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: 11380
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby UlanBatori » 16 Jun 2019 04:42

IMO the "offer" to India is the pretext to grant a squadron or 2 or 3 to Pakistan. This is why it is linked to the S400 SAM: Pakistan needs a system that can survive the THREAT of the S400 while doing essential antipro-terrorism missions over "Cashmore"

Might as well put in an order for the Su-50 or whatever. Although in the case of F-35 as we have often discussed, a cell-phone jamming system is all that is needed. :mrgreen:

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19306
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby chetak » 16 Jun 2019 06:19

UlanBatori wrote:IMO the "offer" to India is the pretext to grant a squadron or 2 or 3 to Pakistan. This is why it is linked to the S400 SAM: Pakistan needs a system that can survive the THREAT of the S400 while doing essential antipro-terrorism missions over "Cashmore"

Might as well put in an order for the Su-50 or whatever. Although in the case of F-35 as we have often discussed, a cell-phone jamming system is all that is needed. :mrgreen:


UlanBatori saar,

not just the pakis but I also see the fine hand of the cheni in this effort to deny India the S-400. Earlier, the amerikis seemed quite OK with it but as the trade war hotted up between the US and the hans, this demand has again surfaced unexpectedly and has now come in, out of left field.

The hans can be quite frank with the US because they are joined at the hip since decades bacause of massive and reciprocal market access, trade and investment and the interdependent "wink, wink, nudge" arrangement on the so called "theft" of IP vis a vis the guaranteed market access.

The trump black swan has hit xi like a tornado, especially if the russkis had a role to play as is being alleged.

even before the pakis, the hans desperately would not want India sitting with a number of S-400 systems to counter their carefully planned offensive systems.

I suspect that our Agin series, apart from the coalescing of anti han forces in the region, have panicked the hans and hence the S-400.
Last edited by chetak on 16 Jun 2019 06:23, edited 1 time in total.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11380
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby UlanBatori » 16 Jun 2019 06:23

Too complicated for me. Seems like Russians won't be happy if India backs out of S400, so what role has Russia to play in it I wonder. The F35 for refusing S400 is a nonstarter on both counts. India does ****NOT***** want F35, and most certainly not to produce them here (see example of Turkey). So the "offer" is plainly to say: "Hey, we offered you the same and you didn't take it, we gotta sell our items to our friends, so we sold them to Pakistan".

I don't think US is going to sell F-35 to China.

OTOH, look at it from Paki pov. Their best a/c is a 1970s-era platform (f-16) updated maybe to 1988. India flies Su-30s and Mig-29s, the former is 2010-era while the latter is maybe late 1990s updated to about 2010 too. Rafales coming - those are 2017 updated, maybe 2020 updated. And the F-16 just got downed by a 1960s-era MiG-21. They have a problem. Back in 1965 they had Mach-2 F-104s and Mach 1+ B-58s. Against India's Mysteres, Vampires, Gnats and Hunters, and still inside 2 weeks TPSAF was practically on its knees, as airbases smoked and fuel ran out. 1971 was worse.

To cap it all Modi threatened a missile attack that shredded Paki H&D completely.
And now the S400 threatens to make it a runaway 1-sided matchup.

So! VTOL, runway-independent F35s are a necessity, even if they have to eat grass etc. Lockheed is willing, USAF is willing, but GOTUS wants to have an excuse to rebuff Indian protests. Maintaining reasonable Balance of Power is part of US South Asia Equal-Equal policy, hain?
Last edited by UlanBatori on 16 Jun 2019 06:40, edited 1 time in total.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19306
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby chetak » 16 Jun 2019 06:25

UlanBatori wrote:Too complicated for me. Seems like Russians won't be happy if India backs out of S400, so what role has Russia to play in it I wonder. The F35 for refusing S400 is a nonstarter on both counts. India does ****NOT***** want F35, and most certainly not to produce them here (see example of Turkey). So the "offer" is plainly to say: "Hey, we offered you the same and you didn't take it, we gotta sell our items to our friends, so we sold them to Pakistan".

I don't think US is going to sell F-35 to China.




one suspects that the russkis are not too happy playing second fiddle to the hans.

India backing out of any deal with the russkies will be harakiri with widespread security consequences.

Best to choose and seal deals with them carefully and selectively.

India not wanting and the amerikis wanting to sell to us are entirely two very different things.

Aren't the amerikis still trying very hard to push the teens.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2015
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Vivek K » 16 Jun 2019 06:54

This wouldn’t have happened if India had bee firm on swadeshi!! Now pay the price of the foolish policy of trying to appease all sides!

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19306
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby chetak » 16 Jun 2019 07:01

Image

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19882
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Philip » 16 Jun 2019 13:34

The F-35 is in deep faeces.The Pentagon has also issued
statements about defrcts, etc.It is also v.unlikely that the IN's 57 fighters will be a top priority as the sub situ is alarming what with the Scorpene programme in trouble over 36 defects in thd second sub, IN refusing to accept it.
ASW helos will be a greater priority and the sooner the
MH-60 deal is sealed the better.In fact an increase in number would not be out of place as we will have 2 carriers plus 10 DDGHs and 20+ FFGHs requiring helos. Those which have Sea King capable hangars would be able to house the Romeos.

News of the Sea Guardian deal on the cards for all 3 services is very welcome.The Q is what type of weaponry can it carry in the maritime sphere.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1585
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby ldev » 16 Jun 2019 18:45

brar_w wrote:The Buff is getting ready to begin flight testing of yet another new weapon. Noteworthy that the TBG/ARRW early checks are running ahead of the HCSW (from what we know/released). ARRW is based on a much newer, and more capable boost glide vehicle compared to the Sandia swerve derived common BGV going on the HCSW and other medium-intermediate range conventional hypersonic weapons with the US Navy and Army.

USAF Performs Hypersonic Weapon Flight Loads Test

The U.S. Air Force has conducted the first captive-carry test flight of the DARPA/Air Force Research Laboratory-developed Tactical Boost Glide (TBG) hypersonic demonstrator, a prototype to the follow-on Lockheed Martin AGM-183A Air Launched Rapid Response Weapon, or ARRW.

The test vehicle, which the Air Force describes as a “sensor-only” version of the ARRW precursor, was carried aloft on a B-52 on June 12 at Edwards Air Force Base, California. According to an Air Force statement, the flight collected data on drag and vibration impacts on the weapon itself and on the external carriage equipment of the aircraft.

The ARRW is one of several hypersonic weapons in initial development for the U.S. military along with the Lockheed Martin-developed Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC), and the Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon, or HCSW. As one of two rapid prototyping hypersonic efforts along with HAWC, ARRW is set to reach early operational capability by 2022.

“The goal is fly TBG this year and, if not, the latest would be early next year,” said Jeff Babione, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works vice president and general manager.

Overall Lockheed Martin is working on five hypersonic programs across the corporation, and Skunk Works is involved “at some level in virtually all of those,” said Babione, who says the focus for the secretive Palmdale, California-based organization is on TBG, ARRW and HAWC.
“We are making great progress, but this is hard. However, they are normal challenges given the technology and how far we are advancing the state of the art. Both TBG and HAWC are doing well, and as Dr. Steve Walker (DARPA director) said, it’s kind of a horse race to see which will fly first. I’m very happy with the progress we are making on them and I don’t see any significant technical challenges that we can’t overcome,” he said.
The timing for HAWC, which differs from the boost-glide weapons in incorporating a supersonic combustion ramjet (scramjet) for most of its mission, is “on a similar trajectory for first flight later this year,” Babione said. Lockheed is working on this project with propulsion system developer Aerojet Rocketdyne. “What they’ve done with the engine is spectacular. It’s an impressive piece of equipment in its simplicity, but also its capability. It’s tough to get to, but we have high confidence it is going to work very well for our customer,” he added.

The June 12 TBG flight was with an instrumented test vehicle. “So we were looking at the environment around the weapon and how it interfaces with the B-52 both from a loads and other aspects point of view," Babione said. "This gives us a better idea of the vibration and noise levels. That program is going very well." Babione describes the hypersonic glider element as being roughly 6 ft. long.

“The goal would be to air-launch [after dropping] from inside a fighter or from a B-52," he said. "My sense, having seen what low-observable technology has done to the way we fight, is that hypersonics will do much the same. It will radically change the way we approach a battle and how we apply that affect. It certainly gives us a capability that will change when and how we engage our adversaries."


So ARRW (AGM-183a) appears to be rocket powered (engine being developed by Aerodyne) and will be carried/dropped from an aircraft platform, maybe a B-52 or maybe a smaller fighter aircraft depending on the size of the vehicle plus the rocket booster. I read on other sites that it will climb to about 100,000 feet and attain a speed of Mach 20, about 15,000 mph where the rocket booster will be jettisoned and then dive down to the target with the ability to maneuver while diving down. This will be one bad-ass weapon.

And HCSV, hypersonic conventional strike weapon will use, again according to other sites, existing mature technologies for an air-breathing, air launched strike weapon in the Mach 5-6 range for conventional global precision-strikes i.e. ability to strike any target anywhere in the world in 1 hour. It will be interesting to see ultimately what engine powers it. Could be a dual mode combined cycle turbojet/ramjet, maybe again developed by Aerodyne. That dual mode motor will allow the missile to be carried and dropped from a subsonic platform like the B-52 and will not need any rocket booster like India needs the Agni 1 for launching it's hypersonic . Very interesting.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7479
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 16 Jun 2019 19:42

ldev wrote:
So ARRW (AGM-183a) appears to be rocket powered (engine being developed by Aerodyne) and will be carried/dropped from an aircraft platform, maybe a B-52 or maybe a smaller fighter aircraft depending on the size of the vehicle plus the rocket booster. I read on other sites that it will climb to about 100,000 feet and attain a speed of Mach 20, about 15,000 mph where the rocket booster will be jettisoned and then dive down to the target with the ability to maneuver while diving down. This will be one bad-ass weapon.

And HCSV, hypersonic conventional strike weapon will use, again according to other sites, existing mature technologies for an air-breathing, air launched strike weapon in the Mach 5-6 range for conventional global precision-strikes i.e. ability to strike any target anywhere in the world in 1 hour. It will be interesting to see ultimately what engine powers it.



AGM-183A is nothing but a USAF weapon based off of DARPA's Tactical Boost Glide weapon demonstrator (Lockheed Martin variant) that is going to be having its first flight later this year. It will be powered by a booster to altitude and would then the glide vehicle would separate and it would cruise its way to a target. Difference from a ballistic missile in that at least 50% of the flight profile of the weapon would be non ballistic. It should achieve maximum speeds in the Mach 15 - Mach 20+ range. The aim is to get the AGM-183A hit Early Operational Capability by the end of 2022, probably with the B-52 as the host platform initially with integration also happening on fighters later down the road. The TBG will result in the AGM-183A which believed to be a 1000 km ranged air-launched rapid strike weapon that is both heavy bomber and tactical fighter (perhaps even the F-35) compatible. Target sets are Air Defense systems and other high value targets. It essentially delivers on a JASSM-ER like target set but with a flight time of well under 10 min.

Image

The Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon (HCSW), is yet another air launched boost glide weapon that is integrating the more proven Sandia Winged Energetic Reentry Vehicle (SWERV) with a new booster developed specifically for the USAF. It will be a longer ranged weapon compared to the AGM-183A and will likely only be carried by the bombers, possibly just the B-52. The SWERV has had a number of successful tests over the years including two with an Army and Navy optimized booster (ground launch). It forms the basis of the interim common boost glide vehicle warhead for the US Army, Navy and Air Force hypersonic programs that will be fielded into operational service around 2021/2022 starting with the Navy's conventional prompt strike where this weapon will be integrated on either a surface or a sub surface platform (it will be an Intermediate range weapon). The HCSW and the SWERV warhead will likely also form the basis of a Missile Defense Agency target program.

The Tactical Boost Glide system's BGV is considered much more advanced and something that probably builds on top of DARPA's Falcon and as such it will most likely also follow closely behind and form the basis of a common BGV that will first show up on the USAF's AGM-183A, but later on the Army's OpsFire ground launched system which is going to be housing the missiles on either a Logistic Vehicle System Replacement (LVSR), or a HEMTT. Earlier this year, DARPA awarded a strange last minute follow on contract to Raytheon for a second Tactical Boost Glide vehicle design (building on work Raytheon had done through 2018), after the program had already competitively down selected Lockheed months/years ago for the current system that is expected to begin flight testing later this year. This is believed to be an award with a Naval system in mind probably going off off US Navy's interest in a TBG derived weapon system down the road so depending upon the merits of the two designs and the performance requirements for each role, they could split this between Lockheed and Raytheon.

ldev wrote:Could be a dual mode combined cycle turbojet/ramjet, maybe again developed by Aerodyne. That dual mode motor will allow the missile to be carried and dropped from a subsonic platform like the B-52 and will not need any rocket booster like India needs the Agni 1 for launching it's hypersonic . Very interesting.


The HCSW (V?) is not an Air Breather. It's a BG system. I think you are confusing it with HAWC (Hypersonic Air Breathing Weapon) which is a Scramjet that builds off of the X-51 with both the booster stack and the Scramjet developed by Aerojet Rocketdyne as the article above states. It is being developed by Lockheed and as the article quotes the DARPA director it is neck and neck between which weapon demonstrator will have its first flight first. Both the HAWC and TBG are targeting end of 2019 or early 2020 as the launch of their flight test window. The Buff will be the host program for both those test programs.

Image

ldev wrote:That dual mode motor will allow the missile to be carried and dropped from a subsonic platform like the B-52 and will not need any rocket booster like India needs the Agni 1 for launching it's hypersonic


It will have a boosted climb to altitude and speed and then ignite the scramjet engine much the same way the X-51 did years ago. Only difference is that they've had years to improve on the technology and because HAWC is a full fledged program and not a technology demonstrator effort they are likely to be creating more optimized booster and other hardware for it (having to scramble spare boosters (ATACMS) and other parts was a hindrance for the X-51 design team). Overall, I expect it to be quite similar to the X-51, though more optimized as a weapon rather than a test vehicle so probably more consideration to things like warhead, guidance etc etc. There is obviously no point in launching the HAWC from the ground for testing because it is an Air Launched weapon so weapons seperation, booster ignite, booster seperation and other AL unique test events would be important things to validate and prove out.

The Advanced Full-Range Engine (AFRE) and the turbine-based combined-cycle (TBCC) project is a seperate DARPA effort, also being worked on by Aerojet Rocketdyne. It is not associated with or linked with HAWC in any way. It too will begin testing in the short-medium term but it does not yet have a USAF/Army/Navy funded production weapons system program on the other side like TBG, HAWC (believed to exist but not yet clearly defined) or HCSW do. There the goal is to combine the dual mode ramjet/scramjet with a standard or modified gas turbine engine so that hypersonic speeds are achieved without the need for rocket motor assistance (essentially going from stand still to hypersonic on air breathing propulsion).

Aerojet Rocketdyne announced some success to that end last year - https://twitter.com/AerojetRdyne/status ... 9806540801

In all there are about 10-12 hypersonic programs split between the US services and DARPA. I expect this to be pruned down once initial hypersonic capability is fielded in 2021 and 2022, and once risk on some of the more cutting edge ones (like HAWC, TBG and OpsFires) is reduced via demonstrations and validations. So maybe only 5-6 would be going forward long term.
Last edited by brar_w on 16 Jun 2019 20:26, edited 1 time in total.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1585
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby ldev » 16 Jun 2019 20:22

The Advanced Full-Range Engine (AFRE) and the turbine-based combined-cycle (TBCC) project is a seperate DARPA effort, also being worked on by Aerojet Rocketdyne. It is not associated with or linked with HAWC in any way. It too will begin testing in the short-medium term but it does not yet have a USAF/Army/Navy funded production weapons system program on the other side like TBG, HAWC (believed to exist but not yet clearly defined) or HCSW do. There the goal is to combine the dual mode ramjet/scramjet with a standard or modified gas turbine engine so that hypersonic speeds are achieved without the need for rocket motor assistance (essentially going from stand still to hypersonic on air breathing propulsion).


Got you. I thought that it was slated for HCSW.

And if both AGM-183a and HCSW are going to be BG, I wonder whether their mission profile will be different? Range? Targets? Cost? Or is is just as you said that the multiplicity of programs will be pruned as they advance further in their testing phase.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7479
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 16 Jun 2019 20:36

ldev wrote:And if both AGM-183a and HCSW are going to be BG, I wonder whether their mission profile will be different? Range? Targets? Cost? Or is is just as you said that the multiplicity of programs will be pruned as they advance further in their testing phase.


Yes both. TBG is widely believed to be a rapid response weapon analogous of the JASSM-ER or essentially a 1000 km ranged system. It is designed to be carried by both bombers and fighters and possibly even fit the weapon bays of 5th and 6th generation fighters. A strike fighter would probably be able to carry multiple such weapons externally. The HCSW (hacksaw) is believed to be a much heavier and possibly significantly longer ranged system and probably just intended for the heavy bombers. The SWERV derived Navy and Army programs are looking at ranges many times that of the TBG. US Navy's Flight Experiment One (FET-1), for example, was in the 4000+ km range class. Though this isn't crystal clear I feel that the HCSW would probably be aiming for larger payload at 2-3x the range of TBG. It is also utilizing an older, less capable BGV so will probably also be heavier on account of that.

There likely exists some mission overlap but that is probably because the TBG and the AGM-183A is still considered a high risk program given the use of both low TRL, low MRL and low IRL. There is a reason why DARPA is the lead on this and the USAF is funding it but ceding programmatic control to DARPA. HCSW on the other hand is high TRL, Medium MRL, and Low IRL with basically most of the risk only being on the IRL side of the equation which is relatively easier to mitigate. It has no DARPA involvement given that the basic tech is quite mature and the BGV itself is now proven via flight experimentation.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1585
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby ldev » 16 Jun 2019 20:46

The depth and breadth of US military research is simply astounding. Some technology is mature and ready to be deployed, other technology in various stages of testing and yet some in the concept stage.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2435
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby darshhan » 16 Jun 2019 22:47

ldev wrote:The depth and breadth of US military research is simply astounding. Some technology is mature and ready to be deployed, other technology in various stages of testing and yet some in the concept stage.

Not when you look at the amount of research funding that is involved. In fact looking objectively, American R&D efforts are hardly efficient from a strictly financial viewpoint. The actual bang for the buck is quite less. And even after pumping so much money, results are less than stellar in many situations.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7479
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 16 Jun 2019 22:55

darshhan wrote:
ldev wrote:The depth and breadth of US military research is simply astounding. Some technology is mature and ready to be deployed, other technology in various stages of testing and yet some in the concept stage.

Not when you look at the amount of research funding that is involved. In fact looking objectively, American R&D efforts are hardly efficient from a strictly financial viewpoint. The actual bang for the buck is quite less. And even after pumping so much money, results are less than stellar in many situations.


You do realize that this is relative to the size of the economy and the overall costs associated with that right? You must view all this in relative and not absolute terms when comparing across nations/economies. The Pentagon spends roughly 14% of its budget (even at the current elevated levels) on activities covering the Research, Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E) areas. Pure S&T is probably in the single digits. To put that in context, that comes to < 0.5% of US GDP that probably funds 90% of all National Security related R&D for all the services and most of the three letter agencies.

It is also very difficult to put a $ amount even in relative terms when comparing or evaluating capability R&D'd that is unique or one that has little to compare against. What's the appropriate R&D spend to get the first supersonic fighter in the world? What's the appropriate R&D spend to fly the YF-22 and YF23 in 1990? What should be the right R&D expenditure to field operational stealth strike aircraft in the mid 1980's or to create an industrial base that would deliver nearly 2000 fighter AESA radars by 2020? How does one put a $ value, or try to determine GOOD or BAD of the ability of armored units to run circles around enemy tank units by choosing to use the open desert and surprise the enemy enabled by the tech hat came right out of technological bets the same R&D train made in the 1970s? For all the talk and media coverage, DARPA's annual budget is only in the $3-4 Billion range or approximately half a percent of all US defense spending. Most of these programs being discussed have had most of their funding from that. Do you think that is a big deal? As I said earlier, it is both relative to the size of the economy (so use PPP and not absolute amounts) as well as relative to what you are accomplishing or aiming for.

I would also love to take a look at which objective “bang for the buck “ metrics you use and how you quantify “should cost” for technologies that have never existed before. I mean the second offset technologies (Precission Guided munitions, GPS, Airborne Battle Management and Command and Control, AWACS, Large pipe data links, Stealth etc) which are only now proliferating around the world (others that won't really proliferate for another decade like mainstream stealth fighters) yet these were largely developed in the US in the 70's, wargamed in the early 80s and fielded by the end of the that decade, and most were employed in combat by 1991. What is an appropriate "should cost" for having that decisive advantage in many areas over your potential adversaries at the time and what's your bang for the buck analysis of that? What do you think is an appropriate cost to pay for that and how did you derive it? Similarly, the current R&D programs that are all feeding into the third offset strategy are being funded with a sub 15% (or .5% GDP) defense R&D outlay or a fluctuating budget that hovers within the 3-4% of GDP space. Efficiency and effectiveness have to be constantly traded in matters of National Security as you need to hedge and build slack into the system, have redundancies and a diverse industrial base so that you are not at the mercy of a particular companies corporate culture, bad decisions, or wrong bets.

Image
Last edited by brar_w on 17 Jun 2019 04:11, edited 8 times in total.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1585
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby ldev » 16 Jun 2019 23:21

darshhan wrote:
ldev wrote:The depth and breadth of US military research is simply astounding. Some technology is mature and ready to be deployed, other technology in various stages of testing and yet some in the concept stage.

Not when you look at the amount of research funding that is involved. In fact looking objectively, American R&D efforts are hardly efficient from a strictly financial viewpoint. The actual bang for the buck is quite less. And even after pumping so much money, results are less than stellar in many situations.


I would say that with the level of "R&D Redundancy" built in, the spending is not excessive. In the short exchange on hypersonics above, there are at least 3 platforms, 2 Boost to Glide and 1 air breathing which are on the cusp of testing and looking at initial deployment in 2022. And then there is the stand still to hypersonic combined cycle turbojet/scramjet engine which will power an air breathing hypersonic missile when it is ready. As far as the US is concerned, they will have an operationally deployed hypersonic missile, maybe 2 different hypersonic missiles by 2022. Maybe a better way to look at it would be an insurance premium for security. Seen in that context the R&D spending looks OK.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7479
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 16 Jun 2019 23:24

What may seem as redundancy to you is just a diverse industrial base with multiple suppliers and design teams capable of developing products. This is valued because this is really hard stuff. Some will come through while others will not make it. Shrinking the industrial base of relatively easier to do items for the sake of efficiency is one thing but there is value in having multiple teams working on the harder problems especially since different organizations have different cultures and different team composition, abilities and talent. A diverse IB in many aspects is something they are comfortable paying a price for though many, including me, think that it is nowhere as diverse as it needs to be.
Last edited by brar_w on 17 Jun 2019 03:49, edited 1 time in total.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1585
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby ldev » 16 Jun 2019 23:28

What I mean is that is "de-facto" redundancy which is achieved precisely because of diverse suppliers and a diverse industrial base. It is not planned as such but has clear benefits.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7479
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 17 Jun 2019 03:02

And it is also inaccurate to think that they are chasing absolute efficiency at all costs when building in this diversity in the supplier base and redundancy. They are attempting to build and maintain effective systems to drive competition and avoid ending up in monopoly situations especially at the very vital "design" base level where effective competition between R&D teams can really drive innovation and move the needle forward faster as opposed to creating virtual monopolies. No one "fighter" design bureau, or one "Bomber" design bureau though they are probably at a lower than what they would like number for the prime air framers currently (as a result of post cold-war consolidation) though there are at least 3 primes capable of developing and winning the project to develop 6th gen. figthers in the US for example. Even though they aren't perfect but that is the essence of what the aim is.

This is more true for things like hypersonic weapons where having multiple R&D teams working with DARPA or AFRL helps develop the talent pool, and creates a technology base that can be leveraged to rapidly move ahead and field these systems in large quantities. The size of the economy and the defense budget allows for this and there are clear benefits to having competition and a diverse industrial base for many of your important and strategic defense needs. You can always prune and allow teams and organizations to consolidate (as they were allowed following the collapse of the Soviet Union) which they do eventually as talent moves towards where the work takes them, but it is very difficult to quickly build up teams when you are competing for the same engineering talent with the big technology and commercial firms out there.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21044
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Prem » 17 Jun 2019 04:31

https://twitter.com/RCDefense/status/11 ... 3154670592

Boeing to Demo CH-53K Engine on Chinook | @GarethJennings3 @JanesINTEL https://www.realcleardefense.com/2019/0 ... 08539.html
Image

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1837
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Manish_P » 17 Jun 2019 14:04

IIRC Brar_w had posted the requirements/targets of the new engine just a few months back.

That 57% more power is amazing. Perhaps we can uprate our Chinooks a few years down the line.

The extra power would come real handy in the mountains.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16239
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby NRao » 17 Jun 2019 19:21


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7479
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 17 Jun 2019 19:49

Manish_P wrote:IIRC Brar_w had posted the requirements/targets of the new engine just a few months back.

That 57% more power is amazing. Perhaps we can uprate our Chinooks a few years down the line.

The extra power would come real handy in the mountains.


That was to develop the T-700, which GE just bagged a few weeks ago. This is a straight swap of the CH53K engine. Long term, I expect the T-700 to be used to upgrade majority of the Chinooks that have the frame life to justify it. It should be coming online around 2025 ish if not a little sooner. This is just Boeing trying out a larger engine because they want to be more competitive with the CH53 for competitions in Germany and Israel.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7479
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 18 Jun 2019 08:54

First look at the AGM-183A Air Launched Rapid Response Weapon Hypersonic Boost Glide Weapon -

Image

Image

Image

Have to wait for some of the experts to run the numbers on size/specs but very interesting thing going on with the fins which may perhaps suggest a WB application somewhere down the line.

Image

Chase footage -


ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1585
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby ldev » 18 Jun 2019 10:12

It looks about 8-10 feet long. I wonder if it will fit into the internal bay?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7479
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 18 Jun 2019 10:37

I would guess 10-12 feet. Lockheed confirmed the glider itself is about 6 feet long and this appears to be about half (or thereabouts) the length of the X-51 (24.8 ft). Would be interesting to see if they could fit two in there. There seems to be enough space.

The fins would suggest that some attention may have been paid to internal carriage or the compressed carriage like putting two up there in the Buff. Interestingly, a MGM-140 sized booster would put it exactly at 12 ft in length.

X-51 -

Image
Last edited by brar_w on 18 Jun 2019 11:12, edited 1 time in total.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7252
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Prasad » 18 Jun 2019 11:02

I remember reading somewhere that Hypersonic inlet is kept shut until the vehicle reaches startup speeds and is then opened. Perhaps fins are kept stowed/folded too until then in this design.
On second thoughts, what kinda engine does it have? Dual ramjet? Pure scramjet? If not dual ramjet, will it have a booster to launch it to startup speed after being dropped from a B52 perhaps?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66605
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Singha » 18 Jun 2019 11:05

the back round half looks like a plain solid fuel booster to me. but it has a side window - could be a brahmos type hybrid ramjet + solid rocket motor in which the rocket motor first burns out to empty the ramjet combustion chamber.... this hybrid would take the front half to mach4 and then unleashed it for scramjet work.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7479
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 18 Jun 2019 11:08

Prasad wrote:I remember reading somewhere that Hypersonic inlet is kept shut until the vehicle reaches startup speeds and is then opened. Perhaps fins are kept stowed/folded too until then in this design.


Singha wrote:the back round half looks like a plain solid fuel booster to me. but it has a side window - could be a brahmos type hybrid ramjet + solid rocket motor in which the rocket motor first burns out to empty the ramjet combustion chamber.... this hybrid would take the front half to mach4 and then unleashed it for scramjet work.


The AGM-183A is a Boost Glide Vehicle not an Air Breather. That would be the HAWC which has not yet been revealed (but is expected to fly around the same time as the AGM-183A so is probably undergoing these types of checks on the Buff as well).

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7252
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Prasad » 18 Jun 2019 11:18

Ah okay. The lazy can't keep up with american designations.

I was right. Inlet is kept closed until startup conditions are reached.

X-43A test video from 2004.


Whole bunch of pictures of the test article here -
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/ ... index.html

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16239
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby NRao » 18 Jun 2019 14:12


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7479
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 18 Jun 2019 20:22

Here's a notional representation of a B-2 releasing a AL BGV (they'r probably using the Swerve as a representative payload). This is obviously generic and predates the ARRW program starting with the USAF but a tactical boost glide weapon based on DARPA's TBG demonstrations was always on the cards. No one expected the USAF to work on it this aggressively and look to operationalize it by 2022 but it was always something on the cards ever since USAF decided to support 50% of the TBG program's funding back in 2015.

Image

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7479
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 18 Jun 2019 20:27

NRao wrote:


Interesting contrast. Dr. Roper is steering the USAF away from an ATF like 15-20 year technology development and engineering program for the NGAD/PCA while the Europeans appear to be heading straight into that approach :).

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16239
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby NRao » 18 Jun 2019 21:27

There is a push towards DevOps, Agile, Cloud, etc, thus the attraction of "non-traditional partners" and SB. Especially on the MDC2 side. The latest mantra: "Time is a weapon".

BTW, for DARPA proposals, GC holders are most welcome.

Have misplaced my PW, so, the following will have to do for now ....

March 2019 :: USAF Acquisition Head Urges Radical Shift For Next-Gen Fighter Program

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7479
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 18 Jun 2019 21:51

Yeah those things have been in the pipeline for quite a while now and many of the smaller systems had already begun transitioning to those processes and practices, while the newer ones were pushing towards that end. Roper has definitely given a major push to it and he was quite influential on the hypersonic weapons side because he had previously dealt with some of those programs while heading the SCO. He was also handpicked by Ash Carter so had quite a bit of influence in the previous administration as well. He is most definitely a future Pentagon Acquisition head or even SecDef years down the road.

The US design base had been slowly gearing up and adding work over the last many years. There were 2 teams working on J-UCAS (Boeing and Northrop), and the third team (Lockheed) was working on at least 1 classified program in broadly a similar class. Once that program transitioned to just Northrop Grumman running the Navy’s X-47 and Air Force’s RQ-180, the LRS-B program was started (2010-2011) which took work done under the prior Next gen bomber effort and streamlined it into a program of record so three teams (later down to 2 as Lockheed and Boeing decided to work together) so again three teams that work actively working, perhaps even prototyping advanced technology aero vehicles and sub-systems between 2010 and 2016/17 when the down-select happened. In 2015/16 Arati Prabhakar who was heading DARPA then launched the Aerospace Innovation Initiative focused very specifically on prototyping next generation air-dominance technologies (everything from air-frames to weapons and engines). The engine primes were given a transition path for 6th gen engines with the AETP effort which is now nearly complete (fabrication of demonstrator engines for both P&W and GE has already started). Currently, there have been prototyping and advanced development funding running into high single digit Billions that have been pumped into AII for at least 4-5 years.

I think what Will Roper wants to do is just pick up what is ready and design, build, buy and operate and when something better is ready do the same. Sort of like the Century series approach of integrate what is ready and be prepared to discard when something better shows up. I would not be surprised if there are multiple TD’s for aero vehicles flying as we speak given the funding levels associated with the KNOWN NGAD/PCA accounts, speaking nothing of advanced aero work funded in the black budget. The Valkyrie approach of buying 20-30 systems, experimenting and then buying a couple of hundred of more refined versions is probably the approach they are going to take. Scaling it from a $2-$5 Million system to a $100 million system would be interesting but I think that is what he wants. Not a 15 year program that will field something in 2035.

Interestingly, when you include time as a KPP (either formally or informally as was done with a host of Skunk Works programs over the years/decades) and allow both requirements formulators and design teams to find an effective trade between development speed, performance, cost, and readiness you do end up fielding systems faster. It also encourages the OEMs to pump more IR&D into their design teams because you don’t have as many winner takes all multi decade programs. You can enter and exit and keep bouncing around within that design—buy—design—buy cycle so have multiple bites at that apple.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16239
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby NRao » 18 Jun 2019 23:53

35 secs onwards.


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16239
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby NRao » 19 Jun 2019 00:01

Patrick Shanahan withdraws name based on past domestic violence incident.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7479
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 19 Jun 2019 00:10

NRao wrote:Patrick Shanahan withdraws name based on past domestic violence incident.


Will probably resign sooner than later given someone he’s been managing for a year or more will soon become his boss.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7479
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 19 Jun 2019 03:48

Here’s the second (previously unknown) HAWC flight vehicle work unveiled earlier today. This one has Raytheon as the prime with the scramjet motor being sourced from Orbital ATK (Northrop Grumman). The media had tried to paint a picture that Lockheed was running away with the US Hyperosnic $$ pie after having won competitive down-selects on both the TBG and the HAWC in addition to other programs which were non competitively sourced outgrowths of its prior technology demonstrator programs. Lockheed’s scramjet motor comes from Aerojet Rocketdyne. Raytheon’s CEO in particular had been highlighting “Classified Hypersonic programs” in their quarterly earnings calls but few, if any, bothered to actual to show up or read transcripts and connect the dots until very recently. As I wrote earlier, this is too early in the technology cycle (both boost glide and scramjet or combined cycle) to be OK with monopoly players given the risk that these technologies entail. Once the technology is matured, fielded they can very easily prune on gen. 2 or gen. 3 systems.

Northrop And Raytheon Have Been Secretly Working On Scramjet Powered Hypersonic Missile
The two partners offered few details about the scramjet itself, but said that it leveraged their decades of combined experience in hypersonics. This includes the development of the scramjet-powered X-43A hypersonic test vehicle for NASA. General Applied Science Laboratory (GASL), then part of Allied Aerospace, built the engine for this craft in the 1990s.

The X-43A remains the fastest jet-powered air vehicle to date after it hit a top speed of Mach 9.6 – approximately 7,000 miles per hour – during a flight test in 2004. But John Wilcox, Northrop Grumman's Vice President of Advanced Weapons and Technology, said that the new engine was multiple generations ahead of the one developed for the X-43A.

He also said that the company had built the scramjet entirely using advanced additive manufacturing processes, commonly known as 3D printing, which helped reduce the design's total weight. It is reportedly half the weight of the scramjet Boeing developed for its experimental X-51A Waverider more than a decade ago


Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66605
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Singha » 19 Jun 2019 07:26

Rocketdyne and atk are new entrants to crown jewel pantheon

They seem to make motors from tiny iron dome type diwali rockets to icbm first stages

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3700
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby hnair » 19 Jun 2019 08:19

Both Rocketdyne and ATK have storied history of hitech, hi-energy engines. Rocketdyne made the fearsome SSMEs and pretty much everything in the stack below that. ATK is a mega autobot that got formed when three autobots combined to a bigger form. They acquired the solid-booster elves of Thiokol and the tiny booster dwarves of Orbital, after being spun off from Honeywell's control division.

Small and deadly as Ares, they were always solidly near the very top of the pantheon


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MeshaVishwas, milindc, Vivek K and 44 guests