 Jan 2017 00:22


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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby TSJones » 30 Jan 2017 05:04

some cool agitprop from northrup.........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8OxNUs-qyQ

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5526
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 30 Jan 2017 23:25

Full Article at Source.

DARPA awards Raytheon Phase II contract for MAD-FIRES guided projectile concept
Raytheon Missile Systems has been selected by the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to execute the next phase of the Multi Azimuth Defense Fast Intercept Round Engagement System (MAD-FIRES [ No one does Acronyms quite like DARPA] ) programme.

Designed to improve ship survivability in high threat environments, the MAD-FIRES programme is, according to DARPA's Tactical Technology Office, intended to mature technologies "associated with a medium-calibre [30-57 mm] guided projectile that would combine the guidance, precision, and accuracy generally afforded by missiles with the speed, rapid-fire capability, and large ammunition capacity afforded by bullets".

DARPA's premise is that current close-range gun systems would significantly benefit from an ability to rapidly and accurately engage multiple, diverse targets approaching from different axes. This would provide improved real-time defence against air and surface threats, and reduce engagement costs by at least an order of magnitude through reduced ammunition expenditure.

"MAD-FIRES aims to advance the state-of-the-art in defensive gun systems by creating a new, low-cost technological foundation for guided, gun-launched projectiles," the agency said. "Specifically, MAD-FIRES aims to incorporate enhanced ammunition rounds able to alter their flight path in real time to stay on target, and a capacity to continuously target, track, and engage multiple fast-approaching targets simultaneously and re-engage any targets that survive initial engagement."

It is understood that MAD-FIRES is being considered as a potential 'drop-in' solution substitute for the shipboard Phalanx close-in weapon system. According to DARPA, the MAD-FIRES programme will conduct risk reduction to design, build, and test a concept demonstrator against representative cruise missile threats. "MAD-FIRES will demonstrate the potential for a munition to provide "missile-like" precision strike against large numbers of extreme time critical targets where the engagement timelines are <10 sec and would otherwise overwhelm missile batteries and speed," the agency said, adding that "successful demonstration of MAD-FIRES will provide a proof-of-concept for the defeat of supersonic anti-ship cruise missile raids, and provide a real path to use munitions in other precision-strike applications such as anti-tank, counter rocket-artillery-mortar, and counter swarm with smaller, more agile platforms".

DARPA has previously indicated that its specific technical areas of interest for MAD-FIRES include: launch (using an integrated fire-control and medium-calibre gun system capable of a high rate of fire based on an existing or near-existing gun system); midcourse (projectile guidance, course control, and target tracking during fly out, such as compact high fidelity [<10 cm at 6 km] command guidance and onboard seeker); terminal (aimpoint selection and manoeuvre to target); multi-engagement fire control (>6 simultaneous supersonic intercepts); lethality (high probability of kill enabled by kinetic energy or warhead); and packaging (using integrated subcomponent technologies capable of withstanding a 30,000-65,000 g gun launch within a medium-calibre projectile).


Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3264
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Rakesh » 31 Jan 2017 00:23

brar: check this out...

Boeing might stop manufacturing fighter planes
http://www.defenceaviation.com/2014/09/ ... lanes.html

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3264
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Rakesh » 31 Jan 2017 00:24


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5526
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 31 Jan 2017 00:36

Rakesh wrote:brar: check this out...

Boeing might stop manufacturing fighter planes
http://www.defenceaviation.com/2014/09/ ... lanes.html


This goes back to 2014. They delivered 45 fighter aircraft in 2015 and 40 in 2016, and there are years left on the F-15 and F/A-18 production lines going into the FA-XX and PCA developmental programs.

They probably have a good 200 fighters to deliver still between the F-15 announced orders (F-15SA, F-15Qatar) and the expected additional orders for Super Hornets from the USN, plus Kuwait and Canada. You also cannot discount additional orders from Saudi or Qatar or even South Korea for that matter.

If one went back and did a fighter jet production/delivery tally for Boeing the number is actually quite high if one looks at deliveries between 2000 and 2020. They are yet to win a clean sheet fighter competition since they reorganized so at some point that will affect deliveries in the 2020's but then they'll be competing for new developmental programs then. Moreover there is the T-X to keep them warm at St. Louis and they by all account are going at it hard.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 59437
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Singha » 02 Feb 2017 08:04

CNN - Tico class CG

(CNN)The USS Antietam, a US Navy Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser, damaged its propellers and spilled hydraulic oil into the water after running aground off the coast of Japan.

The incident, which occurred Tuesday while the ship was anchoring in Tokyo Bay near Yokosuka, Japan, did not result in any injuries to US or Japanese personnel, but the discharge of up to 1,100 gallons of hydraulic oil prompted environmental concerns.
"The Navy is cooperating with the Government of Japan and Local Japanese Coast Guard in response to this issue and is exhausting all options to minimize impacts to the environment," according to a statement from Kyoko Sugita, a US Navy spokesperson.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 692
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Manish_P » 02 Feb 2017 14:22



Heartning to see the uber 5th gen getting used.. even if it against ragheads without a proper airforce or army

Hope they are able to maintain their aura and don't have a Leopard 2 moment of their own

PS: Weren't there some blurry videos about bomb drops from F22s during the regime change in libya ?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 59437
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Singha » 02 Feb 2017 15:18

The U.S. and Syria did not coordinate the airstrikes. “We did not coordinate our actions with the Syrian government. We did not provide advance notification to the Syrians at a military level, or give any indication of our timing on specific targets,” U.S. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a statement.

they just phone in and tell the russians at hymenim :rotfl:
talk about being a bit economical with the truth

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5526
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 02 Feb 2017 17:16

New Northrop facility deal likely meant for B-21 stealth coating
WASHINGTON — Northrop Grumman’s secretive B-21 bomber appears set to receive its stealth coating at the same spot its B-2 parent was born.

On Jan. 31, the company was awarded a $35.8 million contract modification from the US Air Force to “construct a new 45,900 square foot coatings facility at Air Force Plant 42.” While the B-21 was not specifically named in the contract announcement, Plant 42 is located at the Palmdale, California, facility that has been tied to the bomber program for years.

Palmdale is home to the final assembly and checkout facilities that were used by Northrop to produce the B-2 bomber. Stealth coating on the B-2 fleets are repaired at the location as well, but given the lack of new production for the B-2, the B-21 is the most likely design for the new facility.

Notably, the expected completion date for construction of the facility is listed as Dec. 25, 2019. The Air Force has a tentative operational date of 2025. If the facility is up and running at the start of 2020, it could lead to a first run of low-rate initial production planes rolling off the line in early 2021, which would track nicely to that 2025 date. In January 2015, when Northrop was fighting to win the bomber contract, Defense News visited the facility as part of a Northrop-organized tour. Reporters visiting the then-empty facility were shown videos and photos of the B-2 line, and while Northrop would not specify that they planned to produce the B-21 at that location, officials were all but winking and nodding at the subject.

In response to an inquiry from Defense News, Northrop spokesman Tim Paynter said: “The contract award for the additional facility at our Palmdale Aircraft Integration Center of Excellence is part of the company’s planned growth as we continue to meet our business objectives.”

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5526
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 14 Feb 2017 19:34

Textron Systems successfully tests G-CLAW precision guided weapon against moving targets

Textron Systems Weapon & Sensor Systems, a business of Textron Inc., announced today Feb. 14, 2017, the successful testing of G-CLAW, the company's precision guided glide weapon, against moving targets. The flight tests, which occurred in October 2016, took place at Yuma Proving Grounds in Arizona.The Weapon & Sensor Systems team conducted the G-CLAW precision guided weapon flight tests from a Cessna Caravan. G-CLAW demonstrated successful engagement of static and moving targets within 1 meter circular error probable (CEP). The weapon engaged static and moving targets by transferring navigation from a GPS-aided inertial navigation system to the Semi-Active Laser (SAL) sensor for terminal guidance. The test results verified end-to-end guidance through successful engagement of an off-axis target greater than 2 kilometers downrange from the aircraft.

"We are pleased with the test results and development progress of the G-CLAW precision guided weapon system," says Weapon & Sensor Systems Senior Vice President & General Manager Brian Sinkiewicz.

The G-CLAW precision guided glide weapon system incorporates tri-mode fuzing (Height of Burst, Impact, Delay) to optimize effects against a broad target set. G-CLAW is designed with modularity to support rapid incorporation of emerging technologies in guidance, seekers and warhead effects. It can be adapted to changing mission requirements at minimum development cost. G-CLAW can be integrated onto an array of aircraft including the Cessna Caravan and Textron AirLand Scorpion jet, as well as innovative launch systems such as the Common Launch Tube (CLT), utilizing a roll-on/roll-off Battle Management Systems (BMS).



Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4891
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Viv S » 19 Feb 2017 16:04

JayS wrote:^ I may be totally wrong but, My understanding is LM bought data from Yak such as expt, real life performance data etc. Thats definitely worth hundreds of millions if the quality of data was good, we will never know. That must have reduced a lot of work for LM, if so.

Like I said before there are very fundamental differences between the F-35's design and that of the Yak-141. LM & Boeing were each given $750 million to develop their prototypes. Its not likely that LM blew $400 mil of that on blueprints & test documents from Yak on a model that had limited commonality with their design to begin with.

Having an idea, a concept or a patent of something mean zilch, what matters is actually designing it, making it and deploying it in real life successfully.

Exactly. Which is why terming the F-35B a xerox copy of the Yak-141 because they use the same 'concept' of STOVL (despite employing different mechanisms) is incorrect.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15664
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby NRao » 19 Feb 2017 16:21

Which is why terming the F-35B a xerox copy of the Yak-141 because they use the same 'concept' of STOVL (despite employing different mechanisms) is incorrect.


When LM proposed the design, their engineers were laughed at. That was the true beginning of the Turkey thread.




And BTW, meanwhile the Harrier guys teamed up with Boeing.

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12748
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby negi » 19 Feb 2017 17:08

You guys should watch this video; look at how Americans criticize the Harrier on various grounds . However cleverly at the end they slip in a message about F-35 B being better in all respects , it better be for the two birds are almost 40 years apart.



From USMC's experience IN has done admirably well for we for sure were not given same assistance as Khan when it came to logistics, spares and even technology.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5526
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 19 Feb 2017 19:02

negi wrote:Viv , Brar on whether F-35 copied the Yak141 or not is a matter of narrative ; you see when Ola and Flipkart came up in India they are dubbed as Uber and Amazon clones. Obviously Americans wish to have their narrative however the 'FACT' is YAK-141 was exactly similar to F-35 in terms of layout it had 2 turbojets that just worked for takeoffs and landings behind the cockpit where F-35 B's fan sits and the main engine nozzle swiveled 90 degrees I mean if you guys wish to go into hair splitting semantics and claim how things are different obviously no one is going to deny that but that is not the point . The point here is CONCEPT was exactly the same the implementation was limited by technology of that time.

It is not based on some cursory glance that one says F-35 is a copy of Yak I mean otherwise even Harrier could qualify ; Harrier had a single engine with 4 vectored nozzles that was a different layout . If semantics is what wants to play with then even J-20 is not a copy of any of the American stealth AC.


Let us dig a bit deeper. You made a claim that they copied YAK. Now tell us exactly what elements were copied? The LMA Propulsion system patent exists since the early 2000's, you can look at it and tell us which aspects were copied. The only thing common between the two is the 3BSN i.e. the nozzle at the back of the engine that directs the thrust by 90 degrees. As I had mentioned, P&W had patented this very nozzle design for the Convair Model 200, (and had as a matter of historical record physically tested the hardware in support of the project) and there was no urge to reinvent the wheel here since Lockheed asked even GE, the alternative engine supplier to not go out and begin R&D on their own nozzle but to simply use the one P&W was developing based on its patents and designs from back in the day.

The rest of the STOVL mechanism are totally different. One proposed lift engines (YAK) while the other proposed lift fans i.e. cold air, where the fan was run by the engine in the rear through a clutch mechanism which Lockheed designed. Have you had a chance to look at the proposed Convair Model 200 designs form the 60's/70s? Here is one -

Image

and the YAK-141 -

Image

Note the similar approaches from convair in the 1960's and YAK in the 70s/80s, a swivel nozzle in the back directing the thrust downwards, and two smaller lift engines in the front providing additional lifting thrust. This was an approach that both DARPA and USMC had warned JSF's teams from using as they were dead against a separate lift engine. Lockheed had been involved in the ASTOVL since the 80's, and avoided that. MCD did not and went with a similar configuration to the YAK (but with only one lift engine). We know how that story went.

Some more information: A brief paragraph on P&W's effort in support of the US Navy's effort in the 1960s -

By the late 1960s, Pratt & Whitney was designing and testing a three-bearing swivel nozzle for use on the Convair Model 200 Sea Control fighter. Design drawings dated 1967 show detail design layouts. The first nozzle was built and tested on a Pratt & Whitney JT8D in the mid 1960s. The tests included operating the nozzle in full afterburner with the nozzle deflected ninety degrees. The test rig was positioned to exhaust upward to avoid heating the ground under the test stand, though subsequent tests positioned the nozzle downward at the ground to assess the effects of ground proximity back pressure on nozzle performance.


As I had mentioned earlier, the lift engine approach was looked at, and was actually a very well understood concept since the late 1960's and 1970's. Allison even had a tested lift engine that they tried out in the 1970's in support of the Convair 200 program. Here is a brief write up on it from the 1970s -

http://s27.postimg.org/xmlb8di9f/1972_1422_page_001.jpg

Note that Allison was purchased by Rolls Royce, so yeah the joint propulsion team on the JSF @ Lockheed would have found it much easier to dig into their own research and development from the 1960s, and 1970s on swivel nozzles, and forward placed lift engines and designed a propulsion system around that much the same way as YAK did. They had all the Intellectual property in their hands to do so in addition to access to YAK. Yet they did not do it. . Instead Paul Bevilaqua's team chose a different path, one not without significant risk but one that laid to rest DARPA's and end users concerns regarding hot air ingestion that had plagued lift engine approaches in the past including that of YAKs. Interesting, MCD which was a heavy hitter at the time (F-15 legacy) stuck to lift-engines. Lockheed's team had extensive experience with lift engines and did best to avoid any such concept. Boeing also resisted lift engines, probably because they had an understanding of the drawbacks given they had purchcased Convair-200 ''s work earlier.

Additionally, we know that Lockheed and its design partners were interested in a clutch based lift-fan concept well before the JAST was merged with other programs. How do we know this? Well, look into the SSF concept from them. They had been proposing this propulsion system configuration since the early 1990's if not earlier. They just did not have a final performance requirement to propose an X-35 until much later. Earlier for example, they had proposed merging this propulsion configuration on the F-117 -

Image

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ft/ssf.htm

This was actually what they were originally contracted for i.e. to design a propulsion system. Since they had only one active stealthy strike aircraft, they simply proposed putting their system on it. Later of course SSF and JAST were merged and a few years alter JSF was born and as others requirements were firmed up we ended up with the X-35.

Also, this was a design along the way. The CALF -

Image

Image

Notice the propulsion concept remains unchanged in SST --> CALF ---> X-35 ---> F-35B. Lockheed and its team had begun working on this problem with the ASTOVL contracts in the early 1980s, and looked at a vast number of options including the YAK approach which in the US had been studied in depth decades earlier. Once they were deep into their R&D they stuck to one propulsion concept and proposed it in the late 1980s, early 1990's, and mid-late 1990's. While the aircraft built around the propulsion concept changed, Lockheed, Allison/RR, and Pratt and Whitney stuck to the basic propulsion design i.e. a clutch mechanism to use the main engine thrust to drive a forward lift fan. This approach was and remains different from YAK to the F-35 and the lift system is patented by Lockheed Martin -

Image
Last edited by brar_w on 19 Feb 2017 19:43, edited 3 times in total.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: arunsrinivasan, Cain Marko, Nitesh, VKumar and 44 guests