US military, technology, arms, tactics

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 31 Oct 2015 18:47

Full Press Conference of the Long Range Strike Bomber Announcement -

Bonus - B-2 Air to Air footage

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 02 Nov 2015 11:01

Commandant approves M4 as standard weapon for Marine infantry

MARINE CORPS BASE QUANTICO, Va. — It's official — the M4 carbine has replaced the M16A4 as the universal rifle of Marine Corps infantry.

Commandant Gen. Robert Neller has signed off on the switch making the M4 the primary weapon for all infantry battalions, security forces and supporting schools no later than the end of September 2016, according to an internal memo released by Lt. Gen. Ronald Bailey, deputy commandant for Plans, Policies and Operations via the Automated Message Handling System.
...
...
The switch comes after extensive testing — and combat experience — demonstrated the M4 outperformed the M16A4 across the board, according to Marine Corps officials.

"We found out that the M4 actually outshoots the A4 at all ranges out to 600 meters with the new ammunition," Woodburn said, referring to the 5.56mm AB49 Special Operations Science and Technology cartridge the Corps is looking to make the standard.

The US Army already uses the M4 as the standard infantry rifle, while the USMC uses the M16A4 for infantry currently.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Nov 2015 11:19

tne barrel length is 6 inches shorter. looks like days of needing to lay down infantry fire out to 600m are gone and people will depend upon vehicle mounted HMGs, tanks, IFVs and artillery/air for such support.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 05 Nov 2015 19:13

Sources, Statements Point To LRS-B Details

Northrop Grumman’s Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) is being developed in strict secrecy, to complicate the task of defending against it. Very few details have been released officially, but enough is known to make high-confidence estimates of some of the project’s key features.

What does the LRS-B look like?

The LRS-B mission is to strike heavily defended areas anywhere on the globe and calls for B-2-like stealth—effective against long-wave early warning radars from all directions. Every previous aircraft designed to meet such requirements has been a flying wing: a blended wing-body shape with no separate stabilizers.

Every Northrop Grumman concept seen in the last 15 years has shared the “cranked-kite” configuration of the X-47B carrier-based demonstrator. Compared with the B-2’s shape, this gives the designer more freedom to trade wingspan, sweepback and area against the center-section length and depth required to accommodate weapons, the propulsion system and the crew station.

How big is the LRS-B?

Range and weapon load determine size. Global reach, in U.S. air power doctrine, depends on inflight refueling. Some anti-access/area-denial measures are aimed at preventing vulnerable tankers from operating within 500 nm of defended territory, and most strategic targets worldwide are 1,500-2,000 nm inland, so it is considered likely that LRS-B will have an unrefueled operational radius of 2,500 nm.

If the range were to be held below 8,000 km (2,160 nm) radius, LRS-B would not be limited as a “heavy bomber” under the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, should those limits be sustained. The Pentagon states that all LRS-Bs will be nuclear-capable, with nuclear certification about two years after initial operational capability (IOC) is reached.

With the near-universal use of precision munitions, the weapon load will be smaller than the B-2’s 50,000 lb., with the emphasis on flexibility rather than mass. With a single B-2-sized bay and a 30,000-lb. maximum load, the LRS-B could carry the GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bunker-buster weapon, eight B61-12 nuclear weapons or many other weapons combinations, using weapon launchers common to the B-2. However, the U.S. Air Force may have decided that 20 MOP-carriers will be enough and selected a smaller weapon load. In any case, the LRS-B is unlikely to be much less than half the size of the B-2, with its 336,500-lb. takeoff weight.

Have prototypes been flown in secret?

The unidentified aircraft photographed over Amarillo, Texas, in March 2014 may have been the Next-Generation Long-Range Strike Demonstrator (NGLRS-D). A source familiar with the bomber program says Lockheed Martin and Boeing built NGLRS-D under the study that led to the Next-Generation Bomber, to Boeing’s design (the Amarillo aircraft resembles a larger version of Boeing’s Phantom Ray) and that it has been used to support LRS-B. Another industry source tells Aviation Week that Lockheed Martin has built such an aircraft

Will LRS-B be unmanned or optionally piloted?

Not much has been heard of an unmanned LRS-B option in the past two years, so it is almost certain that all LRS-Bs will be built with a cockpit. However, “unmanning” a modern aircraft is not a massive technical challenge.

How much will LRS-B cost?

All the future costs quoted for LRS-B are independent cost estimates (ICE), as required under the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. One set of ICEs was prepared by the Air Force and another by the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation directorate. They were within 2% of each other, Air Force officials say, and the published estimate is the higher one.

Engineering and manufacturing development (EMD), including the delivery of an unspecified number of test aircraft, is estimated to cost $23.5 billion in 2016 dollars under a cost-reimbursement-plus-incentive contract. The Pentagon previously spent another $1.9 billion to bring both competing teams through the initial design phase.

The Pentagon predicts an average procurement unit cost (APUC) of $564 million in 2016 dollars, assuming a 100-aircraft buy. That is $511 million in 2010 dollars, versus the $550 million goal set in 2011. APUC is the total cost of procuring 100 bombers, including nonrecurring costs, government-furnished equipment (such as engines, in most programs), training and support equipment and initial spares, divided by the 100 planned.

The EMD contract includes fixed-price incentive options for the first five batches of low-rate initial-production (LRIP) aircraft, comprising 21 bombers. The price for those aircraft has not been disclosed but will be higher than the APUC.

When will the LRS-B fly and enter service?

LRS-B could fly as early as 2018, schedule details disclosed so far suggest. The IOC date has been given as 2025 previously but was softened to “mid-2020s” when the award was announced, because the user—Air Force Global Strike Command-—has not set IOC criteria, such as the number of operational aircraft required at IOC.If IOC is declared in the year that the final LRIP batch is delivered, the first LRIP batch would be completed in 2021 for a 2025 IOC. Since the function of LRIP is to bridge the gap between test aircraft and full-rate production, that implies that development aircraft would be flown in fiscal years 2019-20, putting first flight as early as the end of 2018. This is possible because of the work that has already been done, including all subcontractor selection and preliminary design review.

The production rate could be “seven or eight per year,” according to Air Force acquisition chief William LaPlante. That would see the 100th aircraft completed in the late 2030s, paving the way for the B-52 to retire in 2040 and leaving an active line in case the Pentagon elects to continue production. Many bomber advocates argue that if LRS-B delivers, and Asia-Pacific operations remain important, the Air Force will need more than 100 of the bombers.

Who’s on the team?

Neither subcontractors nor manufacturing locations have been disclosed, except for a July 2014 Northrop Grumman promise to the California legislature to assemble the bombers at Palmdale.

Some observers have hypothesized that the bomber is powered by two off-the-shelf Pratt & Whitney F135 engines, which would be the right size for a half-scale B-2. But the F135 is heavy and expensive, and a higher-bypass-ratio engine would be more efficient and have a cooler exhaust: Thermal, mechanical and acoustic stress on the “aft deck” structure behind the exhausts has been a perennial B-2 problem. Pratt & Whitney has discussed an engine named PW9000, with a medium bypass ratio (about 4:1) and the core of the PW1000G commercial engine, and such a development would be low-risk. It is possible that the LRS-B has four smaller engines.
Northrop Grumman’s own radar and electronic warfare divisions are likely involved because Raytheon was on the rival team.

Under the code name Project Magellan, starting in 2013, Northrop Grumman has developed the Manned Aircraft Design Center of Excellence in Melbourne, Florida, which offers low costs and an established defense workforce. The company has opened a new 220,000-sq.-ft. building in Melbourne and says plans for another new 500,000-sq.-ft., 1,500-person facility by 2019 depends on new business. Northrop Grumman has also completed a new manufacturing and integration facility in St. Augustine, Florida, and could locate some composite fabrication at its Scaled Composites subsidiary in Mojave, California.

Could a protest be successful?

The Air Force started debriefing the losing teams on Oct. 30, and there is a 10-day period in which to lodge a protest with the Government Accountability Office, which then has 100 days to determine whether contracting rules were breached. It appears that Boeing and Lockheed Martin were surprised to be underbid by Northrop Grumman, saying in a joint statement that they were “interested in knowing how the competition was scored in terms of price and risk.” Loren Thompson, a consultant with business ties to both Lockheed Martin and Boeing, suggests that a protest would be based on a claim of low-balling. “If Boeing comes away from its debrief convinced that there’s no way Northrop Grumman can execute the bomber to the cost and schedule the company has signed up for,” Thompson writes in Forbes, “it knows where to go to complain.” However, the dual ICEs will make such a protest harder to sustain.

What is the LRS Family of Systems?

An October 2010 Air Force presentation—shortly before the LRS-B program started—identified a Long-Range Strike Family of Systems. In addition to LRS-B, this included a new nuclear and conventional cruise missile, replacing the Boeing AGM-86; systems identified as Penetrating Stand-in Airborne Electronic Attack (P-AEA) and Penetrating Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (P-ISR); a communications system; and the Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) weapon, an intercontinental missile with a guided conventional warhead.

Development of the Long Range Standoff cruise missile is due to start in 2016, with $1.8 billion budgeted in fiscal 2016-20, and it is expected to reach IOC in 2025. The RQ-180 would be a logical solution to P-ISR, although Lockheed Martin’s proposed TR-X U-2 replacement may be an alternative. There is a wide range of possible solutions to P-AEA, even including small expendable EA platforms. CPGS is not currently active.

An unidentified aircraft photographed over Amarillo, Texas, in March 2014 may have been NGLRS-D, a technology demonstrator for the Next-Generation Bomber program. Credit: DEAN MUSKETT

A 2,500-nm operational radius covers most of the Chinese landmass from a defensible tanker line 500 nm offshore

Pratt & Whitney’s PW9000 engine study was associated with the Next-Generation Bomber project, but the engine itself, with a PW1000G core and new low-pressure system, would be relatively low-risk

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 06 Nov 2015 04:27

SaiK wrote: Interesting.. then it directly contradicts (assuming pole based testing requires certain modification to platform to get hosted above) with need to fly in. Or is it that these are jigs than lock on to the landing gear?

Flying something in is not the same as flying in

. The need for contractor owned and operated ranges is because of the size of the contracts they receive that justifies their investments especially when competitive sourcing is concerned. There is a huge black R&D pipeline and thats what keeps the lights on. Boeing had to shut down one of its ranges because of a lack of need before offloading it to General Atomics. What drives these is to a large extent the size of the black budget which funds all sorts of things from Low Observable to Counter Low Observable. The two largest accounts/line items with the USAF in its budget are the Classified Procurement and Classified Research and Development.

I've touched some of this here

I'll edit some more info on RCS pole testing based on some of the comments made in a bit...

Edit: The discussion on Ranges got me to go back and read the second edition of RCS. I'll post a nice table from it as well as as a few paras regarding outdoor ranges :

Although we would prefer the the convenience, economy and security of measuring test objects indoors, most targets are simply too big for us to do so. For example, a target as small as 5 ft. should be measured at a range of not less than 500 ft. for a test frequency of 10GHz if we are to satisfy the farfield criteria. Because such distances outsrip the capabilities of even the largest indoor chambers, we are often forced to measure even relatively small bodies outdoors. ....

On US outdoor ranges :

In its attempt to take advantage of the capabilities of outdoor test ranges, the US Government has conducted or contracted other surveys since the Michigan Evaluation was published in 1969. Although the details of those surveys are not avaiable, we list in the table 12.5 [above] the salient features of most of the outdoor RCS test ranges in the US. The first six are federal-government facilities and the remainder are privately owned.

As indicated in the third column of the table, not all of the ranges rely on the ground-plane effect, and at least one is instrumented for dynamic RCS measurements. The distance listed in the third column is the maximum distance available or used for testing, as many of the test ranges are euqiped with several permanent target pits (turntables) at shorter distances. Note that the two listed look-down facilities are operated in support of US Navy testing.

The fourth column shows that the majority of the ranges rely on commercial instrumentation radarrs. All of these systems are coherent, one of the requirements for generating ISAR imagery. Most of the radars can cover a decade of continuous frequency bandwidths, and some of the facilities have implemented spot-frequency coverage at millimeter wavelengths.

Although much of the data listed in the table represents maximum capabilities, not all combinations are possible. The 100Klb target capability listed for the RATSCAT, for example, is available only on a special, heavy duty turntable at ground level. This results in very strong interactions between the target and the ground that do not appear in more conventional free-space or ground plane testing. Similarly, the 800 ft. maximum range listed for the Mission Gorge facility precludes farfield testing for all but small targets (a few feet in size at best) for most of the listed instrumentation frequencies.

When the Air Force accepted the RATSCAT site from the contractor in 1964 it was the most advanced outdoor test range in the world. Located on several square miles of alkali flats on the White sands Missile range in south central New mexico, the facility sported the latest tech. Its radars featured the sigma servo, an accurate device for measuring the amplitude of the received target echo, and the range was equipped with three target rotators embedded in concrete bunkers known as pits. Each pit was encircled by a bistatic road, anywhere along which could be stationed a van housing the receiver of a bistatic-radar. All three pits were illuminated by transmitting antennas installed at a central operations building.

The target pits ranged from 458 to 2258 feet from the transmitters, and each contained a 17 ft. turntable that could be raised or lowered a few feet by means of a hydraulic ram. The rotation axis could also be tilted away from the vertical. Styrofoam columns up to 24 feet tall were mounted on the turntables to support test objects, and large mobile target shelters were used to protect, service, install or remove targets from these columns. Resembling small metal barns on wheels, these shelters were rolled away fro the pit during RCS measurements. The site was equipped for efficient , state-of-the-art measurements of both the monostatic and bi-static RCS of large targets. Its designers regarded it as an important tool not only for routine RCS testing, but for research purposes as well.

The original configuration of RATSCAT changed as measurements changed and as technology advanced. Although the sigma servo was an accurate signal measurement device, it relied on the operation of an electromechanical servo system and was therefore slow by today's standards. It was repleced in the mid 1970's by much faster, if not more accurate, signal measurement and encoding device. Extruded styrofoam logs for the fabrication of target support columns became avaialble and were replaced by beaded foam billets....

Despite these improvements RATESCAT did not satisfy one of the most important requirements for outdoor testing: Security. Although the site did, and still does have, the capability to measure large targets at distances near, if not beyond, the far field, it demanded not less than an hour, and often more than an hour, to remove the target from the 75 ft. pylon at Pit.7. The same amount fo time must also be invested when the target is installed on the pylon, severely restricting available measurement time between transits of spy satellites over the site. Because we must deny unfriendly powers the opportunity to assess US weapon development, we must deny them visual access to the target, and this limits test time on range.

Although this can be accomplished by testing under starlight between dusk and dawn, it still severely restricts available range time. A significant improvement was the construction of the RAMS (Radar advanced measurement site) test facility some 25 miles north and west of RATSCAT. Completed in the early 1980's, RAMS is equipped in with a huge retractable pylon some 95 ft. tall. Patterned after the concept implemented at Lockheed's outdoor range near Helendale, California, the pylon and its test target can be lowered in a matter of minutes into a deep silo bored into the desert floor. Rumored to have cost $30 million, this impressive installation makes it possible to secure a target from satellite observation in a fraction of the ttime formerly required for pylon testing.

We now know that Lockheed had developed the faceted configuration of the predecessor of the F-117A stealth fifer by 1978 [the authors are reffering to Have Blue]. Although this aircraft and other prototypes were flown against some tactical radars of the day on dynamic ranges, no static RCS test range was capable of measuring their RCS charecteristics under more rigidly controlled test conditions. We suspect, therefore that RAMS and Lockheed's Helendale ranged were built in direct response to the need to support the development and testging of stealth aircraft like the F-117A and B-2.....

As I have mentioned much of the publicly written about trail of development sort of fizzles out around the mid to late 1990's and the entire LO-CLO domain goes almost completely blank with no effort made by either the customer (mostly USAF) or the contractor. Having 3-5 on going competitive programs of course did not help and it is unlikely any vendor will openly talk about what its doing or did in the early to late 2000's for perhaps another decade.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 06 Nov 2015 06:23

THAAD test one SRBM and one MRBM..The ballistic missile targets were launched from a C-17...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Nov 2015 21:44

launching from a c17 is challenge indeed.. especially with directional sensors to keep ballistic launch correct itself in case the chute and wind puts it at an angle horizontal. I didn't see any bull nose smokes coming out thru the sides for corrections.. it could be my eyes.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 06 Nov 2015 22:13

More here (Do keep in mind that the success rate is for the target i.e. how many targets successfully performed their missions). Also, this particular test was an integrated Sea and Ground test involving the AEGIS system and the THAAD system managed by a common C2..The AEGIS provided cues and handoffs to the TPY-2 and the second shot with the THAAD was a backup in case the SM3 failed ( which it did)

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 07 Nov 2015 11:54

the US has successfully launched ICBMs from airplanes since 1974 (it was a Minuteman ICBM).

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 07 Nov 2015 17:23

This launch was a Target SR & MRBM...

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Nov 2015 04:12

US Army's Integrated Air and Missile Defense System Defeats Cruise-Missile Target

WASHINGTON — The US Army's future Integrated Air and Missile Defense System (AIAMD) took out its first cruise-missile target on Nov. 12 in a test that included a new command-and-control system and Patriot and Sentinel radars, according to the service.

The test took place at 10:26 a.m. MST at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, according to an Army statement. While the cruise missile surrogate — an MQM 107 drone — went undetected by the Patriot radar due to its low-altitude trajectory, the Sentinel tracked the target and relayed the data to the Integrated Battle Command System — the brains of the AIAMD.

IBCS then relayed information through a remote integrated fire control network (IFCN) to engage the threat with a Lockheed Martin-made Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missile that hit the target.

The test is significant because it shows that the Army is making headway in moving away from traditional, system-centric weapon systems — like Raytheon's Patriot air-and-missile defense system — to a net-centric, "plug and fight" integration of existing and future air and missile defense systems.

The Northrop Grumman-made IBCS, which all of the Army's missile defense sensors and shooters will plug into, is expected to reach initial operational capability in fiscal 2019.

In May, the IBCS successfully destroyed a ballistic missile in its first flight test. IBCS was connected to a Patriot radar and two adapted Patriot launchers through the IFCN during the test.

"The success of IBCS allows our ability to acquire needed radars and interceptors to plug into our architecture without having to buy entire systems and to optimize the sensor/shooter relationship to the target," said Brig. Gen. L. Neil Thurgood, the US Army's Missiles and Space Program chief, following the first test.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 14 Nov 2015 04:41

^^^^ Thus Russia's plans to develop a drone submarine/nuclear bomb mine.

We'll have to wait and see if they go forward with their plans.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Nov 2015 19:08

The current BMD, or the integrated Air and Missile defense systems are grossly inadequate to deter Russia or even China when it comes to these nation's credible deterrence against CONUS. That is by design. A credible deterrence against the volume using these systems is unaffordable unless the pentagon basically dedicates 100% of its acquisition budget on these systems (even then it looks doubtful). The anti-cruise missile test above is / was to test the new system being developed by Northrop Grumman. If you recall, a few years ago the US Army took a decision to seek a different path to the MEADS Battle management and software, that break-away then led to the US basically walking out of MEADS and only supporting development (while still having access to its technology since they paid a large share of its development). The Army wants to develop a system from the inside out since they have invested a lot of money developing linked systems such as the THAAD, Patriot, and linking these systems with the AEGIS by both using the current Spy-1 radars and in the requirement documents in the Spy-6 radar of the future. On top of this MDA has added layers with floating radars, static radars (LRDR) and Airborne VHF AESA's. Northrop Grumman won a contract a few years ago to develop a more modern, and secure battle management system for these. Currently this capability exists (integrated defenses) but the systems are old in the Patriot family, somewhat modern in the AEGIS and THAAD etc. Northrop Grumman basically upgrades all of the BM tasks to the current state of the art and they will IOC by around 2019. Prior t this the PAC-3MSE was chosen as a weapon of choice and hence its development (it was later adopted by MEADS as its main weapon).

http://www.northropgrumman.com/capabili ... fault.aspx

THAAD is good for massive raids, and THAAD+Patriot+AEGIS is good but the real deterrence at least at the tactical level will come from the maturation of HEL's and EMRG based projectiles that can saturate airspace. When you replace multi-million dollar missiles with dozens of rounds that cost $15-20$ each, then you have a winner when it comes to countering raids and salvos..

http://news.usni.org/2015/01/05/navy-wa ... s-says-rfi

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 14 Nov 2015 23:26

the deployment of BMD at Fort Greely and Vandenberg AFB have been limited by the US intended for North Korea. The US dropped the ABM treaty in 2002 and the next day the Russians dropped STARTII, the anti MIRV treaty.

It looks like the Russians don't intend to leave it at that, with the potential of developing a nuclear armed drone submarine/mine. Recently the Russians maneuvered a sat to with in 5 kilometers of Intelsat in geosynchronous orbit w/o explanation.

That is why the US is racing to develop cube sats with the ability to have on demand launching.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Nov 2015 06:07

Developing something isn't a big thing as it is expected that nations around the world will be always developing systems to maintain, or grow their deterrence capability. If they field it however then there would naturally have to be a response to maintain the balance. Against a Chinese or Russian military, deterrence works..it did in the cold war since these nations do keep an eye on military balance and you can (as you did in the cold war) establish go, no go terms as far as red lines are concerned. Here conventional advantage is more important since if it begins to slip or if you do not maintain it your own geopolitical goals will become harder to achieve as is having in the South China Sea. It was realized as far back as a decade ago that if the US is to maintain the status quo in the Pacific, it has to re-balance its forces away from CENTCOM and take a PACOM centric approach to modernization, otherwise china would continue to assert itself in the region at a level that neither the USN, nor the allies in the region (which pretty much includes all but a few nations in the pacific) would like.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Nov 2015 17:46

US tests nuclear gravity bomb under $8b upg program

https://www.rt.com/usa/322417-nuclear-bomb-test-nevada/

--
one can always trust the khan to have a plan-D incase the regular triad fails or is hijacked by aliens inflight

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 18 Nov 2015 13:11

Thought you guys might like this video about the F-14 Tomcat Design Evolution, presented by former Northrop Grumman VP, Mike Ciminera. Video is almost an hour long.
Mods:, please feel free to move this to the International Aerospace Discussion, if you think it doesn't fit here.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Nov 2015 11:29

America’s nuclear bomb gets a makeover

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Nov 2015 11:42

Harriers still going strong!

http://www.naval-technology.com/news/ne ... il-4733468

US deploys AV-8B Harrier jets to support fight against ISIL

20 November 2015
The US has deployed AV-8B Harriers fighter jets to support Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) in its fight against the terrorist group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Iraq.

The Harriers from the US Marine Corps (USMC) Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron (VMM)162 will conduct their first missions over Iraq.

VMM-162(REIN) is the aviation combat element of the 26th MEU, currently embarked with the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge (LHD 3) Amphibious Ready Group (ARG).

Additionally, the ARG-MEU team of marines and sailors are deployed throughout the region to carry out missions in support of OIR, including theatre security cooperation and maritime security operations.

"We're here to assure our allies, deter any adversaries and provide a persistent US presence here in the US 5th Fleet area of operations."

Kearsarge ARG commander captain Augustus P Bennett said: "The Kearsarge Amphibious Ready Group with the embarked 26th MEU, along with our coalition partners, are here to degrade and destroy ISIL's current operations under OIR.

"The combined ARG-MEU team is an expeditionary Navy/Marine Corps force that stands ready and has been trained for these types of operations. We're here to assure our allies, deter any adversaries and provide a persistent US presence here in the US 5th Fleet area of operations."

In October, the last naval aviation missions in support of OIR were conducted from USS Essex (LHD 2).

The deployment decision comes just days after the UK Government announced that the Royal Navy's Daring-class Type 45 destroyer, the HMS Defender, is set to provide air defence cover support for French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle.

The US and coalition nation have stepped up efforts to combat ISIL in Iraq and Syria following the recent Paris attacks, which killed more than 129 people and injured more than 350.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 30 Nov 2015 15:32

GBU-X will have 180+ km range with a weapon demo set for 2019...

Hypersonic Projects to also demo before end of this decade..

This presentation is also the first time I have seen firm deadlines for GPS-Alternative demos as well..

Complete presentation - LINK

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 30 Nov 2015 22:14

Radar Upgrades - Gallium Nitride based AN/MPQ-65 (C Band) upgrade to the Patriot Configuration 3+. Raytheon's approach to 360 degrees coverage is different from MEADS most likely due to the US Army requirements for continuous track (hence no rotating array). They have the primary -65 array that will also be upgraded with Gallium Nitride elements, and smaller sub-arrays for 360 degree coverage. First picture is of one of the GaN sub array along with existing (PESA) -65 main array, and the second graphic is of the new radar that has now been completed and will begin its testing in January. Raytheon already has customers for the upgraded AN/MPQ-65 (Believed to be Qatar and Poland). US Army has still not completed their study for Patriot follow-up but this radar will obviously be a strong contender (Lockheed has an X-band rotating GaN on offer along with Raytheon's offer to design an all new radar). In addition to the upgraded radar, Raytheon is considering integrating a new affordable interceptor into the Patriot family and are internally going to decide between the IRIS-T (MEADS approach), AMRAAM-ER (Already an export customer in the UAE) and the Joint Stunner missile. They will most likely have to pick one of the first two for the Middle east market, and integrate the Stunner for nations like Poland, and even the US Army. Additionally Raytheon is also internally working on an Advanced Threat Interceptor aimed at a high altitude air-breathing threat but is likely to wait for an export customer since the US Army or air-force has no interest in this capability.

Operational Sub panel demonstrated in 2014

Complete GaN'ified AN/MPQ-65

http://investor.raytheon.com/phoenix.zh ... ID=2096453

Also, Lockheed has confirmed that the contract signed with Latvia for 3 TPS-77 D/L Band Multi Role Radars make use of Gallium Nitride AESA making them the first such radars of US origin to be exported. Similar to the Patriot C3+ path, the technology has been exported before the US services have acquired or upgraded to it.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/news ... ed-4687534

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX857ib0K3s

Saudi Arabia is also looking at a fairly massive order for upgrading its radars, adding the THAAD missile and having the Missile Defense Agency develop an integrated Air and Missile defense setup for multiple gulf nations. More details on these efforts will most likely be forthcoming next year.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Dec 2015 07:30

U.S. arms makers strain to meet demand as Mideast conflicts rage
Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-arms-insight-idUSKBN0TN2DA20151204#KaTeoYzIUfbLBIc1.99

Top U.S. arms makers are straining to meet surging demand for precision missiles and other weapons being used in the U.S.-led fight against Islamic State and other conflicts in the Middle East, according to senior U.S. officials and industry executives.

Global demand for U.S.-made missiles and so-called smart bombs has grown steadily since their use in the first Gulf War. But the United States and a host of allies are now rushing to ensure a stable supply of such weapons for what is expected to be a long fight against Islamic State, whose rise has fueled conflict in Syria and across a swathe of the Middle East.

U.S. officials say arms makers have added shifts and hired workers, but they are bumping up against capacity constraints and may need to expand plants or even open new ones to keep weapons flowing. That could create further log-jams at a time when U.S. allies are voicing growing concern that Washington's processing of arms sales orders is too slow.

Islamic State's deadly attacks in Paris last month have added urgency to the U.S.-led bombing campaign against the group in Iraq and Syria. The campaign had resulted in 8,605 strikes at an estimated cost of around $5.2 billion as of Dec. 2.

Meanwhile, a Saudi-led coalition including Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates and backed by Washington is carrying out a nine-month-old military campaign against Iran-backed rebels in Yemen. Gulf states are also supplying U.S.-made arms to rebels fighting Syria's government in that country's four-year-old war.

"It's a huge growth area for us," said one executive with a U.S. weapons maker, who was not authorized to speak publicly.

"Everyone in the region is talking about building up supplies for five to ten years. This is going to be a long fight" against Islamic State.

The impact is palpable in Troy, Alabama, where Lockheed Martin Corp builds its 100-pound Hellfire air-to-ground missiles at a 3,863-acre highly secured facility surrounded by woods and horse pastures. Realtors are adding staff in anticipation of new hiring at the plant, and the large grocery chain Publix is opening a store soon.

"What's good for Lockheed is good for Troy," said Kathleen Sauer, president of the Pike County Chamber of Commerce, adding that the expansion was helping a local economy where unemployment rates are already among the lowest in the state.

"Look at our downtown," she said. "Almost all the stores are open and we have more coming in."

Lockheed has added a third shift at its plant, which employed 325 workers as of February, and is now at "maximum capacity," said one executive familiar with the issue. The company announced in February that it will add 240 workers by 2020 and expand the facility, which also produces a 2,000-pound air-to-surface stealthy missile.

Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's chief arms buyer, told Reuters this week there has been particularly strong demand for the Hellfire missiles. At $60,000 to $100,000 apiece they are inexpensive compared to many missiles and can be launched from everything from aircraft and helicopters and ships to destroy armored vehicles or punch into buildings.

Kendall and other senior U.S. officials told Reuters they are working with Lockheed, Raytheon Co and Boeing Co. to ramp up production of precision munitions and potentially add new capacity.

"We are watching that closely. We are looking at the need to increase capacity," Kendall said.

SALES SURGING

Defense shares have performed strongly in recent months on expectations of better results, and many soared after the attacks in Paris.

Total U.S. foreign military sales approvals surged 36 percent to $46.6 billion in the year through September 2015 from around $34 billion a year earlier. Approved sales of missiles, smart bombs and other munitions to U.S. allies jumped to an estimated $6 billion in fiscal 2015 from $3.5 billion a year earlier.

This year alone, the U.S. government has approved the sale of Hellfires to South Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, France, Italy and Britain. In June, the U.S. Army said it had asked Lockheed to boost production of the Hellfire from 500 per month to 650 by November.

"There are essentially waiting lists for Hellfire. They can't make them fast enough," said one State Department official, who asked not to be identified.

Lockheed declined to provide any details about how it is meeting increased demand for Hellfires and other munitions.

In addition to approved foreign military sales, many munitions sales are overseen by the U.S. Commerce Department and negotiated directly between countries and companies. U.S. weapons makers do not routinely report such sales, and do not break down revenues by specific weapons.

Also in high demand, Kendall said, are Boeing's Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) kits, which turn unguided munitions into smart bombs and have been used consistently to strike Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria.

Last month, the State Department approved a $1.29 billion deal with Saudi Arabia for more than 22,000 JDAMS and other types of precision-guided bombs.

Boeing said it boosted the daily production rate of JDAMs at its facility outside St. Louis by 80 percent in July to meet demand from the U.S. military and more than 25 other countries.

Raytheon, one of the largest U.S. munitions makers, declined comment on its missile production work. The company has a large missile production facility in Tucson, Arizona, which could potentially boost production, Kendall said.

REACHING CAPACITY

Kendall said U.S. manufacturers had been "very responsive," but some facilities were already reaching maximum capacity and it would take years for firms to make necessary expansions.

He said the U.S. government could potentially chip in to defray the cost of new facilities and tooling, but that would be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

It takes time for foreign and U.S. orders to be processed by the U.S. bureaucracy and translate into contracts for companies, but that is now occurring, stretching many facilities to capacity limits, according to industry executives, who were not authorized to speak publicly.

Vice Admiral Joe Rixey, director of the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency, said industry was keeping up with demand thus far but that pressures were mounting.

"We are reacting to get it done," Rixey told Reuters. "We're working on purchasing capacity and shifts."

Defense shares have been buoyed by a two-year congressional budget agreement that ensures stable funding for fiscal 2016 and 2017, share buybacks and growing confidence that a revenue trough is nearly over.

Raytheon told analysts in October that its missile sales - which account for about 28 percent of overall revenues - jumped 11 percent in the third quarter and looked set for further growth in the fourth quarter.

Lockheed and Boeing do not provide details about their missile sales, but they account for a relatively small - albeit growing - portion of their defense businesses, according to analysts.

The long-term increase in demand is also expected to boost revenues for key suppliers such as Orbital ATK and Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings Inc, which make the propulsion systems for many of the missiles.

U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff General Mark Welsh said the U.S. military had increased its orders in recent years to replenish and expand its stockpiles, but more work was needed. He said Washington was encouraging its allies to do the same.

"We all have to be better at pre-planning for munitions, because they're expensive and we don’t have an industrial base that can spin up over night and produce them," he said last week after a speech hosted by the Atlantic Council think tank.

For U.S. towns and cities that are reliant on the arms industry for growth, the growth is welcome economic news despite the rise in global conflicts.

"It's a dangerous world," said Kevin Flowers, who works at Alabama Real Estate Connection in Troy, which he said was adding staff in anticipation of further expansion by Lockheed.

"We have to be ready. Better safe than sorry."

Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-cris ... fbLBIc1.99

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 05 Dec 2015 09:53

brar_w wrote:THAAD test one SRBM and one MRBM..The ballistic missile targets were launched from a C-17...

Is the target missile carrying a modified nose cone?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 05 Dec 2015 17:07

^ Could be.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 05 Dec 2015 18:23

The design sketch Northrop released for the USAFs JUCAS offshoot. They would have most likely called it X-45C or D since this was most likely larger than the earlier envisioned C (which could iirc still fit on a carrier). This was to have a wingspan of the B-2. Later on the USAF merged the requirements to a family of systems consisting of (not limited to) the RQ180 and LRS-B.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 06 Dec 2015 17:12

Cyber, EW Are Secret Missile Defense Weapons Too Secret To Use

WASHINGTON: The problem with secret weapons is that almost nobody knows about them — including people on your own side who might really need to use them. That’s the self-inflicted wound the Pentagon is struggling with as it tries to apply highly classified capabilities in cyber and electronic warfare to the notoriously tough challenge of missile defense.

Cutting-edge technologies hold the potential to hack into an adversary’s command-and-control network so his missiles never get the order to launch. They could jam his radars and navigation systems so the missiles that do launch go harmlessly off target. Such “non-kinetic” techniques — expending no ammunition except electricity — could reduce the number of incoming missiles and thus the number of multi-million-dollar interceptors the US has to fire at them.

No less a figure than Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work has said bluntly that EW and cyber held more promise for missile defense than the traditional method of shooting down one missile with another. “It doesn’t have to be a kinetic solution,” Work said in March. “Hell, I don’t really want a kinetic solution. It’s got to be something else.”

So that’s the promise — but when I’ve tried to get any specifics, I get polite demurrals that the topic is too classified to talk about. But it’s not just reporters who have this problem. People in the military who really need to know about these capabilities, as a matter of potential life and death, aren’t always allowed to learn about them either.

“We need to have enough people who understand what each of them is [and] a way to use them when the time comes,” said Rear Adm. Archer Macy, retired director of the Joint Integrated Air and Missile Defense Organization (JIAMDO). “The fact that only very few people know what [some of these capabilities] are make that very difficult.”

“We need to have the conversation to figure out…how do you most effectively bring all these pieces together,” Macy told me after speaking on a panel of retired missile defense commanders at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

On one level, Macy said, “this is not new. We’ve been doing this in warfare going back to when we figured out, ‘okay, do you use the archers first or the knights on horses?” But Henry V never had to coordinate so many different moving pieces, let alone deal with half his nobles not being authorized to know what a longbow was.

“There are so many different technological means available,” said Macy, at various levels of classification: “the black programs, the grey programs, the white programs.” When a launch occurs — or, better yet, when you get intelligence a launch may happen — which techniques do you use, in what combination and what order, under what circumstances against which adversaries? The tactical and technical complexities must be thought through, field-tested, and practiced well in advance, Macy said, because there’s no time to jury-rig defenses once a missile’s in the air.

“Do I use the photon torpedo first or do I use the light saber first?” Macy asked, obviously not naming actual classified technologies. “The people who are going to need it in the actual eventuality [of an attack], some of them are going to need to know about it, and they need to know about it before the eventuality.” The missile defenders don’t necessarily need to know the secret sauce, he said, but they’d better know “at least enough to employ it effectively.”

“You’ve got to deal with the classification questions,” Macy said. “You’ve got to deal with the command and control.”

Speaking on the CSIS panel alongside Macy, recently retired Brig. Gen. Kenneth Todorov agreed on both the potential and the problems.

“There is an appetite for it, people are working on it,” said Todorov, who was deputy director of the Missile Defense Agency. “The Advanced Capabilities and Deterrence panel — which is a group within the Department that looks at ways and endorses methods of getting at this [missile defense] problem — they are fully onboard with [exploring], ‘What does left of launch mean? What are some of the new capabilities?'”

That said, Todorov cautioned, “we are a ways away from the quote-unquote new stuff.” The promise of electronic and cyber warfare for missile defenses is not a reason to neglect traditional interceptors, he said: We need both.

“There’s general consensus that we need to pursue both lethal and non-lethal. I don’t think there’s a tension there, I think it’s a complementary capability,” said Lt. Gen. Richard Formica, retired chief of the Army Space & Missile Defense Command. “There’s recognition that we’ll never leave the type of physical defense that interceptors provide, and we need the full suite of those, from GMD to Patriot and everything in between, [but] there’s also the recognition that we’ve got to continue to develop those other capabilities.”

“There’s a realization among senior leaders of the need,” agreed Rear Adm. Joseph Horn, retired head of the Navy’s Aegis ballistic missile defense program. “There’s direction to accommodate that need — at whatever classification level is [necessary]. The real challenge is the synchronization and integration of those efforts.”

But that brings you back to the basic questions. “Who knows about it? And how do you employ it? We’ve got to get it out of the dark world,” Todorov said.

When it comes to coordinating missile defense, Todorov added, “it’s hard enough with white world assets.” For example, during Todorov’s time at the US Northern Command, which runs homeland missile defense, he helped line up surveillance ships and land-based radars — both unclassified capabilities — to monitor a potential North Korean missile test. The problem was the assets NORTHCOM needed for its homeland mission all belonged to Pacific Command, and they already had missions for PACOM — for example, making sure the North Koreans weren’t about to hit them or America’s Pacific allies.

“That was sort of an awkward conversation to have…. across the seams of the COCOMs [combatant commands],” Todorov sighed.

Macy’s suggestion for how to bring this all together, the classified and unclassified, kinetic and electric: a Ballistic Missile Defense command with global responsibilities. His models are Special Operations Command or Transportation Command. SOCOM and TRANSCOM sometimes simply provide forces for the theater commanders to use, he said, but “in their functional area of responsibility” — counterterrorism and global transport respectively — “they have command authorities. They can tell people to move.”

“Because of the physics of ballistic missiles… you’ve got to have someone who’s a central nexus who has the authority” to take urgent command of forces from anywhere on the planet needed for the defense, Macy told me.

“Maximum, it’s less than an hour from Point A to B on any scenario you want to choose anywhere on this planet,” Macy told the CSIS audience. “This demand of time demands a way of command, control, communications, integration etc. that’s got to respond on that time scale. You don’t get to say, ‘wait a minute, I need another two hours.’ It hit an hour and a half ago.”

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 08 Dec 2015 06:36

US Army grounds 1,100 helicopters for five days for safety review

The “safety stand-down” from 3-7 December grounded aviation units at 11 bases in the continental USA operating a mix of Boeing AH-64 Apaches and CH-47 Chinooks, and Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawks.

Helicopter crews have already suffered 14 accidents in the nine weeks since the fiscal year began on 1 October, according to Army Safety Center statistics updated on 6 December.

That’s only two fewer accidents than reported in the whole of FY2015 and four fewer than logged during FY2014.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Dec 2015 12:25

A real game changer!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... sting.html

Largest destroyer ever built for US Navy heads to Atlantic for testing
The USS Zumwalt is 610ft long, weighs 15,000 tons and cost $4.4 billion to build
The USS Zumwalt is underway for the first time conducting at-sea tests and trials on the Kennebeck River
By David Lawler, Washington

7:49PM GMT 07 Dec 2015

The largest destroyer ever built for the US Navy cut an imposing figure as it drifted down the Kennebec River in Maine and toward the open ocean on Monday.

The USS Zumwalt, a 610-foot, 15,000-ton behemoth, will undergo sea trials before joining the US fleet some time next year.

Its pricetag of $4.4 billion (£2.9 billion) is almost as astounding as its bulk, but Navy Captain James Kirk, the ship's skipper, said he was "fired up" for the Zumwalt to finally set off for the Atlantic Ocean.

The first Zumwalt-class destroyer, USS Zumwalt, the largest ever built for the U.S. Navy, passes spectators at Fort Popham at the mouth of the Kennebec RiverThe first Zumwalt-class destroyer, USS Zumwalt, the largest ever built for the U.S. Navy, passes spectators at Fort Popham at the mouth of the Kennebec River Photo: AP/Robert F. Bukaty

"We are absolutely fired up to see Zumwalt get under way. For the crew and all those involved in designing, building, and readying this fantastic ship, this is a huge milestone," he said.

So advanced are the Zumwalt's stealth capabilities, that it registers on radar as a small vessel, about the size of a fishing boat.
It is about 100ft longer and 20ft wider than the navy's current class of destroyers, and boasts more advanced weaponry.

The first Zumwalt-class destroyer, the USS Zumwalt, the largest ever built for the U.S. Navy, leaves the Kennebec RiverThe first Zumwalt-class destroyer, the USS Zumwalt, the largest ever built for the U.S. Navy, leaves the Kennebec River Photo: AP/Robert F. Bukaty

Its computer-guided missile system can hit targets up to 63 miles away, and it may eventually be equipped with a laser weapon or electromagnetic rail gun.

Technological improvements also mean Zumwalt can be operated with a crew less than half the size what would previously have been needed for such a massive ship.

Kelley Campana, an employee of Bath Iron Works, where the ship was built, told the Associated Press that she had goose bumps and tears in her eyes as she watched the launch.

The first Zumwalt-class destroyer, the USS Zumwalt , the largest ever built for the U.S. Navy, leaves the Kennebec River in Phippsburg, MaineThe first Zumwalt-class destroyer, the USS Zumwalt , the largest ever built for the U.S. Navy, leaves the Kennebec River in Phippsburg, Maine Photo: AP/Robert F. Bukaty

"This is pretty exciting. It's a great day to be a shipbuilder and to be an American," she said. "It's the first in its class. There's never been anything like it. It looks like the future."

The ship is named for Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, a decorated Naval officer who died in 2000.

There are plans to build two more ships to complete what will be known as the Zumwalt class.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Dec 2015 15:35

Its a leading ship of a small new class that itself is going to be the canvas for the next large surface combatant (and all the technology required to bring next generation capability to fruition such as directed energy and EMRG) around the end of the next decade. One has to remember that looking at the cost.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 09 Dec 2015 15:49

U.S.-Japan Cooperative Development Project Conducts Successful Flight Test of Standard Missile-3 Block IIA

The Japan Ministry of Defense (MOD) Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Agency (ATLA) and the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA), in cooperation with the U.S. Navy, announced the successful completion of a Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA flight test from the Point Mugu Sea Range, San Nicolas Island, California. This test, designated SM-3 Block IIA Cooperative Development Controlled Test Vehicle-02, was a live fire of the SM-3 Block IIA. The missile successfully demonstrated flyout through kinetic warhead ejection. No intercept was planned, and no target missile was launched.

Program officials will evaluate system performance based upon telemetry and other data obtained during the test.

The SM-3 Cooperative Development Project is the joint U.S.-Japan development of a 21-inch diameter variant of the SM-3, designated Block IIA, to defeat medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles. Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) is the naval component of the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). The MDA and the U.S. Navy cooperatively manage the Aegis BMD program.

SM3 Blk. IIA envelope -

Live intercepts are expected to start next year with a planned Initial operational capability of 2018 with both Japan and the US Navy at both AEGIS and AEGIS ashore sites (Poland or Romania)

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Dec 2015 01:06

vera_k wrote:
brar_w wrote: The most important portion of DARPA research is not in its programs at all, its in the theoretical scientists and engineers that figure our future concepts before developing engineering challenges that then get handed over to the program managers to develop and demonstrate. Insiders call this funding "questions".
From what I've observed, each field then gets a set of metrics established to measure progress. This then drives progress since everyone starts to compete to win awards and funding based on making progress on the metrics.

The PM phase once the program gets handed over to a specific technology office within DARPA is actually fairly well (and at times traditionally) structured depending upon the office. There is however quite a bit of room both within each offices (particularly in the STO side of things) and outside these for strategic thought and dialogue that at many times (even a decade ago) has involved a very diverse field of representatives including the science fiction community. Interestingly no one has tried to gauge the classified portion of DARPA's programs however I did read one analysis that puts DARPA's influence on greater 1/3 of all DOD R&D activity. Again interesting topic that Annie Jacobson details in her book the Pentagon's Brain.. which is an excellent source on some of the more interesting DARPA programs. She refers to some of them in a talk she recently did at Google's campus -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JZot1YANL4

The way the STO (and particularly that office) does business is highlighted in this recent solicitation announcement -

DARPA is seeking innovative ideas and disruptive technologies that offer the potential for
significant capability improvement across the Strategic Technology Office focus areas. This
includes technology development related to Battle Management, Command and Control
(BMC2), Communications and Networks, Electronic Warfare, Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance (ISR), Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT), Maritime, and Foundational
Strategic Technologies and Systems.
Proposed research should investigate approaches that enable revolutionary advances in science,
devices, or systems. DARPA anticipates funding a limited number of proposals under this BAA.
Specifically excluded are existing mature solutions and research that results in evolutionary improvements to existing technologies.

The raison d'être of DARPA is to prevent another sputnik from happening and to first and foremost prevent another strategic technological surprise at the hands of a potential adversary and secondly to create technological surprises of their own. Its essentially the 'special forces' of R&D and acquisition where they aim to attract very bright project managers and scientists from industry for 3-5 years..as opposed to the traditional R&D structure where they look to make career defense scientists. One often forgets that DARPA is fairly small.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 11 Dec 2015 02:48

Specifically excluded are existing mature solutions and research that results in evolutionary improvements to existing technologies.

Agreed. The above jobs are usually assigned to the national labs Like Sandia, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge and also at the arsenals and research orgs at Huntsville Al., Rock Island, Il., Dayton Ohio., and San Antonio, TX. Not to forget the good people at MIT, John Hopkins and Cal Tech, et. al.

These guys can submit proposals to DARPA but it had better be something not usually associated with their regular research.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Dec 2015 03:04

The labs you mentioned are joined at the hip with DARPA through influence that these organizations yield over each other. The STO is not concerned with taking technology that exists or that is just on the horizon (typically though there may be exceptions) to maturity or weaponizing them. Its the EGG and chicken game as Jacobson describes in her book, you don;t want to end up 20 years from now with a requirement for a new concept of operation and not have technology ready to enable it. There is the Tactical office (TTO) that deals with more mature and evolving technologies.

http://www.darpa.mil/about-us/offices/sto

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Dec 2015 19:07

PAC-3 MSE Missile Now Three-for-Three in Tests Since November

WASHINGTON — The Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Missile Segment Enhanced missile had its third successful intercept of a target since November, Lockheed Martin announced Thursday.

A PAC-3 MSE missile engaged and hit a tactical ballistic missile target at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, on Dec. 10.

The missile is the Army's newest version of the PAC-3 missile used in the Raytheon-made Patriot air and missile defense system.

Previous intercepts occurred on Nov. 12 and Nov. 19, also at White Stands.

A PAC-3 interceptor took out an airborne target in a flight test that was part of the Army's Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System (IBCS) test. Northrop Grumman is the prime manufacturer of the IBCS, the brains of Army's future missile defense system, and is expected to reach initial operational capability in fiscal 2019.

On Nov. 19, a PAC-3 MSE intercepted a Patriot-as-a-Target (PAAT), which is a legacy Patriot missile modified to represent a modern tactical ballistic missile.

In Thursday's test, two PAC-3 MSE missiles were launched in the Army-led test, with the first intercepting the target, according to Lockheed.

The test today "is another strong demonstration of the PAC-3 MSE interceptor's proven reliability and advanced capability," Scott Arnold, vice president of PAC-3 programs at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, said. "With enhanced capability and range, we anticipate these innovative interceptors will play an increasingly critical role in defending against evolving missile threats around the globe."

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 12 Dec 2015 16:47

http://scoopdeck.navytimes.com/2015/12/ ... into-port/

“Reporting of a complete loss of propulsion on USS Milwaukee (LCS 5) is deeply alarming, particularly given this ship was commissioned just 20 days ago,” McCain said. “U.S. Navy ships are built with redundant systems to enable continued operation in the event of an engineering casualty, which makes this incident very concerning.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 12 Dec 2015 17:32

There is so little wake on the zumwalt that the photos can be mistaken for poor photoshop. Truly magnificent. Sorry Kirov, you are gonna lose your place in my heart to zumwalt.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Dec 2015 17:47

Thakur_B wrote:There is so little wake on the zumwalt that the photos can be mistaken for poor photoshop. Truly magnificent. Sorry Kirov, you are gonna lose your place in my heart to zumwalt.

How long before the Chinese build a lookalike? Any bets?

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 12 Dec 2015 20:07

Defense News: Will DDG-1000 Destroyers Be Unstable?

“…Brower explained: “The trouble is that as a ship pitches and heaves at sea, if you have tumblehome instead of flare, you have no righting energy to make the ship come back up. On the DDG 1000, with the waves coming at you from behind, when a ship pitches down, it can lose transverse stability as the stern comes out of the water – and basically roll over.”
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/def ... ble-03203/

http://www.phisicalpsience.com/public/T ... -1000.html

The omission of a flared bow on the DDG 1000, having been superseded with a centerline slopping (inward) tapered bow as appose to an outward slopping bow, per the Defense News (Cavas, 2007) video of the NSWC and ONR tank test of the DDG 1000 Tumblehome hull model, generating immediately noticeable and highly different wash water characteristics upon the vessel's forward hull section as the ship pitches downwards. The antithetical, non outward (forward) flaring bow, more specifically the segment of the vessel's bow that is above the waterline and known as the prow, for the DDG 1000, rather than displacing water away from the leading section of the hull as is the case with most vessels, thus ejecting water out and away from the vessel's path, instead resulting in water being drawn rapidly up and towards the vessel's forward area.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 12 Dec 2015 22:52

The stability issues have been discussed here before. They de-risked it through both soft and hard R&D efforts but much like proving a flying wing the first in class ship will have to demonstrate that with 100% demonstration.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 12 Dec 2015 23:14

I am willing to bet the thing has been wave checked in a modeling tank under all kinds of suppositions or it would not have been built. Even to the point of proposed engine/hull efficiency ratio. If it didn't hit all aspects, then no contract, no moolah.