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.
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8003
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby UlanBatori » 06 Apr 2017 06:55

Wow! How close is this to mutiny?

Fleet grounded because instructor pilots REFUSE TO FLY!!!

(CNN)The US Navy has implemented a "safety pause" for its fleet of T-45 training jets, according to a US official, a move that comes just days after more than 100 instructional pilots refused to fly in protest of continuing issues with the aircraft's oxygen system.
The two-day temporary grounding of all T-45 Goshawks will give Navy officials time to assess the concerns related to the rising rate of "physiological episodes" affecting pilots.
Reported physiological episodes resulting in dizzyness or even blackouts have been caused by oxygen contamination, human factors -- including air sickness and vertigo, failure of the on-board oxygen generation system and the failure of other key systems -- according to testimony last week from Rear Adm. Michael Moran.

The number of physiological episodes affecting T-45 pilots per year has quadrupled since 2012, according Moran, a troubling trend that has also been identified in Navy pilots who fly F-18s and EA-18G Growlers.
Navy fighter jets depriving pilots of oxygen
Navy fighter jets depriving pilots of oxygen
But determining the root cause of the issue is complicated by the fact that more than one factor can be attributed to a single physiological event.
Instructional pilots started to boycott training flights last Thursday, after raising concerns that commanders were not doing enough to fix the urgent safety problem despite being informed of the risk.
"Last Friday, we had roughly 40% of our flights canceled in the T-45 training commands in Meridian, Pensacola and Kingsville because of operational risk management concerns voiced by the instructor pilots," Navy spokesperson Cdr. Jeanette Groeneveld said in a statement.
"We take the concerns of our aircrew seriously and have directed a three day operational pause for the T-45 community to allow time for naval aviation leadership to engage with the pilots, hear their concerns and discuss the risk mitigations as well as the efforts that are ongoing to correct this issue," she added.
And a US defense official told CNN earlier that some Navy officers had been covering up the pilots' initial refusal to fly by citing technical and other issues with the aircraft, raising questions about a breakdown in the chain of command. Fox News first reported the pilots' decision not to fly, a move that essentially led to the grounding of hundreds of training flights.
After being questioned on the issue, Adm. John Richardson reiterated the Navy's commitment to resolving the issue during testimony before the House Armed Services Committee Wednesday, calling it the "the top safety priority for naval aviation."
Navy says over half of its air fleet can't fly

Navy says over half of its air fleet can't fly 00:58
"It's a complex problem and requires a multidimensional solution, first and foremost is the human dimension and communication," Richardson said, downplaying disagreement between instructional pilots and senior officers as a "breakdown in communication."
"We are making sure that we are listening and they all feel like they can be talking to leadership so we understand where their anxiety and concerns are," he added.
The Navy has also developed training to make sure pilots recognize the symptoms of hypoxia and understand the appropriate emergency procedures.
Hypoxia results from deficiency in the amount of oxygen delivered to cells and can induce potentially fatal complications.
But frustration over the lack of a permanent solution led to last week's boycott and Wednesday's two-day pause.
"That's a pretty serious thing when pilots say they're not going to fly," Rep. Martha McSally, an Arizona Republican who questioned Richardson about the issue, told CNN following Wednesday's hearing.
"To get to the point where you have them saying we're not flying and we don't think our leadership is listening, which is what you're hearing out of these pilots ... that's pretty severe," McSally, a former Air Force pilot, added.

CNN's Jeremy Herb contributed to this report.

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 966
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby rkhanna » 06 Apr 2017 15:51

Wow! How close is this to mutiny?


Actually a Flight Commander (which an instructor is) is well within his right to not fly an airplane if there is a safety concern. so not technically a mutiny.

highlighting this from the article: "The number of physiological episodes affecting T-45 pilots per year has quadrupled since 2012, according Moran, a troubling trend that has also been identified in Navy pilots who fly F-18s and EA-18G Growlers"

Supposedly the problem wih the F-18 is so severe that deploying aircraft carriers now have decompression chambers due to the F-18 OBOG problems.

PS. McDonnell Douglas makes both the T-45 and F-18.

Did this ever come up in the MRCA saga?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5532
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 06 Apr 2017 15:55

McDonell Douglas no longer exists..This is something the US Navy and Boeing have to look into.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7329
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Pratyush » 06 Apr 2017 16:08

If I am not mistaken the f 22 recently had similar issues with its life support system.

But I am surprised that this issue is coming up at all. As function of life support system should be well understood after all this time and it ought to be functioning flawlessly. But it is not, which is surprising.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5532
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 06 Apr 2017 16:14

Image

The problem occurs at roughly equal rates both in the aging A/B/C/D models built by the former McDonnell-Douglas and in the newer E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers being currently built by Boeing. That’s true even though the old and new jets have different oxygen systems. While the baseline Hornets use bulky bottles of liquid oxygen, like most aircraft since the 1940s, the Super Hornets and Growlers use Cobham-built On-Board Oxygen Generation Systems (OBOGS) that purify air from the engine intakes, theoretically giving them an unlimited supply of oxygen — as long as OBOGS works.

“The older F-18s are having problems due, it seems, to the cabin pressure system and possible contamination,” a Hill staffer told me. “The relatively new Super Hornets are having problems as well, at almost the same rate, but the Navy seems to think it is related to the onboard oxygen generation/filtration system.”


http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/oxyg ... e-hornets/

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8003
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby UlanBatori » 06 Apr 2017 22:09

Speaks very highly of today's PPT/WebEX dominated management at both the Air Force/Navy and Boeing that they spend their time making those fine plots instead of finding and fixing the damn problem. As said above, it ain't rocket science no more, making sure that oxygen flows from a tank into a face mask. Why is this not blatant fraud and corruption perpetrated by crooks who don't mind that their customers die?
"28.2 per 100,000 flight hours". Since you can't have 0.2 incidents, there must be at least 5 times that many flight hours per year, so at least 141 incidents per year And this has been continuing for the past so many years that they have all that data to plot.

Brarji, now pls go back and look at the history of twin-tail buffeting to see another example of the same sort of fraud. Absolutely no doubt that the DoD goons are in league with industry goons to keep the problem from being fixed, so they can continue to bilk the taxpayer on maintenance/ PPT Chart-Making charges.

On "mutiny", bus drivers can also refuse to drive their buses. But if they do it en masse, it is a Strike. In the military, a Strike is a mutiny. VERY poor leadership in the DoD if heads haven't rolled for this in all these years.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46992
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby ramana » 06 Apr 2017 23:02

UlanBatori wrote:Speaks very highly of today's PPT/WebEX dominated management at both the Air Force/Navy and Boeing that they spend their time making those fine plots instead of finding and fixing the damn problem. As said above, it ain't rocket science no more, making sure that oxygen flows from a tank into a face mask. Why is this not blatant fraud and corruption perpetrated by crooks who don't mind that their customers die?

"28.2 per 100,000 flight hours". Since you can't have 0.2 incidents, there must be at least 5 times that many flight hours per year, so at least 141 incidents per year And this has been continuing for the past so many years that they have all that data to plot.

Brarji, now pls go back and look at the history of twin-tail buffeting to see another example of the same sort of fraud. Absolutely no doubt that the DoD goons are in league with industry goons to keep the problem from being fixed, so they can continue to bilk the taxpayer on maintenance/ PPT Chart-Making charges.

On "mutiny", bus drivers can also refuse to drive their buses. But if they do it en masse, it is a Strike. In the military, a Strike is a mutiny. VERY poor leadership in the DoD if heads haven't rolled for this in all these years.


PPTgiri is the bane of modern military. No analysis just charts.

ranjan.rao
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:21

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby ranjan.rao » 06 Apr 2017 23:19

poor guy had to search for the semantics of mutiny
mu·ti·ny: noun
1. an open rebellion against the proper authorities, especially by soldiers or sailors against their officers.
verb
1. refuse to obey the orders of a person in authority.
synonyms: rise up, rebel, revolt, riot, disobey/defy authority, be insubordinate

There would have been a mutiny when an order would have been disobeyed. It should be "dereliction of duty"

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5532
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 06 Apr 2017 23:43

The entire US Naval aviation component that includes all fixed and rotary winged aircraft both manned and unmanned flew 1098519 hours in FY16.



A variety of actions have been undertaken to address the occurrence of physiological
episodes in the F/A-18 / E/A-18G:

1) New maintenance rules for handling the occurrence of specific ECS built-in test faults
have been implemented throughout the fleet requiring that the cause of the fault be identified and
corrected prior to next flight.

2) Transportable Recompression Systems have been put on forward deployed aircraft
carriers to immediately treat aircrew in the event they experience decompression sickness
symptoms.

3) Mandatory cabin pressurization testing is now performed on all F/A-18A-F and EA-
18G aircraft every 400 flight hours and ECS pressure port testing is performed on all F/A-18A-D
aircraft every 400 flight hours. Overhaul procedures for ECS components and aircraft servicing
procedures have been improved.

4) Emergency procedures have been revised, all pilots now receive annual hypoxia
awareness training, and biennial dynamic training using a Reduced Oxygen Breathing Device to
experience and recognize hypoxia symptoms while operating an aircraft simulation.

5) Aircrew are provided portable hypobaric recording watches to alert them when cabin
altitude reaches a preset threshold.

6) Internal components of the F/A-18 OBOGS have been redesigned to incorporate a
catalyst to prevent carbon monoxide from reaching the pilot and provide an improved capability
sieve material (filter). These new OBOGS components have been installed in 80 percent of the
in service F/A-18 fleet so far.

7) Improvements to existing maintenance troubleshooting procedures and acceptance and
test procedures for reworked components have been incorporated and additional improvements
are under evaluation.

8 ) Hardware and software changes are in work for Super Hornets and Growlers to
mitigate cabin pressurization issues due to moisture freezing in the ECS lines.

9) Component redesign, improved performance testing, and newly established life limits
will improve component reliability across all F/A-18 configurations.

10) An increased capacity for the emergency oxygen bottles is under contract.

11) Trial sampling efforts for contamination have been conducted at EA-18G squadrons
located at NAS Whidbey Island to improve real-time data collection for OBOGS related systems.
“Sorbent tubes” which help collect and identify unknown contaminants have been added to
oxygen masks for aircrew to collect samples of breathing gas for post-flight analysis of
potentially harmful compounds.

12) An ECS laboratory is under construction to improve root cause and correct actions of
ECS engineering investigations of fleet events. The projected operational date of the ECS lab is
September of 2017.

13) Aircraft are flown with “slam sticks” to track and collect cabin pressure changes over
time for rigorous data analysis and to compare data to what the aircrew experienced.

14) Future projects include systematic evaluations of technologies to monitor and detect
physiological symptoms


UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8003
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby UlanBatori » 07 Apr 2017 17:20

Items 2,3 and 6-14 are obvious money-spinners for the contractors. "Treat pilots for hypoxia/CO poisoning/Decompression (!!!!!) after every flight. I rest my case. What are these planes? Sopwith Camels with afterburning turbofans?

How new is this problem? Back in the 1960s/70s there were reports of F-4 Phantom pilots blacking out during carrier takeoff. That was attributed to the awesome G-forces plus the fact that the Phantom with load was underpowered, and had to do a small descent to pick up speed after flying off the edge of a carrier - a very dangerous maneuver indeed. But if the pilots were already gassed with CO, this might explain the accidents that occurred there. Why didn't this become a problem on the F-14s and 15s I wonder.

As for "mutiny" - are pilot-instructors now so much more Empowered, or are they just more whiny than their gung-ho predecessors? The reports of aircraft carriers having to cease training operations and most flight operations because pilots and instructor-pilots *****REFUSE**** to fly, indicate far worse problems, this is not some highly intellectual discourse on the science of hypoxia and CO poisoning. If there was such a known problem, why did the A/C put out to sea on a mission that included training with T-45s and F/A-18s? How many $$MM wasted by just giving people a cruise instead? How happy does this make the CO of the ship(s), the Air wing, the Carrier Group and the Fleet? And for the report to come out in the newspapers???

If anyone thinks the bureaucrats won't retaliate against the pilots who refused to fly, I have a few bridges, one-owner, mint condition, to sell them. They may not be bold enough to slap them into the dungeons and demand court-martial, but retaliation is absolutely certain. Those pilots can as well retire - there are hundreds waiting for a slot to go into the crazy business of pilot training.

To get a better idea of the meaning of the word "myoo-tinny", try to get past dictionaries etc. Try googling "Mutiny on the Bounty". "HMS Ulysses". "The Caine Mutiny". None of these were about sailors wanting to become kings by murdering their bosses, they were all because sailors were forced into a choice between certain Death By Official Stupidity or begging for understanding and reason from their High Superiors - IOW, they became desperate enough to pin faith in the Official Regulations which state "THERE SHALL BE NO RETALIATION AGAINST PERSONNEL WHO ACT IN GOOD FAITH" etc. :rotfl: And their faith did not get them any justice, let alone reason. In any of those cases, the right answer would have been to replace the superior officers before things got that bad, but in the Navy that don't happen. It's all about hushing up problems and strutting around with a rod up the musharraf. So when something like this gets out in the newspapers .... :shock: :eek:

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8003
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby UlanBatori » 09 Apr 2017 17:31

And now it gets really interesting. At least 2 carrier groups on combat deployment. Are the F/A-18s going to remain grounded, or fly under 14000 feet like the Red Baron? Loss of an F-18 over Korea or Syria, no matter the cause, would look very bad indeed. And if it comes out that a crew member is captured because of system failure.... (then again, the "nice" thing is that a blackout means no ejection seat activation, so evidence is erased...)

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5532
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 09 Apr 2017 17:47

The F/A-18's were grounded late last year for a short period of time. You may be referring to the T-45's. The Hornets and Super Hornets have been flying prior to this deployment and since the US Navy tiers readiness they had pushed out design and process changes to the fleet squadrons first.

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby TSJones » 10 Apr 2017 16:17

all nations' air forces have groundings for maintenance or operational issues.

it happened with the planes I worked on many years ago and it will continue to happen.

it's just that the US is very transparent about it,

most nations are NOT transparent about it,

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5532
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 10 Apr 2017 16:43

The confusion likely stems from the mixup of "grounding" an aircraft because of technical issue as a proactive measure until the problem and/or fix is ID'd and/or implemented vs the readiness challenge the USN and Marine Corps is facing with the legacy hornet fleet well into its post SLEP lifetime, non optimal depot end strength leading to throughput issues and the successive continuing resolution leading to delays in spare orders.

The Hornet and the Super Hornet fleet is flying and has been flying all this year. I don't know where that fleet being grounded came from but it is clearly not based on facts. There was a temporary grounding late last year as is the case when a new incident has occurred and needs to be analyzed. It is a precautionary thing and is the standard practice all around the world during peacetime.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8003
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby UlanBatori » 10 Apr 2017 17:04

If I read it correctly, the non-factual item (from CNN, of course!) that I posted with a link at the top of this chai-biskoot, was that the F/A-18, "A PLANE THAT POTUSDT HAS SUPPORTED", is facing serious problems of pilot blackout. The T45 was an "oh BTW this also has it" note. If it says so on CNN, hey, that's good enuf 4 me! Since I don't even know how 2 do a Transition on PPT, I wouldn't know what a SLEP is.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5532
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 10 Apr 2017 17:10

Neither the classic Hornet nor the the Super Hornet fleet is currently grounded. As I had mentioned in my previous post, in late December last year they had temporarily grounded the Rhino and Growler fleet but flight operations were soon restored 2 days later, and there have been no subsequent fleet wide groundings for these types. The CNN article refers to a safety pause on the T-45 trainer which has now been extended to a grounding but neither the pause nor the grounding impacts the Hornet or Super Hornet fleets.

abhik
BRFite
Posts: 1950
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby abhik » 10 Apr 2017 18:42

The next Trump budget is said to have $50+ billion increase in defense budget. What is this money going to be spent on?

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

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby TSJones » 10 Apr 2017 19:42

abhik wrote:The next Trump budget is said to have $50+ billion increase in defense budget. What is this money going to be spent on?


more weaopns development, primarily.

notably our nuclear deterence is aging despite a vigorous sample inspection regime.

nuclear bomb pits are still hand made in a small metal building in los alamos.

has been for the last 75 years.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5532
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 10 Apr 2017 20:02

The White House took the Budget Control Act Caps for FY17 and used them as a baseline and projected a planned increase of $50 Billion for FY17's defense spending. That is not what they are proposing in terms of an increase.

It would have been a $50 Billion increase had Obama proposed an FY17 defense budget at par with the defense caps for that year. He did not and the budget he submitted was 6% higher than the caps so as a net Trump is basically seeking a 4% increase in defense spending.

There is very little in terms of procurement increase with most of the increase going towards restoring readiness to pre-sequester levels which is the right approach and something that General Mattis has in the past indicated is his top priority.

Trump proposes a higher FY18 and future years budget but these numbers really do not matter. Obama never got his budget and Trump won't either since the Republicans do not have 60 votes in the senate.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9011
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby arun » 11 Apr 2017 07:04

X Posted.

Sputnik cites Russian Defense Ministry spokesperson Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov as indicating that only 23 of the 59 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles launched by the American’s made it to their target in Syria. Konashenkov is reported as saying he did not know what happened to the other 36. Anyway 36 is a lot of dud missiles:

The spokesman {Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov} suggested that it was noteworthy that only 23 of the 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from US Navy destroyers made it to their targets at Ash Sha'irat. "It is not clear whether the other 36 cruise missiles landed," Konashenkov said, without offering any more details.


From Russian newspaper Sputnik:

Sputnik

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5532
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 11 Apr 2017 07:10

I bet some (sputnik, RT et al) eagerly awaited for pictures and videos of TLAM wreckage to show up on social media before moving on to the narrative that 3 dozen must have taken a dip since nothing really surfaced to substantiate the former claim. No wreckage of shot down missiles en route, and no TLAM wreckage littered around the Syrian countryside.

There was even some wacky stuff about them being duds and being littered around the countryside to be quickly snatched up by the Chinese who must have gotten a 20-30 minute heads up from their Premier who was apparently notified by Trump. Just about the only theory not yet thrown around is that the Iranians must have used their uber Jamming technique they used to hack into the RQ-170 and must have flown these missiles back to Tehran and will be rolling them out on a parade soon, preferably mounted on the strenghtened pylons of the Super Qaher MKII.. :rotfl:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-midea ... SKBN17B0K7

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5532
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 11 Apr 2017 15:37

Words cant explain why quite a few shelter/aircraft/AD missile were consider tactically OK to be left but hitting the others at the same place wasTactically OK to be Hit


Of course words cannot explained because neither you or I are privy to the thought process that went into target selection and mission planning.

Regarding aircraft shelters being missed, again, there is open source before and after satellite imagery data out there. If that is the case I'm pretty sure we would have someone go through that and point to impact points in the vicinity of these shelters for which the only plausible explanation would be that they were intended for the shelters nearby.

In the absence of such data, the only claim one can make in support of your argument is to to take the position that the intended missiles did not even reach the air base. Of course under such an argument one might be asked to provide evidence of missiles being intercepted en route or failed missile wreckage (we are talking about 36 missiles here) on land but then the argument is likely to shift to them failing over water which is just about as plausible as some of the arguments in my post above.

Its clear tomahawk missed those targets


Clear on what? Impact craters around them that cannot be explained by any other logic other than that they were missed TLAM's originally intended for aircraft shelters in close proximity? If the only logic is that they don't show damage and they "must have targeted each and every shelter" then it is not "clear" at all. Someone can just as well say that 3 dozen TLAM's meant to disable the runways missed since no damage was seen on the runways. If asked to show impact assessment based on targeting errors one would say that they never got to the base. That would be far far from being "clear".

To simplify - IN order to claim that *insert weapon name* missed its intended target one would require -

- To show evidence that the said site was being targeted based on after action open source imagery or reporting
- Show evidence pointing to targeting errors, failed to create appropriate damage etc (impact points in the vicinity which cannot be explained by no other cause besides ..)
- Provide BDA analysis to show near misses or ineffective target penetration
- Provide evidence that the said weapon was intercepted or otherwise malfunctioned on its way to the intended target(s)

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15352
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby chetak » 12 Apr 2017 00:28

Del


Sorry, duplicated
Last edited by chetak on 12 Apr 2017 00:35, edited 1 time in total.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15352
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby chetak » 12 Apr 2017 00:34

Brilliant takedown of @united

Image

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32938
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby shiv » 12 Apr 2017 07:59

UlanBatori wrote:Wow! How close is this to mutiny?

Fleet grounded because instructor pilots REFUSE TO FLY!!!

Yeah I know this is from Sputnik which is as dependable as the BBC and CNN
https://sputniknews.com/military/201704 ... ts-flying/
If the US Air Force cannot convince pilots to stay with the service instead of taking more lucrative roles in the private sector, it may simply compel pilots to remain with the service against their will. The fight against Daesh could depend on it.
<snip>
Further, financial incentives for current pilots may not do much to move the needle. Legislators and defense officials contend that the shortage "may be more a function of pilots being pushed out by the declining state of Air Force readiness than about the pull of big bucks in the airline industry," Stars and Stripes reports.

"Military pilots serve for love of country and for love of flying," Representative Jackie Speier of California said on March 29.


But I post this item here to bring up a related subject. It's about "maleness" and machismo. A lot of men I know take up professions with some danger in them because of the thrill, challenge and personal satisfaction of excelling under those circumstances. It's not about the money.
So now I see that the US makes these fantastic fighters and puts pilots in them. In parallel with that the US fights its wars by remote control, using robots, UCAVs and standoff missiles. Increasingly I read American articles about how pilots "must not be put at risk" and this "pilots must not be put at risk" has been picked up even by Indian jingos of BRF and other forums also. I hear frequently that aircraft should not be used in high threat environments because pilots will be at risk. My reaction is "wtf?". You buy or build all these fancy aircraft and then fight all was with a remote control and a chairborne hero on a gaming console talking to a Reaper drone 10,000 miles away and you expect pilots to "like" the job they have? Pilots often join the air force to fly and take that risk - not sit at a computer console - cosy and protected and in a situation where he gets back to family and dog at 5 PM

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8003
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby UlanBatori » 12 Apr 2017 17:09

pilots being pushed out by the declining state of Air Force readiness

These gems of truth slide under the censor's Delete Key. That is exactly the issue here: Much of the Navy pilot community also appears to be in fact reduced to swapping tales in the mess. I can't imagine the level of stress inside the Navy for those articles to come out about 145 pilot-instructors refusing to fly etc. That had to be based on one horrendous leak, and u bet the Admirals are looking for heads to chop for letting it come to that, and worse, letting it leak to the media.

Many saal pehle, my Evil 6th Coujin was in a conf room where the loooong and huge table had all blue uniforms absolutely dazzling with medals and ribbons. Presenter after presenter came up and gave PPT waterfalls exclaiming
BUT WE ARE AT HUNNERD PESSENT READINESS, SSSSSSSIRRRRRRRR!
like our dear expert friend here is obviously conditioned to repeat (and will inside a second after I post this) :mrgreen:
WHY were they saying this? It was because F-15s were coming in with vertical tail(s) gone or hanging loose all over the world, and the repair cost was rising exponentially so high that the commander of the maintenance base south of Ulan Bator, a brave man, had taken a soosai step: declared that he was going to put out an RFQ for REPLACEMENT of F-15 tails with a GUARANTEE OF XYZZ HOURS no-crack lifetime - and oh, BTW, the original manufacturers could apply but it would be a waste of their time. Absolutely like putting porcupine quills under the seats of the Big Brass because THEY had "signed off" the F-15 as meeting all requirements. And the manufacturers were, shall v say.... not very pleased after all the $$$ given to the jarnails.

So they convened a Defense Advisory Group meeting - as close to a firing squad as they convene inside an air base - and summoned the poor maintenance base commander to appear. The back of the room had the Taap Experts (like Stanford Prophejaars considered Gawds who just happened to be Consultants waiting to get big $$ out of dissing the poor guy).

(Well... result of that meeting came out something very different .. 8) )

Years later, one of the manuf's spokesppl there was so bothered by conscience that he called E6C to present to his then-bosses (for CYA on the AF's next boondoggle) and much more recently, again, on the AF's great-grand boodoggle. Same problem.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19184
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Austin » 12 Apr 2017 18:46

Battle for the Sky: F-35 Stealth Fighter vs. Block III Super Hornet

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... ?page=show

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46992
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby ramana » 14 Apr 2017 05:00

AFP reports MOAB was used in Nanghar, Afghanistan border with Pakistan.
It was dropped by a MC-130 plane.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1287
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby manjgu » 14 Apr 2017 06:36

so is the great game on again? what are the implications for the region?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15352
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby chetak » 14 Apr 2017 16:38

ramana wrote:AFP reports MOAB was used in Nanghar, Afghanistan border with Pakistan.
It was dropped by a MC-130 plane.


500 Pakistanis including ISI officers blown up in mammoth Afghan bombing by US

Written by: Vicky Nanjappa

Friday, April 14, 2017,

Atleast 500 Pakistani nationals have been killed in the US bombing that took place at Nangarhar province in Afghanistan. The area that was targetted was controlled by the Islamic State and protected by the Pakistan army, sources say.

Image

This photo provided by Eglin Air Force Base shows the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb.

The Pentagon says U.S. forces in Afghanistan dropped the military's largest non-nuclear bomb on an Islamic State target in Afghanistan. Photo credit: PTI The operation that was jointly coordinated by the 201 Selab Corps of the Afghanistan army targeted the caves and tunnels that were used as hiding places by the IS. It is now clear that the Pakistan army was backing these IS operatives in Afghanistan, official sources also confirmed.

Indian agencies who are coordinating withe counterparts in Afghanistan have learnt that there are no civilians living in the area. There were a large number of stooges of the Inter-Services intelligence who have been protecting the IS operatives in this area. The US action comes at a time when there was a huge build-up of IS forces in Afghanistan.

Indian agencies say that the Pakistan army and the ISI were nurturing these operatives. The entire area that was bombed was under the control of the ISI officials backing the IS, sources also said. The impact of the bomb was so huge that it blew up at least 500 Pakistanis and an equal number of IS operatives.

Read more at: http://www.oneindia.com/international/500-pakistanis-including-isi-officers-blown-up-in-mammoth-afghan-bombing-in-us-2404608.html



[A mini Kerala of IS recruits was wiped out in Trump's big Afghan bombing]

A mini Kerala of IS recruits was wiped out in Trump's big Afghan bombing

Written by: Vicky Nanjappa Updated: Friday, April 14, 2017,

The United States of America dropped the Mother of all Bombs at Nangarhar in Afghanistan on Thursday and Indian Intelligence agencies suspect that the mini Kerala may have been destroyed.

It may be recalled that around 21 Keralites had gone missing last year and as per the intelligence agencies, they had taken shelter in Nangarhar in Afghanistan. [500 Pakistanis including ISI officers blown up in mammoth Afghan bombing by US] Almost all the recruits from Kerala including women have been transported to Nangarhar in Afghanistan. All these persons from Kerala including women were lured in by a handler to be part of the Islamic State module in Afghanistan. The IS was in the process of setting up a Caliphate in Afghanistan and was extensively looking for Indians.

An Intelligence Bureau official informed that as per the preliminary information available the missing persons from Kerala were in the same province and may have been a target of the bomb.

This was completely unexpected, but very Trump-like action. One ought to have got a message when he ordered the bombing of a Syrian airbase last week. Indian agencies say that this action by Trump on Thursday will act as a deterrent to those wanting to join the Islamic State. It will not be the same and Trump will live up to his word of finishing the Islamic State, the officer also informed.

Agency officials in India are now digging out more information to find out about the extent of the damage. The US has not officially released any figures, but as per the information available with the Indian agencies, the damage was extensive. "We have information about the presence of Indians in the same area and it would not be wrong to say that they have been a target of the bomb," officials informed.

The 'mini Kerala' in Afghanistan: For over a year now, the IS has been trying to set up shop in Afghanistan. Several youth from Kerala have come under their radar, and they, in turn, have willingly joined the outfit. Fears regarding the spread of Wahhabism and extremism through radical online Islam had gripped Kerala.

The state, which was in denial for long about the rise of Islamic extremism today, has woken up to the problem. In fact, several Muslim organisations in Kerala have come forward to sort out the problem. OneIndia earlier had reported that on the rise of an IS culture in Kerala The National Investigation Agency which has been probing these cases says that the trail has led to Afghanistan. Almost all the recruits from Kerala including women have been transported to Nangarhar in Afghanistan.


Each of them was given a manual on how to prepare explosives. For now, it appears that they will function in the Afghanistan module known as the Wilyat Khorasan. However, one cannot rule out the possibility of these people being sent back to India over a period of time to stage attacks, the officer also adds. It has also been found that the man behind these recruitments is Saeed Abdullah, also from Kerala. He has taken the lead when it comes to setting up the Afghanistan module for the IS. He has only gone for educated recruits, investigations have also shown. Investigating officers say that the IS has been finding it very easy to recruit from Kerala. There appears to be a change in the mindset among many people in the state which has only made the recruitment process easier. Moreover, all the recruits from the state had been sent to Afghanistan. This has to do with the proximity to India which the recruits prefer.

Many have not been open to the idea of going to Syria or Iraq. The IS feels that if an attack is to be launched in India, then transporting the cadres from Afghanistan is an easier option when compared to Iraq or Syria.

Read more at: http://www.oneindia.com/india/a-mini-kerala-is-recruits-was-wiped-out-in-trump-s-big-afghan-bombing-2404627.html

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5532
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 19 Apr 2017 15:34

USAF issues RFP for fighter aircraft laser weapon



The US Air Force (USAF) has issued a request for proposals (RFP) related to its efforts to field a laser-based self-protection system for its tactical combat aircraft.The RFP, posted by the Air Force Research Laboratory, Directed Energy Directorate, Laser Division (AFRL/RDL) on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website on 5 January, seeks research proposals for the service's Laser Advancements for Next-generation Compact Environments (LANCE) project, which is geared at integrating a defensive laser weapon aboard current and future fighter-sized aircraft.

"The objective of LANCE is to perform research and development activities necessary to design, fabricate, and deliver a reliable, ruggedised high-power laser (with excellent beam quality and compact design) for integration within an aerodynamic integrating structure for use during flight testing on tactical aircraft for self-defence research during Phase II of the Self-protect High Energy Laser Demonstrator (SHiELD) Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD)," the solicitation said.

At this stage the AFRL/RDL is seeking innovative research and development solutions to advance state-of-the-art laser technologies, to demonstrate performance, and to assess the operational utility of a compact, ruggedised, high-power laser in all potential inbound threat geometries on a tactical aircraft flying in transonic through potentially supersonic regimes.

The scope of the research and development includes development, design, fabrication, and documentation of a novel laser subsystem that fits within the demanding size and mass constraints of the SHiELD aerodynamic integrating structure. The laser will be housed in a supersonic flight-capable pod to be developed under the Laser Pod Research and Development (LPRD) contract.

As noted by the AFRL/RDL, the US government is anticipating a two-phase approach for the SHiELD ATD effort. The first phase consists of low-power tests and performance demonstrations of the beam control subsystem (BCS) and other laser support subsystems at transonic speeds and aero-effects data collection under supersonic flight conditions for laser effectiveness on target. The second phase includes adding the high-power laser to the Phase I configuration, culminating in a demonstration against dynamic, non co-operative targets.

The systems are expected to be matureable to technology readiness level (TRL) 6 or higher by 2021.

Current defence countermeasures divert incoming missiles away from the target aircraft, while the externally carried SHiELD pod would instead destroy the missile. It is intended that the SHiELD pod would better enable the USAF's fourth-generation fighter fleet, such as the Boeing F-15 Eagle and Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon, to survive in contested airspace. The fifth-generation Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II would probably not carry the pod, as it would negate their stealth characteristics.

Prior to the issuance of this latest RFP, the USAF awarded Northrop Grumman a USD39.3 million contract related to the development of a laser-based self-defence system for its fighter aircraft. The contract, which was awarded on 23 August 2016, is for the Self-Protect High Energy Laser Demonstrator (SHiELD) Turret Research in Aero-Effects (STRAFE) programme.

Northrop Grumman will develop and deliver an advanced beam control system for integration as part of a complete laser weapons system into a tactical pod for USAF fighter aircraft. As noted by the Department of Defense (DoD), the STRAFE aspect of the award will increase the knowledge and understanding of aero-optic disturbances in a supersonic environment by collecting data during engagement scenarios.

Work is expected to be complete by 31 August 2021.



Garooda
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 13 Jul 2011 00:00

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Garooda » 20 Apr 2017 21:24

Austin wrote:Battle for the Sky: F-35 Stealth Fighter vs. Block III Super Hornet

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... ?page=show

Boeing Pulls Out
Boeing will not compete its F/A-18 Super Hornet to replace Belgium’s fleet of Lockheed Martin F-16s, the company informed the nation's government this week.

In a statement, the airframer says it will not participate in a 19 April bidders conference, nor respond to Brussels' request for proposals for the new fighter.

“We regret that after reviewing the request we do not see an opportunity to compete on a truly level playing field with the...F/A-18 Super Hornet,” Boeing says.

“This decision allows Boeing to concentrate its efforts and resources on supporting our global customers, securing new orders and investing in technology and systems required to meet the threats of today and tomorrow. Where there is a full and open competition we look forward to bringing the full depth and breadth of Boeing to our offer.”

Belgium’s recapitalisation effort is expected to replace its 59 F-16A/Bs with 34 new fighters, with a budget of up to €3.6 billion ($4 billion), FlightGlobal has previously reported.

Boeing’s American rival, Lockheed Martin, remains in the competition with its F-35. Other candidates include the Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab Gripen E.

Over the past year, Boeing has chalked up a number of coups for its tactical fighter business, from a Canadian Super Hornet purchase to a renewed interest in the aircraft from US President Donald Trump, as well as orders from Kuwait and Qatar.

However, interest from Europe appears to be waning. After losing Denmark’s fighter competition in 2016 to the F-35A, Boeing issued a legal challenge against the Danish defence ministry arguing that the government executed a “flawed” evaluation process. On 15 September 2016, Boeing submitted a request for insight seeking documents and information on the fighter decision.

"Since then, the ministry has shared only a small fraction of the documents that Boeing is entitled to review, and has not provided a complete list of all its documents and information as required by law," Boeing says. :rotfl:What else is new :)

Boeing filed a legal challenge on 2 March, fighting the failure to release the documents; that court hearing is still pending. Taarikh pe Taarikh :)

Meanwhile, Boeing Sees Other Opportunities From Fighter Contests Being Held By Finland And Switzerland.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5532
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 21 Apr 2017 15:23

US MDA's LRDR site update. LRDR along with Space Fence and the US Navy's AMDR are the three largest S-Band or Gallium Nitride radars in the world at the moment (production or development). The Alaska LRDR site would be delivered around 2020 and will improve the picture quite a bit compared to much lower frequency EW radars currently operated for the particular mission ( excluding the SBX which is only partially operational and is still classified as a rushed to service test article).

This was a compromise "S" band sollution once X band was determined to be too expensive of an option for such performance. Raytheon at one point had proposed a stacked and double stacked AN/TPY-2 with the latter having 100,000 GaN powered X-band T/R modules (would have still only gotten about half of the range performance the MDA was looking at for the LRDR and would have therefore required multiple dispersed forward positioned sites or vessels).

New Missile Defense Radar Passes Key Stage: Lockheed LRDR

As anxiety rises over North Korean rocket tests, the Missile Defense Agency needs better radar to tell threats apart. Which of those distant blips is an InterContinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) warhead capable of hitting the US? Which is a burnt-out rocket boaster coasting harmlessly through space? Which is a decoy warhead designed to make MDA waste some of its limited supply of interceptor missiles?

Telling targets apart better is the mission of the $784 million Long-Range Discrimination Radar. Today, contractor Lockheed Martin announced LRDR had passed a major milestone, the Preliminary Design Review. (Critical Design Review is scheduled for September and Final Design Review for December). Lockheed already has a scaled-down LRDR in testing, while the full-size LRDR is on track to be installed at Clear Air Force Station in Alaska in 2020.

Clear is in central Alaska, about a five-hour drive from Anchorage. It’s a compromise location, said missile defense expert Tom Karako. The Clinton Administration proposed putting radars on Shemya Island at the far end of the Aleutians, as close as possible to North Korea, while the Bush Administration built the Sea-Based X-Band (SBX) radar on a floating oil platform, capable of coming even closer, but installing and supporting sophisticated equipment on tiny, isolated Shemya is a logistical nightmare, while SBX is only able to stay at sea about a third of the time. A land-based radar in mainland Alaska is much easier to keep running, but it doesn’t have as good a view. In particular, said Karako, it can’t cover Hawaii, so the MDA is looking at a second radar to cover the island state, perhaps a scaled-down Medium-Range Discrimination Radar or an Aegis Ashore battery.

For attacks against the rest of the US, however, the LRDR at Clear will make a major difference, Karako told me. Even without adding decoys to the mix, a ballistic missile launch puts “a flying junkpile” into space, from burnt-out rocket motors to loose bolts, all coasting along on the same ballistic trajectory, and only one of them is worth shooting at: the warhead. LRDR helps sort through that clutter.

The “discrimination” in the name doesn’t mean the radar’s racist. Instead, it refers to the “ability to do precise, long-distance detection and characterization of ballistic missiles,” Lockheed program director Chandra Marshall told reporters this morning. “This radar can do that better than any radar in the field.”

How? Marshall was naturally cagey with details, most of which are classified, but she did drop some hints.

First of all, like many new radars, LRDR uses gallium nitride (GaN), which conducts high-voltage electricity much more efficiently than traditional materials. GaN makes it possible to generate a much more powerful radar beam: One industry executive said you can get 50 percent more range, search five times as large a volume, or improve discrimination.

Second, LRDR is “a dual-polarized, dual-range capability radar.” Marshall wouldn’t go into details, but the term “dual-polarized” is used in open literature to describe cutting-edge civilian weather radars, which are better at telling the difference between, say, rain, snow, and hail, and can even measure the size of the hailstones as they come down. A traditional radar sends out pulses of energy that are only polarized in one direction, horizontally. Imagine ripples expanding outward through a pond, only the ripples extend straight up into the air, like a moving wall. When such a horizontally polarized radar beam bounces off something, you only get a one-dimensional image of the target. But a dual-polarized radar sends out alternating pulses polarized at right angles to each other — one horizontal, then one vertical, then another horizontal — so you get a two-dimensional picture. By looking at both the horizontal and the vertical dimensions, the dual-polarized radar can tell apart objects that would look the same to a horizontal-only radar. While LRDR is presumably a rather more sophisticated implementation of this technology than a weather radar, the net effect is similar: the ability to tell objects apart — in this case warheads, not hailstones — at roughly twice the range.

Third, LRDR has the software required to take full advantage of these new hardware features. 90 percent of that code, however, is already in use today with the Lockheed-built Aegis missile defense system on Navy warships and land bases, Marshall said, so there shouldn’t be the programming nightmares often associated with software-intensive federal programs. The software will also have what’s called an open architecture, Marshall said, which means it will consist of modules written to common standards, which in turn allows third parties to write new modules as long as they conform to the standard. This plug-and-play approach is intended to allow easy and rapid updates, particularly important in an area like radar where adversaries are constantly coming up with new countermeasures.

That said, Karako argues the real long-term solution for target discrimination is to complement ground-based radars like LRDR with electro-optical satellites, in order to get multiple looks at each target from multiple angles with multiple types of sensor. “Every single administration for the past five administrations has had a space sensor layer for national missile defense….on paper,” he lamented. “None of them has done it.”

While radar is the whole solution, it’s a big part of it, and all of Lockheed’s innovations have application beyond LRDR. Whether or not the Missile Defense Agency decides it needs a second such radar, e.g. for Hawaii, Lockheed can scale the LRDR design up or down to fit on different platforms — not just land bases but also ships — for a wide variety of missions, Marshall said. Indeed, though Lockheed didn’t say this out loud, the superior discrimination of a dual-polarized GaN radar could potentially help it pick the tiny returns of stealth aircraft out of background noise, when traditional radars can’t see them at all. With Russia and China both working on “low observable” aircraft, counter-stealth is a technology the US could use.



What the final instal would look like -

Image

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 966
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby rkhanna » 24 Apr 2017 13:35

OP-ED: SOCOM’s TALOS ‘Iron Man’ suit: Still learning the wrong lessons

Hand-in-hand with the high-tech boondoggles has been the need to up-armor everything. Research has shown that the optimal max fighting load for an average infantryman is about 48 pounds. In 2005, after just getting the ESAPI and Side SAPI armor plates, one of our guys weighed himself with and without kit (just fighting load–vest, plates, ammo, helmet, M4, MBITR radio, and water; no rucksack) and figured out that he was carrying about 75 pounds, and that was without long-term sustainment or other mission-essential gear. Add in a ruck and it gets even worse.

Watch some of the YouTube videos of Marines in Helmand. Their tactics suck just because they’re too weighed down to do much more than trudge upright over open ground, in broad daylight. When they fight, most of the time they go static and shoot until the bad guys stop shooting back. It’s not just weight, either. The more kit the infantryman wears, the more unwieldy and constricted he becomes. Sure, armor has saved some lives. It’s also reduced our overall combat effectiveness, and done some permanent damage to the bodies of our infantrymen.

https://sofrep.com/79723/op-ed-socoms-t ... g-lessons/

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32938
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby shiv » 04 May 2017 18:56

New C-130 gunship - I'm a little sceptical of how useful it was in Vietnam, but I have no doubt the US has many non contested air spaces over urban areas where they can use this.

Because of our admiration for all things Discovery er American we will also want this - to use over Beijing
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/99 ... tely-needs
From the Vietnam War onward, well-trained gunship crews repeatedly demonstrated their ability to destroy relatively small enemy concentrations while leaving the surrounding areas untouched, even in densely packed urban areas. After its introduction on the AC-130E Pave Aegis gunship in 1972, the airborne 105mm howitzer proved itself to be both particularly deadly and accurate.

“An AC-130 is a precision strike platform in itself,” he explained. “It precisely delivers very low yield munitions with a 30 [mm gun] and a 105… and they’re very inexpensive to deliver.”

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5532
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 08 May 2017 17:49


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5532
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 10 May 2017 14:52

Sixth-Gen XA100 And XA101 Fighter-Engine Studies Ramp Up

The age of the adaptive cycle engine as a new class of combat aircraft propulsive system in its own right is edging closer to reality with detailed design now underway of the first three-stream demonstration units under the U.S. Air Force’s Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP).
AETP will mature three-stream engine technology for the future U.S. Navy F/A-XX and the Air Force’s F-X sixth-generation fighters. Targeted initially at the 45,000-lb.-thrust class, the engine is also baselined to fit within the existing confines of the F-35A engine bay, making it a contender to replace the Joint Strike Fighter’s current Pratt & Whitney F135 from the mid-2020s onward. New contracts worth about $2 billion, roughly split, for the AETP demonstrators were awarded in June 2016 to General Electric and Pratt & Whitney.

To underline the importance of this step toward a new generation of engine technology, the Air Force has broken with tradition by designating the two AETP demonstrators as the XA100 and XA101. Instead of following on from the F for “fan” or “turbofan” series, which most recently saw the F135/136s developed for the F-35, the new naming convention of “A” for adaptability is a milestone on a par with the designation “J” for the turbojet series in the 1940s. The XA100 is being developed by GE, and the XA101 by Pratt.

Adaptive Change


GE and P&W defining sixth-gen fighter engine designs under Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP)

USAF adopts new engine-naming convention to recognize importance of adaptive cycle

GE developing XA100, Pratt developing XA101

Initial engine sized at 45,000-lb.-thrust to suit F-35

Production A100/101 derivatives targeted at F-X and F/A-XX

The third stream provides an extra source of air flow that, depending on the phase of the mission, is designed to provide either additional mass flow for increased propulsive efficiency and lower fuel burn for longer endurance, or additional core flow for higher thrust and cooling air to boost combat performance. The third stream can also be used to cool fuel, which provides a heat sink for aircraft systems. The additional flow can also be used to swallow excess air damming up around the inlet, improving flow holding and reducing spillage drag.

AETP builds on more than a decade of development starting with the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Advent (Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology) program, which examined variable-cycle architectures, three-stream flowpaths and adaptive fans. It also follows on from the Adaptive Engine Technology Development (AETD) program that proved the basic viability of the adaptive cycle. Advent is now complete, and AETD will soon culminate with a final series of demonstrator runs by the two engine-makers.

Receiving a designation validates the research, “making it more real,” says Dan McCormick, GE Aviation Advanced Combat Engine programs general manager. “It is still an ‘X’ engine, so it is still in development, but it is good that this step was taken. The Air Force debated designating it as another ‘F’ series engine before opting for ‘A.’ To me this validates a whole new architecture and a whole new line of engines. Now we have a third generation of jet engine technology, and this validates what we have believed for a long time—we are really changing the game.”


The company is progressing through the final phases of the AETD program by conducting component evaluations and running or evaluating data from three rig tests of a compressor, core engine and adaptive fan module. The compressor test, which was run at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, was completed in September. “We have completed the analysis, and the data is flowing into AETP,” says McCormick. Work on the fan rig is ongoing in the same compressor research facility at Wright-Patterson. “That’s nearly complete, and we expect to finish sometime [in May],” he adds.

The third, and final, large-scale rig test is the core engine, also expected to wrap up late in May or early in June. “It is a pretty challenging program because it is very complex. With an adaptive cycle engine with the three streams and heat exchangers, when you run the core you have to simulate the rest of the engine. It is actually more complicated to run than a full-up engine test because we must adapt the facility to simulate the inputs from the rest of the engine,” McCormick explains.

Although the overall pace of testing has been slower than hoped, McCormick says: “We are still making great progress and have over 30 hr. of tests on the core.” The work is ongoing at GE’s A1 test cell at Evendale, Ohio, where the machinery has been modified to influence the flow to the inlet and outlet of the exhaust. With the imminent completion of the final rig tests, GE expects to wrap up the AETD work by year-end, he adds.

Aerodynamic and aeromechanical data from the compressor and fan rigs will aid design of the XA100 for improved operability. “All these lessons learned are very valuable,” says McCormick. “In terms of performance, we are getting the compression characteristics and stage loading we expected. And in terms of operability, it can handle the surge margin, and so on.” Meanwhile, the core engine tests provide another data set for the compressor. “And we are starting to get combustor and turbine interactions around that,” he says.

While neither GE nor Pratt have released details of their adaptive-engine design, both incorporate variable geometry devices that dynamically alter the fan pressure ratio and overall bypass ratio—the two key factors influencing specific fuel consumption and thrust. The adaptive, multistage fan boosts fan pressure ratio to fighter engine performance levels during takeoff and acceleration, and in cruise lowers it to transport aircraftlike levels for improved fuel efficiency. The third stream, which is external to both the core and standard bypass duct, is used to alter the bypass ratio.

“As we move into AETP, we continue to mature the baseline technologies as well, [deciding when to introduce] primarily material technologies into the program,” McCormick says. Although these are at lower technology readiness levels, they are in areas where GE is confident of coming maturity, including ceramic matrix composites (CMC) and polymer matrix composites (PMC).

As part of earlier AETD tests, GE ran an F414 with flaps and seals made from an oxide/oxide ceramic CMC similar to parts now used in the production version of the Passport business jet engine. An F414 was also fitted with second-stage low-pressure turbine blades made from another form of CMC. PMCs, which are composed of short or continuous fibers bound in an organic polymer matrix, are also well-known in the industry, and air splitters made from the PMC-based PMR-15 are widely used in engines. “The difference is where we are applying them, and using them in more complex parts,” says McCormick.

Although GE declines to provide a comprehensive AETP schedule, it is believed the detailed design review is slated for late 2017, followed by release of drawings for building a full engine. “We are actually starting into the supply-chain process now of getting hardware defined, so there is definitely an engagement,” says McCormick. The company is expected to build three test engines starting in 2019, with ground runs due later that year and set to run through 2020. The first engine will test the basic mechanical design of the engine, the second will assess performance and operability, and the third will assess durability.

“There is still no decision as to where this suite of technology will go with respect to a platform,” McCormick adds. “But it is designed to fit in the F-35, and we have integration work going on with Lockheed Martin. However, no solid decisions have yet been made on where this will go into the fleet, and we need to mature the technology to the point where that decision will be easier to make.”

Pratt, which has so far described very little of its AETP plan, was expected to have begun running an adaptive three-stream fan with an F135 earlier this year under the final phase of AETD. The company, which is also thought to have started test runs of a new high-efficiency core, says “adaptive engines will be a critical enabler for virtually all future combat aircraft.”




GE AETD Program Core Demonstrator -

Image

Given GE's expected end-2020 test dates, P&W should be in the 2019-2021 time-period as well. At the level of maturity for these "X" engines one could expect airframe X plane programs that could fly by the 2021-2023 time frame as well which would be in line with these programs.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4868
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby jamwal » 14 May 2017 14:49

The Evolution Of American Fighter Jets Is A Breathtaking Sight (34 pics) http://acidcow.com/pics/89909-the-evolu ... -pics.html

Image

Image

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16791
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Philip » 15 May 2017 11:52

Good article on the role of (US) carriers in the current and future context.Virtues and shortcomings.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... -the-20651
U.S. Navy Aircraft Carriers: Simply Obsolete or Still King of the Oceans?

Nick_S
BRFite
Posts: 518
Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Location: Abbatabad

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Nick_S » 15 May 2017 13:38

Donald Trump's Interview With TIME

http://time.com/4775040/donald-trump-time-interview-being-president/

On the future USS Ford-class carriers -

You know the catapult is quite important. So I said "what is this?" "Sir, this is our digital catapult system." He said well, "we’re going to this because we wanted to keep up with modern [technology]." I said "you don’t use steam anymore for catapult?" "No sir." I said, "Ah, how is it working?" "Sir, not good. Not good. Doesn’t have the power. You know the steam is just brutal. You see that sucker going and steam’s going all over the place, there’s planes thrown in the air."
It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. And I said–and now they want to buy more aircraft carriers. I said what system are you going to be–"Sir, we’re staying with digital." I said no you’re not. You going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aakashrj, ashthor, gauravsharma, Karthik S, Thakur_B, Yagnasri and 44 guests