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.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9077
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 04 Jan 2020 00:29

The MQ-9 likely deployed Hellfire missiles..could have been the R9X variant..

U.S. Strike in Iraq Kills Qassim Suleimani, Commander of Iranian Forces


The commander, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, who led the powerful Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, was killed along with several officials from Iraqi militias backed by Tehran when an American MQ-9 Reaper drone fired missiles into a convoy that was leaving the airport. The Iraqi general said that General Suleimani and Mr. Ridha, the militia public relations official, arrived by plane at Baghdad International Airport from Syria.

A senior security official who was familiar with the operation’s details, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence, said that General Suleimani had been particularly troubled by the wave of anti-Iran demonstration in Iraq and had flown in to urge local militia forces to more forcibly curb the protests.

Two cars stopped at the bottom of the airplane steps and picked them up. Mr. al-Muhandis was in one of the cars. As the cars left the airport, they were struck, the general said.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9077
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 04 Jan 2020 22:21

The F-35A agressor unit has been conditionally approved. It would be interesting to see how the aggressor unit upgrades its capabilities in the coming years alongside the contracted red-air capability that is being created at a very fast pace. As it appears to me, the high end capability will remain with the USAF squadrons, while the contractor teams will focus on the providing capacity and target density particularly when it comes to red-air for routine training across the US. A small force of F-35A's (about 9-12) and a whole lot of future T-7X variants will likely form the USAF aggressor force while the red-air contractors will likely scoop up as many cheap and upgradable airframes they can buy..Over time, i expect Boeing to sell at least a 100 aggressor role focused T-7's if not more..

It seems the QF-16's and the 5GAT systems will continue to be used for testing, tactics and advanced CONOPS development. However, at sometime in the future they will probably look to introduce these, and perhaps other systems into routine red-air training as well...5GAT and other specialty systems in particular...

Congress Demands Aggressor Jet Modernization Plan Before Adversary F-35s Head To Nellis

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9077
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 05 Jan 2020 23:18

brar_w wrote:The MQ-9 likely deployed Hellfire missiles..could have been the R9X variant..

U.S. Strike in Iraq Kills Qassim Suleimani, Commander of Iranian Forces




Some "unconfirmed" OSINT pointing to JAGM used for the strike -

Image

https://twitter.com/M_S_Alftayeh/status ... 06/photo/1

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9077
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 06 Jan 2020 06:21

US and International partner and FMS training sorties flown from Luke Air Force Base since the first aircraft arrived at the base in 2014 -

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9077
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 07 Jan 2020 00:45

US Air Force's 388th and 419th (Reserve) Fighter Wing, both based out of Hill AFB Utah, conducted a readiness Elephant Walk today with 52 aircraft. That's about $6 Billion worth of stealth fighters on one runway :lol:

Image

https://twitter.com/388fw/status/1214257319359348736
Last edited by brar_w on 07 Jan 2020 04:33, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9077
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 07 Jan 2020 04:22

^^ The Elephant walk was in response to meeting a key milestone at Hill AFB (though the number of aircraft chosen may be a not so subtle form of messaging ;) ). The First units within the USAF have now achieved Full warfighting capability with their F-35A's. Most of the next major frontline unit deliveries would now be headed to Alaska once the national guard unit in Vermont receives all of its aircraft. Going IOC to FOC within roughly 3 years and over an entire wings worth of aircraft is pretty good and faster than they did with the raptor (adjusted for this level of end strength). At this rate, they'd probably declare FOC at Eilson AFB by late 2021 or early 2022 (deliveres are at a higher rate now) and at Lakenheath by late 2022. Each of those bases will house 54 and 48 aircraft respectively.

A little more than four years after receiving their first combat-coded F-35A Lightning II aircraft, Hill’s Fighter wings have achieved full warfighting capability.

The term describes a set of focus areas within the 388th and 419th Fighter Wings: fully trained pilots and maintainers, a full complement of 78 aircraft and the mission and support equipment needed to fly.

While the designation of full warfighting capability is an important milestone, the wing has been combat capable since the Air Force declared initial operational capability in August 2016. Since then, the wings have participated in several large combat exercises, deployed twice to Europe and once to the Pacific and supported two Middle East combat deployments, including one short-notice tasking.

“Every training opportunity, exercise and deployment we’ve completed over the past four years has been a key stepping stone in reaching full warfighting capability,” said Col. Steven Behmer, 388th Fighter Wing commander. “This is just the beginning of sustained F-35A combat operations and we will remain focused on staying ready to deploy whenever, wherever we’re needed.”

Fully-trained pilots

The first F-35As arrived at Hill in September 2015 and the final aircraft arrived in December 2019. In the intervening years, Airmen at Hill have been training and developing tactics as the aircraft systems and capabilities have matured.

Reaching the right balance of qualified manning can be a challenge when activating a brand new weapon system. The first squadron to stand up, the 34th, started with a core of pilots who had some level of F-35A training and experience in other platforms. As the wing began to grow, that experience level was diluted, and each squadron has been through a period where a majority of pilots could be considered “inexperienced wingmen.”

“We didn’t have a majority of pilots who had been training and carrying out F-35A tactics for 15 or 20 years. So, the core experience is less,” said Col. Steven Behmer, 388th Fighter Wing commander. “We’ve worked hard and achieved the right balance in the squadrons.”

Through large exercises like Red Flag, local exercises, instructor pilot and flight-lead training, the squadrons have drastically increased that level of experience. Young pilots, some who have never flown any other aircraft, now have real-world combat experience.

Fully-trained maintainers

When the first jets arrived at Hill, about 50 percent of the maintainers were fully-trained, seasoned F-35 maintainers from Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, and Luke Air Force Base, Arizona. That number decreased due to PCS, retirements and separations.

Since then, there has been an influx of new manning with less experience, and every other maintainer has been “homegrown.”

“We really relied on our more experienced personnel, and as we received more aircraft, spread them throughout the group to train and equip the next F-35A aircraft maintenance units the right way,” said Col Michael Miles, 388th Maintenance Group commander. “When you have the right mix of leadership, with the right focus, they can empower their people and everyone develops maintenance capability quickly.”

78 Aircraft

When the first aircraft arrived in 2015, the goal was to fully equip each squadron with 24 primary assigned aircraft and six backups by the end of 2019. That was realized in December with the delivery of the 78th jet.

“It was really exciting to get the first jet in 2015 as we’d been talking about it and looking forward to it for a long time,” said Chief Master Sgt. Eric Engel, 466th Aircraft Maintenance Unit superintendent with the 419th Fighter Wing. “When we started out, most of our folks were longtime F-16 maintainers and it’s been truly impressive to see their aptitude and quick transition to a fifth-gen aircraft that is so vastly different from the F-16.”

Over that four-year period, the wings received roughly two jets every month and immediately began putting them to use. In the spring of 2016, the 34th Fighter Squadron deployed six jets to Lakenheath, United Kingdom.

In some cases, the delivery process became so streamlined that the aircraft were able to fly combat training missions within 24 hours of arriving at Hill. This was more than just convenient. It meant that it was possible to deliver a jet from the factory straight into combat if necessary.

Mission and support equipment

Fifth generation technology on the F-35A requires more specialized equipment than legacy aircraft. Every system on the F-35A has an associated piece of equipment to keep aircraft loaded, fueled and flying.

There are more than a dozen critical pieces of heavy equipment, from the standard – power generators and weapons loaders, to the unique – 13,000 lb. air conditioners to cool the jet’s advanced avionics. There’s also other equipment – like the high-tech, personalized helmets that integrate with the jet’s mission systems – and computer and network systems to support flying and maintenance.

“At IOC, we had the equipment to support one squadron that could do some semblance of combat operations. Now, as each squadron has progressed, and we’re on track to have all the required assets, we demonstrated that we can rely on the program for the technical support and weapons system parts we need while we deployed all our squadrons last summer,” said Miles.

In 2019, the wings proved that they could balance the equipment requirements to support all three squadrons away from home station – the 4th Fighter Squadron was deployed to the Middle East, the 421st was in Europe and the 34th spent two months at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho. In a seven-day span the wings had aircraft, equipment and personnel operating out of nine different countries.

“It took everyone’s input – from E-1 to O-6 – to get where we are today. Through hard work, providing programmatic feedback, and developing new processes and procedures, we shaped and pushed the program. Each airmen can look back with pride and see their contributions over the last four years standing up this wing, and enabling F-35A combat capability for our country.” said Miles.

https://www.388fw.acc.af.mil/News/Artic ... ter-wings/


High Resolution IMAGE

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby srai » 07 Jan 2020 16:51

^^^

Good details on what it takes to achieve squadron FOC on a new type. 4-years!

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9077
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 07 Jan 2020 17:02

No it does not take that long for a squadron. Hill has a whole Wing's worth (they had a deployble squadron quite a while ago) of F-35A's housed there and they took about 3 years and change to go from IOC to FOC. Since they were the first operational unit for a completely new, then not yet operational fighter, they begun receiving their aircraft before the USAF IOC to prepare for the event and have 10-12 aircraft ready with pilots and maintainers trained. A normal squadron would just rotate their maintainers with already operational squadrons and do it much faster. The two squadrons at Eilson AFB in Alaska will declare full warfighting capability in just about two years from receiving their first aircraft. It has to do with how fast you can train your crews and have the infrastructure ready to house XX aircraft and of course, how fast you receive the aircraft to build up the entire planned inventory. Production rates in 2013 (when aircraft delivered in 2015 entered production) were very low compared to where they are now..so future squadrons will achieve these milestones much faster.
Last edited by brar_w on 07 Jan 2020 21:34, edited 1 time in total.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby abhik » 07 Jan 2020 20:39

Wow! each USAF fighter squadron has 24+2 fighters? That's almost 1.5 squadrons in more SDRE air forces which may have only ~16.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3526
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby ArjunPandit » 07 Jan 2020 20:41

35K sorties!!! in addition to the hours on simulators...it will beggar any other AF to even think about competing with them...

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9077
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 07 Jan 2020 21:22

Those are 35K sorties at just Luke Air Force Base in Arizona. Luke is the primary center for training pilots on the F-35A for the USAF and many international users. A lot of the 1000 or so trained F-35 pilots received their initial training there. The base will, at its peak, house close to 150 F-35's..I think the point of training is often overlooked..If you need to absorb 130+ aircraft a year you need to churn out trained pilots and maintainers at a pretty high rate. The USAF itself gets 50-60 F-35A's each year and that number will tick up to around 70-80 at FRP. You need to bed down a substantial training infrastructure to be able to sustain that..One of the points the Pentagon used in favor of the F-15EX purchase was the lack of flexibility to substantially increase the F-35A buy rate..not on account of the build rate but the overwhelming cost, and disruption (squadrons in transition are out of action for up to 2 years) as a result of training and transitioning to a new type..This is a pretty serious lift that is often overlooked when discussing fighter acquisition and ramp rates..

An F-35A Lightning II, assigned to the 61st Fighter Squadron, flies over the base during a sortie Oct. 28, 2019, at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz. This sortie, flown by six F-35s, is recognized as the 35,000th F-35 sortie flown at Luke AFB. Airmen at Luke AFB train 75 percent of the world’s F-35 pilots, certifying approximately 105 pilots annually..LINK


abhik wrote:Wow! each USAF fighter squadron has 24+2 fighters? That's almost 1.5 squadrons in more SDRE air forces which may have only ~16.


It depends. Some get 3 reserve aircraft, others get 6 while some others may not even have the full complement of aircraft..There is no hard and fast rule and multiple factors come into play including budgets, infrastructure, and what roles those units play in the global scheme of things. Hill AFB and the units there are pioneering the employment of the type in the USAF so those squadrons are treated much differently. They are also getting 2-3 times the number of large force exercise exposure that a normal unit would get as they are going to be the tip of the spear when it comes to deploying in any theater of operations. For example, if PACAF needs F-35's they'll deploy these units. Until the Alaskan squadrons are stood up and fully ready the Hill units are the only F-35A deployable combat-coded Active/Reserve AF units that the USAF has (Vermont ANG will be fully ready to deploy in under a year but ANG units don't deploy at the same cadence).

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54776
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby ramana » 07 Jan 2020 21:55

abhik wrote:Wow! each USAF fighter squadron has 24+2 fighters? That's almost 1.5 squadrons in more SDRE air forces which may have only ~16.


Yes. The Wing is 3 squadrons and plus 6 reserve (wing reserve).

I thought the squadrons were already 18+6 reserve in them.

The large number 24 shows they expect war attrition to be high.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9077
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 07 Jan 2020 23:07

ramana wrote:
abhik wrote:Wow! each USAF fighter squadron has 24+2 fighters? That's almost 1.5 squadrons in more SDRE air forces which may have only ~16.




I thought the squadrons were already 18+6 reserve in them.

The large number 24 shows they expect war attrition to be high.


The USAF with modernization is reorganizing back to 24 aircraft squadrons (not accounting for reserves) with 2-3 squadrons in each air wing. In the past this had dropped to 18 and even 12 per squadron for certain fighter types. There are sustainment benefits which are probably the primary drivers of basing strategy and squadron strength as it is efficient to manage inventory that way (lower overhead costs etc etc). A past GAO research pointed to savings of roughly $12 Million per annum per 72 aircraft if the F-15 enterprise moved from 18 aircraft squadrons to 24 aircraft squadrons.The savings for 5GFA are likely to be even more. With fewer larger squadrons you loose a little bit on flexibility of deployment but they have been training in other basing and deployment concepts that would negate most of those disadvantages. Attrition is built into the topline fleet numbers as in the # of total F-35A the USAF is acquiring. That has remained static since the program was baselined in 2010. Squadron strength, and Air Wing composition is a matter of organization and not influenced by attrition planning.

When Congress adds aircraft over and above those requested (which has happened nearly every year since 2015) then it is better to keep them attached to existing units especially since Hill has had a huge investment in infrastructure, has loads of training resources nearby and also houses the only F-35A depot. PACAF squadrons starting with the 2 in Alaska will also be getting 6 reserve aircraft between them even though they are 2 there and not 3. So as far as the F-35 basing is concerned they are probably just assigning 6 reserve aircraft per wing, irrespective how many squadrons are associated with that wing. These are all expeditionary units and having reserve aircraft is important when you are called into action and have aircraft down etc. It allows you to still send the desired number of aircraft, halfway across the globe as the Hill squadrons have done now multiple times..
Last edited by brar_w on 08 Jan 2020 00:16, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54776
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby ramana » 07 Jan 2020 23:29

brar_w wrote:
brar_w wrote:The MQ-9 likely deployed Hellfire missiles..could have been the R9X variant..

U.S. Strike in Iraq Kills Qassim Suleimani, Commander of Iranian Forces




Some "unconfirmed" OSINT pointing to JAGM used for the strike -

Image

https://twitter.com/M_S_Alftayeh/status ... 06/photo/1



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-179_JAGM

Its better than Hellfire.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9077
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 08 Jan 2020 02:04

ramana wrote:
brar_w wrote:
Some "unconfirmed" OSINT pointing to JAGM used for the strike -



https://twitter.com/M_S_Alftayeh/status ... 06/photo/1



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-179_JAGM

Its better than Hellfire.


Yes, especially if you are trying to hit a convoy of vehicles near simultaneously. It’s been used in combat a couple of time now since it was declared operational last year.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54776
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby ramana » 08 Jan 2020 02:36

So why does the hardware say 112 lbs and wiki say is 108 lbs?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9077
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 08 Jan 2020 02:49

Wiki is often wrong. Someone must have just added hellfire II weight as some variants of that weapon weigh close to 108 lbs and even more (112 lbs as well for some variants). The JAGM is a 52-53 kg weapon. No 52+ kg variant of the hellfire is known to exist..or at least I haven’t come across any.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9077
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 09 Jan 2020 03:03

Image

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9077
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 10 Jan 2020 05:40

mmasand wrote:
brar_w wrote:
Not just two blips..they have claimed to have generated and analyzed both IR tracks of launch and explosion of the SAM and the RF profile of the Air Defense radar used for targeting. The overall analysis when combined with other information (known AD in the areas etc etc.) allowed them to narrow down on the SA-15. US troops had been on high alert in the days leading up to the attack (this was covered in the media quite a bit) so you could rest assured that whatever known and classified assets they had in the region, or space-capability, would have been watching Iranian Air-Defense movements.


Not the right thread, but a contractor on a base somewhere in the GCC I was in touch with mentioned that the Yanks were stretched as far as assets in the region were concerned. They didn't have any immediately available Patriot missile battery in Iraq since it was moved elsewhere.


All major permanent US military bases ( distinct from someone else’s bases that US troops may be deployed or co-deployed too as would be the case at AL Asad) in the Middle East have PATRIOT coverage. The larger ones have battalion sized PATRIOT forces deployed. Additionally, I believe, Trump moved PATRIOT and a THAAD battery to Saudi Arabia recently (THAAD seems to be the one that was pulled from EUCOM and had deployed in Israel a few months ago for training with Israeli Air Defenders). In Iraq only the Green Zone has PATRIOT deployed. Other bases within Iraq just have CIWS and some VSHORAD and counter drone systems which is appropriate for the force posture given the missions there (training Iraqi, and COIN etc).

PATRIOT batteries and battalions are always in high demand as readiness needs means they bed down and don't move unless being permanently re-deployed otherwise it is highly disruptive (when they come back they usually go into a modernization cycle and won't re-deploy for a couple of years). Missile defense forces in general are always in demand and not all deployed forces are going to get coverage against all hypothetical scenarios. As the head of US Army Integrated Missile defense forces said a few years ago - "the role of Air and Missile defense is not to win a war but to keep enough troops alive, for long enough, in order to win it via offensive operations". So it is viewed as buying time..and not every deployed footprint is going to have coverage. It is the same everywhere. Defense against incoming fires comes from a mixture of deception, protection (shelters), constant mobility, the ability to aggregate and disagregate rapidly and kinetic and non-kinetic air-defenses. Keep in mind that doctrinally, the role of US Army IAMD is primarily BMD and short to medium range Air Defense against fixed and rotary winged aircraft. The USAF won't let them do the very long range AAW missions so its mostly point defenses against various threat types. This influences how they are deployed factoring in what air power is available in the region from land and sea at any given time. Starting next year, they'll be able to deploy Air Defenses into these less protected areas by just deploying launchers and using sensors deployed elsewhere or in the air. When that capability is rolled out you could just literally provide fairly substantial capability during urgent need by just deploying 1 or 2 C-17's with a couple of PAC-3 MSE launchers and using other deployed IAMD assets in the region.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9077
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 10 Jan 2020 21:40

^^ Here is an example of what I was speaking off in the last post. Starting next year or so, they won't need t deploy the entire BMD battery or even battalion to provide BMD coverage in a given area. They will need to have an IAMD-IBCS netted launcher an an interceptor capable of defeating a given BM threat. If that is deployed, they can use regional sensors (land and air based) and engage on net. This way, a relatively small number of deployed FULL BMD units can cover a much much larger area as their ability to protect a given footprint is often limited by the engagement window which expands considerably using engage on net and having dispersed launchers which allows one to use the most optimized launcher/interceptor given a particular BM trajectory against an intended target.

THAAD is going the same way and you could see 2-3X the number of THAAD launchers in South Korea or when it deploys to Israel which will increase the defended area by up to 4x. This works for all threat types - TBM, Cruise Missiles, and other air breathing targets. All sensors within the IBCS fold will have Fire-Control-Level connectivity (as apposed to just providing expanded battle space data) and allow the IBCS to generate composite fire-control tracks which the "real" fire control radar can provide to the interceptor even before the "real" fire control radar acquires the target itself. Similarly, at least with the PAC-3 MSE both the TPY-2 and the PATRIOT organic radar can directly pass on fire-control track to the missile as it has a dual X and C band data-link. Using the current Al-Assad strike as an example, if the US military decided to beef up air-defenses there, currently they would have to deploy a complete PATRIOT battalion which is going to take weeks to put together and get going..even if they have set up AD sites there earlier, and have all the clutter map data it is still going to take a significant amount of time to move a battalion sized air-defense force. However, with IAMD-IBCS, they can easily move 2-3 IBCS netted PAC-3 MSE launchers in the region that can plug into IBCS and use the organic sentinel radars at the base for AAW and CMD missions, and use the TPY-2 in Turkey, and PATRIOT radars in Baghdad to provide the fire-control data required to defend the base from TBM attacks. That sort of deployment can be rapidly done by moving units around.



https://i.postimg.cc/VL3M4MZK/IFCN.png

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. – Aug. 15, 2018 – The Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC)-developed Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Battle Command System (IBCS) successfully demonstrated its ability to scale up and network across long distances during a recent U.S. Army-led test. The evaluation was conducted by U.S. Army soldiers over a five-week period with air and missile defense assets located at sites in New Mexico, Texas and Alabama.

As part of SCOE 4.0, the multi-node distributed test examined IBCS’ scalability, resilience and performance under stressing threat conditions. The open-architecture IBCS networked more than 20 nodes across White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico; Fort Bliss, Texas; and Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. Integrated to operate as a single system, the test involved nine IBCS engagement operations centers and 12 IBCS integrated fire control network relays, along with Sentinel short range air defense radars and Patriot radars, Patriot Advance Capability Two (PAC-2), PAC-3 and PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement interceptors.

The test required IBCS to virtually form an IAMD task force to defend four critical assets while tracking ‘red’ and ‘blue’ fighter aircraft, cruise missiles and tactical ballistic missiles. Multiple two-hour scenarios were run to check IBCS abilities, including: providing and managing a network to maintain voice, data and video connectivity; performing friend-or-foe identification of air objects and forming the single integrated air picture; and planning, executing and monitoring simulated threat engagements.

The test also included dynamically adding and removing nodes to confirm IBCS’ ability to self-configure as a mobile ad hoc network.


https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/r ... -distances
Last edited by brar_w on 10 Jan 2020 21:49, edited 1 time in total.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7520
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Prasad » 10 Jan 2020 21:46

There's a difference between short range and BMD setups isn't it though? For BMs you have sbirs which provide launch warning and you can then tell which bmd regards need to get into the act to provide a solution.
For short range, how do you network and provide a solution to intercept? If there is already a sensor present then you will be using it isn't it? What am I missing? {Being On the phone right now is my excuse}

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9077
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 10 Jan 2020 21:57

Prasad wrote:There's a difference between short range and BMD setups isn't it though?


It works the same no matter what the threat type is, as long as the threat type is within the engagement capability of the interceptor. Seeing stuff is not a problem. The TPY-2 is the size of a small bus and the next gen. PATRIOT radar is freaking huge..These things can provide sensor coverage over an area many times that of the engagement zone. The US has excellent regional BMD sensor coverage in the area via PATRIOT radars deployed in Baghdad and the TPY-2 in Turkey in addition to other assets elsewhere. Air assets likely also contribute. SBIRS provides EW and forward deployed AEGIS ships can track the long ranged threats even before the missile enters the FOV of land based sensors (and vice-versa).

However, under the current capability you cannot defend a given footprint unless you have organic Air Defenses there. This for all practical purposes means a PATRIOT battery for very limited protection, and a battalion sized force for complete protection against all target types (and saturation). That is a very heavy lift and would run into weeks if not longer just to deploy...

With IBCS, you aren't moving that much force around. All you need to do is expand your engagement area of operation with deploying just IBCS-netted launchers and utilizing other regional assets for other duties. The short ranged radars already at the base can provide the data required for composite track generation against low flying cruise missile or UAV threat (because longer ranged radars, further away, won't ever see them) while the longer ranged TBM threat is engaged on net. They've already demonstrated this in developmental-testing on a number of occasions now. IOC is expected next year or 2022. The US Navy already fields this capability and can launch an SM-3 on remote using composite tracks generated using forward deployed TPY-2 radars and can likewise launch an SM-6 against a target (airbreathing or not) using composite tracks generated from another ship, an F/A-18 and even an F-35.



For short range, how do you network and provide a solution to intercept? If there is already a sensor present then you will be using it isn't it? What am I missing? {Being On the phone right now is my excuse}


The way IBCS is structured is that it uses already existing and in use (legacy and new) sensors and generates composite fire-control tracks based on it. So lets assume that a "pocket" Sentinel radar is deployed at Al-Asad (which it likely has). The Sentinel isn't slaved to an Air-Defense system but is operating as a short ranged SA provider (surveillance). Sentinel picks up a Cruise Missile or UAV. There is an IBCS node attached to that sentinel, it quickly takes that data and develops a composite track, updating it as needed..It then, using an fire control node, passes that composite track to other nodes on the "net". An appropriate launcher and interceptor is then chosen (from the launchers virtually netted to IBCS ) and the initial composite track is passed on to the launcher allowing to launch on net.

For an update, the organic or *real* fire-control sensor slaved to that type of interceptor then updates the interceptor (with newer data or to self-destruct) using either a further refined composite track, or an updated track in case the target has now entered the *real* radar's FOV. This is done for survivability reasons. Missile communication remains strong as the organic AD radar has the most resilient missile uplinks (and you are not forced to do expensive upgrades (if they are even technically possible given some of these sensors may be low cost and short-range) on all the surveillance and non AD-slaved radars in your inventory). And additionally all you have to mandate from future radars is for them to be IBCS compliant...and not the ability to missile-uplink with potentially dozens of current and future interceptors. This allows rapid integration of new capability. For example, as an experiment, Northrop Grumman integrated the SAAB Giraffe radar and the MBDA CAMM missile into IBCS in a matter of weeks to months. Bringing each of those into the fold of a given Air-Defense system would have likely taken several years and extensive developmental and operational testing. Moreover, the Girraffe is a surveillance sensor. It does not, and was not required to, have any organic capability for missile-uplink and uplink resiliency requirement against things like jamming, or cyber etc. But it can see a target and can discriminate and hence it can be used to generate the composite track and other *higher end duties* are taken over by the sensor actually designed to handle such a task (the PATRIOT radar, AN/TPY-2 or SPY-6 etc).

So now if you want to move protection say 500 km down range all you will move is a couple of Sentinel radars and a few PATRIOT launchers. You can then build your engagement zone based on that and based on the type of threat. Right now, if they want to go down range they would essentially have to move an entire air-defense battery or more. Similarly, if your primary threat is Cruise Missiles, or low flying aircraft..you do not have to move launchers. The solution there is to spread a whole lot of IBCS-netted Sentinel radars around and that will expand the engagement zone against the said threat type (as the first video shows). These various combinations allow you to very rapidly, and efficiently expand your engagement zone and defend way more space then you would within the same AD footprint currently. Most importantly it allows for non Air and Missile defense sensors (either those that were never designed for it, or those that are doing some other primary mission) to enter the fold and contribute to the mission. Whether that is a Sentinel Radar, a passive EW sensor, or an F-35. When you are an expeditionary force, fighting thousands of miles from home, this flexibility is vital..

Under the current scenario, Al Asad is about 200-250 km from Baghdad. With IBCS you can expand into that zone by probably deploying a couple of C-17's worth of equipment (PATRIOT launchers, IBCS EOC, and IFCN terminals)..Currently you would have to find a spare PATRIOT battery (or more - likely more) in the region or move one from CONUS. That is a heavier lift and will potentially take weeks even if rushed.

he F-35 joint strike fighter demonstrated its ability to send data to the U.S. Army’s Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System during the Orange Flag Evaluation 19-2 at Palmdale, California, and Fort Bliss, Texas, in June.

F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin announced in an Aug. 6 statement that the jet, in a live demonstration, sent track data to the IBCS through the F-35 ground station and “F-35-IBCS adaptation kit.”

The Northrop Grumman-developed IBCS was able to “receive and develop fire control quality composite tracks during the exercise, leveraging the F-35 as an elevated sensor," the statement added. LINK


This is in principle the same way the F-35 can send Fire-Control level tracks back to AEGIS (outside of the Link - 16 net as Link-16 is not designed for that level of connectivity, survivability and bandwidth unless accompanied by TNTT upgrades which the F-35 currently does not have but will get in the future). All that "adapter kit" is is just a MADL-receiver mounted on a JLTV or a trailer.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9077
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 10 Jan 2020 23:36

Here's the Next Gen. PATRIOT radar (C-band GaN AESA with DBF) which is will follow the IBCS into operation around 2022. Those "half" panels in the rear, each offer about two times the surveillance performance of the current baseline PATRIOT PESA radar's primary (and only) array..The reason for needing such a enormous sized radar with many times the performance of the current sensor wasn't to support longer ranged organic engagements (those gains will be marginal for obvious reasons). It was precisely to expand the engagement zone because with IBCS you can now have disparate sensors and launchers all functioning as one within the IBCS-net.

Image
Image
Image

Those side panels aren’t puny, either: Each one, though half the size of the current Patriot radar, is twice as powerful, Kelley said this morning. In other words, LTAMDS’ ability to detect sneak attacks from behind is twice as good as Patriot’s ability to detect a frontal attack....LINK

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9077
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 11 Jan 2020 03:59

Here is a glimpse into the capability that will replace the E-3 AWACS and the E-8 JSTARS. Early wargaming and demonstrations have started but will likely be built up over the next decade..

Air Force, Navy, Army conduct first ‘real world’ test of Advanced Battle Management System


In the first field test of a novel approach to warfighting, communicating and decision-making, the Air Force, Navy and Army used new methods and technology Dec. 16-18 for collecting, analyzing and sharing information in real time to identify and defeat a simulated cruise missile threat to the United States.

A three-day long exercise of the Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS) tested technology being developed to enable the military’s developing concept called Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2). When fully realized, senior leaders say JADC2 will be the backbone of operations and deterrence, allowing U.S. forces from all services as well as allies to orchestrate military operations across all domains, such as sea, land, air, space and cyber operations. The technology under development via ABMS enables this concept by simultaneously receiving, fusing and acting upon a vast array of data and information from each of these domains – all in an instant. The Air Force expects to receive around $185 million this fiscal year for this effort, and intends to bolster these resources over the next five years, underscoring both its importance and potential.

“In order to develop the right capability that the operator needs at speed, we partner with Combatant Commanders every four months to ensure that what we are building addresses the array of challenges presented by the National Defense Strategy across the globe,” said Preston Dunlap, the Chief Architect of the Air Force who is kick-starting ABMS.

This initial exercise focused on defending the homeland.

"Peer competitors are rapidly advancing their capabilities, seeking to hold our homeland at risk,” said Air Force Gen. Terrence J. O'Shaughnessy, commander of U.S. Northern Command, which designed and managed this scenario.

“Working across all of the services and with industry toward solutions to complex problems ensures we meet defense challenges as well as maintain our strategic advantage in an increasingly competitive global environment," he said.

Yet while JADC2 has been embraced for three years as a critical tool by senior leaders, including Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David L. Goldfein, until recently it was an idea confined largely to PowerPoint slides and a slick animated demonstration of the concept.

But that changed this week when aircraft from the Air Force and Navy, a Navy destroyer, an Army air defense sensor and firing unit, a special operations unit, as well as commercial space and ground sensors came together to confront – and defeat – a simulated threat to the U.S. homeland.

Upon detection of a potential cruise missile threatening the United States, simulated by QF-16s, in quick succession using new software, communications equipment and a “mesh network,” the information was relayed to the USS Thomas Hudner, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer deployed in the Gulf of Mexico. The same information was passed to a pair of Air Force F-35s and another pair of F-22s. Also receiving the information were commanders at Eglin AFB, a pair of Navy F-35s, an Army unit equipped with a mobile missile launcher known as HIMARS and special forces on the ground.

Events culminated on Dec. 18 when senior leaders from across the Department of Defense arrived at the test’s command and control hub for an ABMS overview and abbreviated exercise. All at once in a well-secured room, they watched real-time data pour in, and out of, the command cell. They observed information from platforms and people flowing instantly and simultaneously across air, land, sea and space that provided shared situational updates as events occurred whether the information originated from jets, or passing satellites, or from sea and ground forces on the move. Then, the group transitioned to outdoor tents to continue the exercise in a rugged environment, where senior leaders could also inspect first-hand and learn about high-speed Air Force and industry equipment and software that enabled the week’s test.

“Today’s demo is our first time demonstrating internet-of-things connectivity across the joint force,” Air Force acquisitions lead Dr. Will Roper said. “Cloud, mesh networking and software-defined systems were the stars of the show, all developed at commercial internet speeds.”

He also spoke to the necessity of industry partnership and leveraging their expertise.

“Our four-month ‘connect-a-thon’ cycle unlocks industry’s ability to iterate with testers, acquirer, and warfighters. For example, the insights from connecting the F-22 and F-35 for the first time will help our industry partners take the next leap,” Roper said.

The demonstration was the first of its kind in a series of exercises scheduled to occur roughly every four months. Each new exercise will build on the one before and include responses to problems and lessons learned.

Dunlap said the intent is to move much faster than before to conceive, build and test new technologies and strategies despite complexity or technical challenges.

“The goal is to move quickly and deliver quickly. We want to show it can be done and then we want to push ourselves to continually enhance and expand our capability in roughly four-month cycles partnering with Combatant Commanders and operators,” Dunlap said.

An equally important goal is to demonstrate the real-world value of the hard-to-describe effort in tangible, understandable ways. JADC2, previously named multi-domain operations command and control, relies on ABMS to develop software and algorithms so that artificial intelligence and machine learning can compute and connect vast amounts of data from sensors and other sources at a speed and accuracy far beyond what is currently attainable. ABMS also includes hardware updates including radios, antenna, and more robust networks that enable unimpeded data flow to operators. Aside from tools and tech, JADC2 also demands a cultural change among service men and women that embraces and responds to multi-faceted battlespaces driven by information shared across the joint force.

The critical difference going forward is to create a failsafe system that gets – and shares - real time information across multiple spaces and platforms simultaneously. Achieving this will remove barriers that can keep information from personnel and units that need it. For example, once in place, the new command and control ability will allow F-16 and F-35 pilots to see the same information at the same time in the same way along with a submarine commander, a space officer controlling satellites and an Army Special Forces unit on the ground.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2388
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby VinodTK » 11 Jan 2020 22:11

This Is How the U.S. Navy Hunts Nuclear-Armed Chinese Submarines
Washington, D.C.) The increasing global reach of Chinese nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines, armed with JL-2 weapons reportedly able to hit parts of the US, continues to inspire an ongoing Navy effort to accelerate production of attack submarines, prepare long-dwell drones for deployment to the Pacific and continue acquisition of torpedo-armed sub-hunting planes such as the P-8/A Poseidon.

The Navy has been moving quickly to increase its fleet of Poseidon’s on an accelerated timetable; in the Navy’s 2020 budget, the service was authorized for a near term increase in Poseidon production by three, moving funding for the year up for nine Poseidons, as cited in a report from USNI news. Last year, the Navy awarded Boeing a $2.4 billion deal to produce 19 more P-8A Poseidon surveillance and attack planes. The Poseidon increase appears to align with the service’s overall Pacific theater strategy, which makes a point to sustain peaceful, yet vital surveillance and Freedom of Navigation missions in the region.

Seeking to overcome the Pacific’s “tyranny of distance” dispersed geography, and track China’s expanding fleet of submarines, the Navy is working with Congress to accelerate and delivery more Virginia-class submarines per year, moving beyond previous plans. The Navy has also been moving to place its new Triton sea drones in Guam.

Interestingly, a Dec. 6 report in the Asia Times cites Pacific Air Forces commander Gen. Charles Brown stating that air patrols “in and around the South China Sea continue.

“We’ve been flying in and around the South China Sea for really about the past 15 years, and I would probably tell you we’ve done some as recently as this week,” Brown told reporters on Dec. 6, according to the Asia Times article.

As part of these missions, Brown specifically cited Poseidon aircraft as well as PQ-4 Global Hawks and U-2 Dragon Lady reconnaissance planes.

Given the Poseidon’s role as a high-tech surveillance aircraft, known for capturing video of Chinese phony island building in the South China Sea (land reclamation) several years ago, it takes little imagination to envision ways its advanced sensors, sonobuoys and weapons could function as part of a containment strategy against Chinese expansion - - and even operate as a deterrent against China’s growing fleet of nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines (SSBN).

The PLA Navy has, in recent years, been expanding its reach beyond the Pacific as part of a visible effort to become a major-power international force. Chinese SSBNs have been sighted at great distances from Western Pacific shores, according to numerous news reports - - and the existence of both JL-2s and emerging JL-3s have increased pressure on the US. According to the National Air and Space Intelligence Center, the Chinese had deployed up to 48 JL-2 launchers on submarines as of 2017. With ranges greater than 4,500 miles, JL-2s travelling well beyond China’s immediate vicinity can hold US areas at risk.
:
:
:
The Poseidon, alongside ISR-enabled SSN attack submarines, seems well positioned to help perform this SSBN sub-hunting mission for a number of reasons. Not only is the P-8’s 564 mph speed considerably faster than the P-3 Orion it is replacing, but its six additional fuel tanks enable it to search wider swaths of ocean and spend more dwell-time patrolling high-threat areas. Navy developers explain the Poseidon can operate on 10-hour missions at ranges out to 1,200 nautical miles. More dwell time capacity, fortified by high-speeds, seems to position the Poseidon well for covering wide areas in search of “hidden” Chinese SSBNs.

The P-8A, a militarized variant of Boeing’s 737-800, includes torpedo and Harpoon weapons stations, 129 sonobuoys and an in-flight refueling station, providing longer ranges, sub-hunting depth penetration and various attack options. Given that a P-8 can conduct sonobuoy sub-hunting missions from higher altitudes than surface ships, helicopters or other lower-flying aircraft, it can operate with decreased risk from enemy surface fire and swarming small boat attacks. Unlike many drones and other ISR assets, a Poseidon can not only find and track enemy submarines, but attack and destroy them as well.
:
:
:
Also, Poseidon-dispatched sonobuoys can contribute to the often discussed “US Navy Fish Hook Undersea Defense Line,” a seamless network of hydrophones, sensors and strategically positioned assets stretching from coastal areas off of Northern China down near the Philippines all the way to Indonesia, according to an essay from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, called “China’s Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarines and Strategic Stability.”

An improved aerial sub-hunting presence offered by the Poseidon, it seems, could help reinforce this “Undersea Defense Line” effort to prevent Chinese SSBNs from leaving the region undetected.
:
:
:
Currently in service with UK, Norwegian, Indian and Australian militaries, among others, the Poseidon is increasingly in demand in the international market.

:
:

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7520
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Prasad » 11 Jan 2020 22:25

Brar Saab
Thank you. Always a pleasure to read.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9077
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 12 Jan 2020 20:40

fanne wrote:Other AF also follow similar lines, US went for F-22s when it can have built another 1000 F-15s!! F-22 in small numbers gives it unapparelled advantage than what 1000 of F-15s would.


1000 F-15C's (I assume you would buy those even though they weren't really in production and would require production restart in the early 2000s) wouldn't have helped. When you deploy in an AEF model or forward deploy a squadron, you are looking the qualitative advantage compared to all your adversaries. Either you have an advantage, are at parity, or worst off. The trades of 200 to 1000 only comes into play when you are playing the attrition game in full out prolonged war etc. If those scenarios were actually considered likely in the late 1990's/early 2000's (when F-22 decisions were being made) the USAF would have been given 1000 F-22A (or A and B etc)..But the threat wasn't there. The FSU had evaporated and Russia no longer enjoyed either a qualitative or quantitative advantage. China was generations behind in technology and the US was spending a lot of money on Counter Insurgency operations in Iraq at the time. The decision by Bob Gates to terminate the production run at 180 odd aircraft (despite the Chief of the Air Force, and the Secretary of the AF resigning/fired because of it) was probably right as a couple of air wings worth of operational aircraft were enough of an insurance policy the US needed till perhaps the early to mid 2030's when capable competitors could be fielded in numbers. By that time, the USAF was expected to have more than a thousand F-35's and well on its way to operationalizing a 6th generation fighter.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9077
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 12 Jan 2020 21:10

Besides UAI (which the USN should have wanted from the start) USAF modifications appear to be geared towards an expanded target set compared to the traditional Anti-Radiation-Missile targets like radars, and other emitting targets. If I were to guess, they would want this to go after other elements of the air-defense chain, and higher end Command and Control targets. Essentially targets where GPS/INS or even single mode seeker equipped weapons, like the upcoming hypersonic missiles, are not optimal.

US Air Force requests information on new anti-radiation missile for F-35A


The US Air Force (USAF) is requesting information for modifications to the US Navy’s (USN) Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile-Extended Range (AARGM-ER) programme that would make that weapon suitable for its Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II stealth fighter.

The so-called Stand-in Attack Weapon (SiAW) would “heavily leverage” the Northrop Grumman-manufactured AARGM-ER, according to a request for information posted online on 9 January. The AARGM-ER is to be integrated on the USN’s Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Boeing EA-18G Growler aircraft, as well as the internal carriage on the F-35C variant.

“The SiAW modifications will make the weapon relevant for fifth-generation aircraft and include the development and integration of a warhead and fuze capable of prosecuting an expanded target set, an active radar homing guidance system and a universal armament interface message set for the SiAW missile and F-35A aircraft,” says the USAF in its notice. “SiAW will also seek development of future advanced capabilities to keep it relevant for evolving threats.”

The USAF says it is conducting market research for potential vendors to provide the modifications.

Anti-radiation missiles are used to hone in and target radar-guided surface-to-air missile launchers, as well as ballistic missile and cruise missile launchers, GPS jammers and other air-defense sensors on the ground. Such applications are called Suppression or Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses, which are known also as SEAD or DEAD missions.

Taking out surface-to-air missile sites is an important early step in controlling the skies above a battlefield. In addition to destroying enemy aircraft, eliminating ground-based air defences allows combat aircraft to go after threats to ground troops or move closer to other targets, reducing the need to use long-range missiles.

In March 2019, Northrop Grumman received a $323 million contract for engineering and manufacturing development work for the USN’s AARGM-ER weapon.


Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9077
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 13 Jan 2020 05:05

Raytheon's production line for the Next Generation jammer. You can see the empty space in the back for when they hit FRP...

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9077
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 13 Jan 2020 21:59

I know there's still a few months away from a down-select for the FLARA competition but if Bell has literally swept this competition IMHO and this is just another nail in the coffin of Sikorsky/Boeing..and one of 3 capabilities Bell has demonstrated that it was not even required to..

Bell V-280 flies autonomously for first time


ARLINGTON, Texas — Bell’s V-280 Valor tilt-rotor demonstrator flew autonomously for the first time Dec. 18 at the company’s Arlington, Texas, facility during two sorties.

Over the course of the day, the V-280 met all of Bell’s flight goals for the aircraft’s first venture into flying autonomously.

The V-280 performed an autonomous takeoff, conversion into cruise mode, precision navigation to various waypoints, loiter maneuvers, conversion into vertical-takeoff-and-landing mode, and landed autonomously, Ryan Ehinger, Bell’s program manager for the V-280, told reporters at a company demonstration of the aircraft in Arlington on Jan. 8.Safety pilots riding in the cockpit took over between different elements of autonomous flight throughout the sorties, said Paul Wilson, the program’s chief engineer. He also confirmed the V-280 completed all pre-programmed elements “without issue.”

Bell has not scheduled future flight tests as part of an effort to advance the tilt rotor’s autonomous flight capabilities. The company also has not determined whether it will specifically conduct a flight where all autonomous elements are stitched together without pilot intervention in between each maneuver.



mmasand
BRFite
Posts: 686
Joined: 19 May 2009 23:46

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby mmasand » 13 Jan 2020 22:49

brar_w wrote:....ring in what air power is available in the region from land and sea at any given time. Starting next year, they'll be able to deploy Air Defenses into these less protected areas by just deploying launchers and using sensors deployed elsewhere or in the air. When that capability is rolled out you could just literally provide fairly substantial capability during urgent need by just deploying 1 or 2 C-17's with a couple of PAC-3 MSE launchers and using other deployed IAMD assets in the region.


Thank you for the fantastic explanation here. I happened to have seen the ECS near the extended perimeter of a base from a highway sometime after the RQ-4 shootdown. Any probability of seeing the Dragon Lady lurking into 'contested' airspace to spy on Iran's N fuel enrichment/capabilities if and when the completely abandon the JCPOA?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9077
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 13 Jan 2020 22:54

mmasand wrote: Any probability of seeing the Dragon Lady lurking into 'contested' airspace to spy on Iran's N fuel enrichment/capabilities if and when the completely abandon the JCPOA?


No chance. The U-2 is deployed in a stand-off capacity unless of course there are active hostilities and reward outweighs the risk. The USAF has an in service penetrating surveillance platform (PISR) in the RQ-180. Could a few be deployed in the ME? Possible, although I find it hard to see a need for a peacetime penetrating platform needed to collect intelligence as it pertains to this. Most of the PISR missions would be to actively target IADS and vital C2 systems and the EW mission and to do the same while collecting intel on these IADS during pecetime and as and when opportunities provide themselves.
Last edited by brar_w on 14 Jan 2020 20:31, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16815
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby NRao » 14 Jan 2020 20:30

When Both Sides Have Drones, How Do You Know Which Ones to Kill?

The U.S. Army recently tested a system that helps defenders wipe the skies of just the unfriendly aerial robots.


In November, the Army hosted a test of Pierce Aerospace’s Flight Portal ID at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. A friendly drone was equipped with a Bluetooth beacon, then sent aloft with a host of enemies, company CEO Aaron Pierce said. Air-defense operators in a Stryker ground vehicle was able to down the “enemy” drones and avoid the friendly one, using a Northrop Grumman anti-drone system called the Sophisticated Counter Unmanned Systems Weapon Radio Frequency that includes a 30mm X 113mm chain gun and a LiteEye electronic warfare system.

Defense One reached out to the public affairs office at Fort Sill and did not immediately receive comment.

“This was the first time getting kinetic with FPID and the results were desirable. I had eyes on the operation from the pilots’ location watching multiple UAS fly down range from the Stryker’s position. I was enthused when the system engaged the hostile UAS with a high explosive round fired from the Chain Gun, leaving our friendly, FPID equipped UAS, to continue operating in an airspace that was no longer contested,” Pierce said in a statement.

Further research will in part ways to better secure the transmission between the beacon and the receiver.

A recently proposed FAA rule would require drones to be remotely identifiable to authorities, so Pierce’s system could have commercial use as well.

The U.S. military is pressing ahead with a variety of swarm research efforts, as are the British armed forces. Last June at Fort Benning in Georgia, DARPA’s Offensive Swarm-Enabled Tactics program tested flying and rolling drone swarms in the air in complex missions in urban environments, such as identifying and surrounding a mock city hall, maintaining situational awareness around it, going inside to collect an object, and securing it.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16815
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby NRao » 14 Jan 2020 20:34

Pierce Aerospace’s Flight Portal ID Successfully Demonstrated with Northrop Grumman and Liteye in US Army Experiment

Jan 9th, 2020
Pierce Aerospace, a leading Remote ID UAS Service Supplier (RID-USS), participated in the first C-UAS engagement that confirmed positive ID of UAS with a Remote ID system. Pierce's Flight Portal ID (FPID), compliant with the ASTM F38 Workgroup “UAS Remote ID and Tracking” draft standard, delivered Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) information to Counter-UAS (C-UAS) operators, which resulted in the successful execution of an engagement against “hostile” UAS at the US Army Futures Command Maneuver and Fires Integration Experiment (MFIX).

The demonstration involved Northrop Grumman’s Sophisticated Counter Unmanned Systems Weapon Radio Frequency (SCUWR) C-UAS system of systems, consisting of a Liteye's Anti-UAV Defeat System “AUDS” and SCUWR's 30mm X 113mm Chain Gun mounted on a US Army Stryker armored vehicle. FPID was used to identify friendly aircraft during the engagement. The system of systems approach resulted in the FPID equipped UAS surviving the engagement and continuing its mission. The hostile aircraft did not survive. Operators in the Stryker were not briefed on which UAS was friendly, and relied on IFF information from the FPID display inside the Stryker to obtain positive identification of friend or foe prior to engagement.

Aaron Pierce, CEO Pierce Aerospace, said, “This was the first time getting kinetic with FPID and the results were desirable. I had eyes on the operation from the pilots' location watching multiple UAS fly down range from the Stryker's position. I was enthused when the system engaged the hostile UAS with a high explosive round fired from the Chain Gun, leaving our friendly, FPID equipped UAS, to continue operating in an airspace that was no longer contested. The data from this operational demonstration with a deployed and proven C-UAS system, and other demonstrations recently conducted with the US Army, is instrumental for the continued development of FPID to serve both commercial and defense markets.”

FPID is a dual-use Remote ID technology suite designed to serve commercial UTM and C-UAS systems. This demonstration reflects positive results for advancing and fielding FPID integrated efforts, including Northrop Grumman's Mobile Demonstrator – a mobile C-UAS system designed for use in civilian environments.

“Combining a kinetic and electronic attack capability continues to prove a reliable solution to defeat malicious drones,” said Dan Olson, vice president, armament systems, Northrop Grumman. “The reliability of our gun systems and the development of advanced ammunition types creates a very capable system that provides the ability to meet the future requirement to counter unmanned systems.”

“It was impressive to see the SCUWR demonstrate the integration of multiple defense capabilities into a layered solution,” said Zac Neumayr, VP Strategic Accounts of Liteye Systems. “With the threat of small UAS increasing this approach maximizes the ability to protect the warfighter. Liteye is committed to providing top level surveillance tracking, identification, jamming as well as cueing of additional defeat systems to complement this advanced defense platform. We’re eager to get these capabilities to the field.”

Pierce continued, “I am very appreciative of Northrop Grumman and Liteye supporting our demonstrations. This was a big step in advancing FPID's practical application of Remote ID and I look forward to working with their teams to further develop and field integrated products.”

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9077
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 15 Jan 2020 05:52

USS Americas (LHA-6) deployed in the East China Sea with F-35B's (Image 01.13.2020). There are now three L-class ambhibs with F-35B deploying capability that have been forward deployed (USS Essex and USS Wasp are the other 2) since 2015 when the USMC declared IOC (or 2016 IIRC when air-operations at sea started in an operational capacity).

Image

Alongside JS Kunisaki

Image

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16815
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby NRao » 15 Jan 2020 17:31

The US Navy Needs More Money, Its Top Admiral Bluntly Argues

The U.S. Navy needs more money for warships — perhaps tens of billions of dollars more over the next decade — if it is to keep pace with China and Russia, its top admiral said.

“We need more money,” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday said bluntly Tuesday at a Surface Navy Association conference in Arlington, Virginia. “There’s broad agreement across the government that our Navy needs to grow…We need to pursue unmanned technologies and we need to solve tough technology and policy issues associated with unmanned instead of running away from them.”

The admiral spoke less than a month before the White House is to send Congress a 2021 defense budget that is capped at $740 billion — up just $2 billion after three years of substantial growth.

The Navy has been wanting to build a fleet of 355 ships by 2030, up from the 293 it has today. In the coming week, Navy leaders plan to unveil a new force structure assessment detailing the types of ships needed to fulfill its missions.

The admiral said that the 355 will not include unmanned vessels. Insted, the Navy will give a separate recommendation of the number of unmanned ships it needs.

“We haven’t made a decision yet that those [unmanned ships] are going to be included as battle force numbers because they’re conceptual,” Gilday siad.

There’s been a long-running debate about whether unmanned ships and submarines should count toward the 355-ship fleet, particularly as the unmanned vessels grow in size and the types of weapons they could carry.

Gilday said his highest acquisition priority is the Columbia-class submarine, the future bearer of the sea-based leg of the nuclear triad. The class, which currently consumes 20 to 25 percent of the Navy’s shipbuilding budgets, and its share will grow to more than 30 percent by the mid-2020s, he said.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9077
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 15 Jan 2020 17:45

The Columbia class is the crucial key here. In an ideal world it should never have been funded through the US Navy budget but as a part of a separate strategic deterrence / nuclear recap budget. Same with the USAF funding for the ICBM. Triad recapitalization should be its own account which will allow proper debate on whether to maintain a triad or switch to a diad etc. A B-21 and B-2 (and other bomber) delivered LRSO capability, and a Columbia class delivered missile capability is probably sufficient if one were to have a proper debate on the capability recap. But when funding is mixed in with service budgets the proponents of maintaining the triad have an easy way to push services to accommodate that cost as opposed to having a broader debate on how much deterrence to fund and what conventional capability will have to be traded away to pay for it.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16815
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby NRao » 15 Jan 2020 17:52


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16815
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby NRao » 16 Jan 2020 00:02

Watch around 10 min, when the U2 lands. Cars provide guidance to the pilot and then human intervention!!! to right the plane allowing it to taxi. Those supports are discarded at takeoff.


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54776
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby ramana » 16 Jan 2020 00:07




Keep the hands in pockets? :)

However more serious way of managing Logistics

Matoush said the briefing, which will include Under Secretary of Defense Ellen Lord and representatives of the Government Accountability Office, will also “evaluate the merits and disadvantages” of an unsolicited proposal by Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed to enter into a long-term, “performance-based” logistics contract for F-35 sustainment.

If accepted -- and delivered on -- that could be worth billions of dollars to the company. The proposal would tie financial incentives to reducing the plane’s cost per hour of flight to $25,000 from $35,000 and maintaining 80% fleet readiness.

Lord said Tuesday at a meeting with defense reporters that she’s still undecided on the proposal’s merits. The Navy is taking the lead in gathering the data needed to thoroughly assess the plan and an official assigned to review it will present his findings Friday, Lord said.



Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 33 guests