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: 6638
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 29 Sep 2018 18:51

Manish_P wrote:Was there not another incident (engine failure?) a few days ago ?


Navy regulations mandate that pilots land aircraft when certain indicators pop and this problem appears to be “very minor,” Flanders added.


Precautionary landings have happened earlier as well due to various reasons such as an alert warning that popped up but that too is routine and usually doesn't lead to a systemic fault being identified. When you have that many aircraft flying every day around the world these things will obviously happen. This, like I said earlier, will continue to happen as an F-35 is handed over to a customer every three days.

If you look at the program as a whole and say safety metrics over the first 12 years of it flying then it has shown exceptional safety by historical standards. Even though the mishap classification system is slightly biased against the F-35 (because it relies on cost and some individual components of the F-35 are much more expensive as a percentage of the overall cost than legacy aircraft) it regardless has done rather well over the first 150,000 hours of cumulative operations across the three variants. The Flight-test program, for example, consisted of 17000+ hours of flying and 9000 mishap free sorties. There have been a few class A mishaps on the fleet aircraft, one notable one, in particular, involving the engine, but they were quick to find root cause, place fleet restrictions and then correct the cause fleet wide.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1531
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Manish_P » 29 Sep 2018 21:09

brar_w wrote:If you look at the program as a whole and say safety metrics over the first 12 years of it flying then it has shown exceptional safety by historical standards.


Yes. The records would seem to indicate so, when compared to the F- teen series

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63151
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Singha » 29 Sep 2018 21:15


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63151
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Singha » 29 Sep 2018 21:17

i have bill gunstons spy planes and recce book from 1982 which has a great chapter on the SR71 and its "beale air force base" in california.

with the saturnV, 688 class and the F-15, one of the high apexes of american engineering.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6638
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 29 Sep 2018 21:18

Manish_P wrote:Yes. The records would seem to indicate so, when compared to the F- teen series


You could compare it to the F-22 as well and it would still be favorable, which was produced in much smaller quantities. By the end of this year, nearly twice as many F-35's would have been delivered as the overall F-22 production. Although reporting metrics are different around the world, you can take a look at, for example, Rafale/Typhoon/Gripen mishaps over their respective operational lives noting the fact that they, barring the Typhoon, have been produced in relatively small quantity and more so if one were to isolate the Marine variant of the rafale.

Here is what the Typhoon Wiki page states:

By September 2017, there had been four fatal crashes in about 240,000 flight hours, flown by 406 aircraft, delivered to six different air forces


The F-35 fleet would be in the 200-250K (400+ aircraft delivered) cumulative flight hours by this time next year and also note the fact that the Typhoon does not have to perform STOVL operations on ships out at sea. One would have assumed that a more complicated family of aircraft (relative to the Typhoon) operating in a more diverse and difficult set of operational environments would have a worst safety/reliability record as measured by this one metric. Although a lot can happen over the next year or so, but given the last 12 years, this hasn't really panned out pointing to the emphasis on safety and reliability during development and design.

In fact, you would have not found many believers back in 2000 if you were claiming that you would have gathered 6-8 years of F-35 STOVL flight data, including multiple L-class ship detachments (development+operational testing and Operational deployments) and only recorded 1-2 class A mishaps and 1 aircraft loss over this period. People would have likely referred you to the Harrier (or YAK-141) safety record in its early years and laughed at your face.
Last edited by brar_w on 30 Sep 2018 00:04, edited 1 time in total.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9559
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby UlanBatori » 29 Sep 2018 23:40

brar_w wrote:On the funny side, in the last 24-hours, the F-35B has conducted its FIRST combat strike in Afghanistan, its FIRST QE Carrier landing and takeoff, and its FIRST crash. As if this wasn't enough, Lockheed was awarded (definitization) the contract for LOT-11 production lot which includes 141 aircraft. Quite a couple of days there!

One combat strike, one crash, IOW. :shock:

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6638
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 29 Sep 2018 23:59

UlanBatori wrote:One combat strike, one crash, IOW. :shock:


Yup, the worst record of any fighter in existence :rotfl:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-44210403

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6887
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Prasad » 30 Sep 2018 07:27

Rather than restarting the F22 line try could continue developing their own 5th gen program. Even if the costs are comparable, it'll atleast let them develop their own tech. Doubt GE would be averse to selling them an engine or the us govt.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6638
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 30 Sep 2018 07:30

Yeah that was my point as well. The upside to pursuing the F3 independently with foreign assistance would still be that they would develop an organic industrial base. However, they have likely gone through the financials of that option and seem to be non-committal. Their problem is high cost and low-moderate demand and competing priorities. They really need to keep up on their ship building, undersea capability, Missile Defense etc and that takes up a lot of cash.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6638
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 01 Oct 2018 08:15

Bulk contract awarded for 10 DDG-51 Flight III destroyers with options for an additional 5 under the same authorization.

Navy awards HII, Bath Iron Works multiyear contracts for 10 destroyers


The Navy last week awarded two multibillion-dollar procurement contracts, one to Huntington Ingalls Industries and one to Bath Iron Works, for Arleigh-Burke class destroyers.

HII will build six DDG-51 ships as part of its $5.1 billion contract. Two of those destroyers are for fiscal year 2018 followed by one per year from FY-19 through FY-22.

The $3.9 billion award to Bath Iron Works is for four destroyers, one each year from FY-19 through FY-22. "We also have options for an additional five DDG-51s to enable us to continue to accelerate delivery of the outstanding DDG 51 Flight III capabilities to our naval force,"


The US Navy has also started a program to add a new X-Band GaN AESA (AN/SPQ-9B replacement) on Flight-IIs and III destroyers to complement the S-Band SPY-6.

https://www.janes.com/article/82179/onr ... ar-studies

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6638
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 02 Oct 2018 08:07


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63151
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Singha » 03 Oct 2018 12:14

guru level design.

quora
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-SR-7 ... -leak-fuel

Matt Pickering, Software developer, sailor and seeing life is a rogue wave in a quantum sea
Answered Mar 29, 2016
When the SR-71 was designed, one of the challenges Kelly Johnson and his team faced was finding materials and fluids that could resist the extreme heat of Mach 3+ flight. For the J-58 engines, the choice of JP-7 fuel was made because of its high ignition temperature. This also allowed the fuel to be used as coolant for the engine and airframe!

Like most aircraft, the SR-71 kept its fuel in wet wing tanks to maximize volume. But the heat of sustained supersonic flight made it hard for the engineers to find a sealant that would allow the tanks to hold their contents both cold and hot. So hard, in fact, that they never did solve the problem. No suitable sealant could be found or made. So they simply accepted that, on the ground, the aircraft would leak through the gaps in the skin and when the aircraft "warmed up", literally, the gaps would expand and close.

Hence why the SR-71 always leaks fuel on the ground and in subsonic flight (see pictures of SR-71s under tankers with streaks of wet fuel visible on their bellies). It is designed to do so by a lack of an alternative and accepted practice. The fuel itself is so stable that you can throw a lighted match into a pan of it and it will go out!

It's one of the more fascinating aspect of the SR-71. And one can tell when a particular aircraft was donated to a museum by the presence of pans underneath to catch the odd drip of fuel here and there. Aircraft that have been on display a long time don't leak anymore. Newer donations leak like sieves. Such as the SR-71 at Udvar-Hazy that has pans under it constantly to catch dripping fuel as it has only been there a few years.

I became a docent of sorts for that aircraft when I heard a child next to me ask his parents what the pans where under the plane and I answered the question. Within minutes I had a crowd around me as I explained various bits of trivia about the SR-71 including the fuel leaks plainly visible under the aircraft. Other trivia being the fact the SR-71 doesn't use paint for its markings; they're chalk! Paint would burn off. And the glass in the cockpit canopies is Pyrex oven glass and heats to 400 degrees in flight! Or that the engines are the only jet engines designed to run at full afterburner for hours and get so hot they literally glow and you can see through them in operation!

The SR-71 probably has more interesting aspects to its design as a result of engineering challenges than any other aircraft in history. Some with solutions so simple or novel they remain unique to this day.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9790
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Aditya_V » 03 Oct 2018 13:01

brar_w wrote:


Interesting, the USAF chief flying the Tejas Trainer intrigued me, I guess it had something to do with thier Trainer aircraft purchase where they want a Light 4G fighter as a trainer for their 4G birds.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1531
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Manish_P » 03 Oct 2018 13:25

^ Doubt it

King khan has other dedicated trainer options to choose from.. and stuck to their own in the end

Some snarky journos on twitter had also allued to the visit and opined that the Tejas was only good enough to be a trainer till they were shut down by knowledgeable people. One idiot was shut down by a simple question by an apparent commoner when he was asked if twin seat Su30s and F15s could also be considered as trainer aircraft :mrgreen:

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9790
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Aditya_V » 03 Oct 2018 15:09

What King Khan choose looks like a Gripen D with 2 tail wings from the F-18 E/F hornet, so probably they were just curious about the Tejas handling and performance.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1531
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Manish_P » 03 Oct 2018 15:23

To me it looks like the F18 and F20 had a baby :D

(hey maybe the Eyeranians were onto a good thing)

With regards to the handling/performance part, they would have a fair idea based on their own extensive research (over the decades) and regular interaction/exercises with the French (Mirages) and Swedish AFs (Viggens).

And if they were really curious, they would have had some serving/test pilots requesting to see if they could 'Cope' with it

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6638
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 03 Oct 2018 15:57

Aditya_V wrote:
brar_w wrote:


Interesting, the USAF chief flying the Tejas Trainer intrigued me, I guess it had something to do with thier Trainer aircraft purchase where they want a Light 4G fighter as a trainer for their 4G birds.


I find it tough to fathom how that would have had any bearing given that the performance requirements for the TX go back a number of years (and predate the current CSAF), and that three of the potential bidders included the same engine so the size and power was in the sweet spot given the requirements.

Some of the performance requirements were indeed more like a fighter and stretched the limits of the traditional market players like the M346 and were beyond the Hawk but that was likely because the USAF wanted a more future proof system and perhaps an option to use it as an aggressor down the road.

If there was a system out there that could have influenced the requirements then it would have likely been the KAI T-50 given that it was out there, and was designed from the ground up to be a trainer that could scale up as a lightweight attack fighter and had a US involvement, and had "fighter like" performance beyond what the M346 and Hawk were capable of. Certainly, it was the most suitable trainer if one only went with off the shelf solutions. With the sustained G and AOA requirement set in the 2012-2015 time-frame the USAF basically told the industry that it was OK with paying 15-20% higher operational cost in order to squeeze out the higher performance.

Despite quiet protests from some of the players the USAF largely stuck to these requirements so in that time-frame (2010-2014) lot of players switched over to clean sheet designs (Boeing and Northrop) while others re-evaluated their presence or partnership (BAE with Hawk, and Raytheon walking away from the M346 leaving Leonardo alone).

The US Air Force is not backing away from the ambitious sustained g requirement for its T-X next-generation trainer that has sidelined at least two proposed aircraft types and driven competitors toward clean-sheet designs.

When the competition to replace the 55-year-old Northrop T-38 Talon got underway in 2010, pundits predicted the air force would favour price over performance, and vendors rushed to offer ready-made examples like the Alenia Aermacchi M-346 (offered as the T-100), BAE Systems Hawk advanced jet trainer and Lockheed Martin/Korea Aerospace Industries T-50 Golden Eagle.

However, the service's initial set of requirements – posted in March – narrowed the field and caused the primes to reassess their initial offers, with General Dynamics parting ways with Alenia Aermacchi and Northrop reconsidering its Hawk offer in favour of a clean-sheet design.In a 10 July statement, the Air Education and Training Command (AETC) confirmed that the minimum T-X sustained g requirement of 6.5g and objective of 7.5g remains unchanged from the key performance parameter published in March, even though it would exclude a number of viable trainer options from the competition.

The requirement sets a high bar for manoeuvrability, requiring the T-X to sustain that load at a pressure altitude of 15,000ft for at least 140˚ of a full turn with minimal loss of energy and altitude.

“Initiated at or above 15,000ft pressure altitude, at or below Mach 0.9, and at or above 80% fuel weight, the aircraft’s flight path angle during this manoeuvre can be no lower than 15˚ nose low while losing no more than 2,000ft of vertical altitude and 10% of the initial airspeed,” the AETC says.

This pushes out the T-100, which its Italian manufacturer says can sustain 5.3g at 15,000ft. The Hawk is also out of the race. "If you score us on how much sustained g you can pull, we'll lose every time,” one BAE business development manager told Flightglobal back in 2011.

Boeing and Saab, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed have each said they are working on clean-sheet designs, although the nimble Lockheed-KAI T-50 still appears to be a viable contender. Textron AirLand has also been considering a trainer derivative of its Scorpion jet.
The clarification from the AETC comes after a recent pre-solicitation conference in May attended by Alenia Aermacchi, Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop, Raytheon and Textron. “It is imperative that we procure an advanced trainer capable of enabling our future pilots to safely and effectively transition into high-performance fighter aircraft,” says Brig Gen Andrew Croft, the AETC's director of plans, programmes and requirements.

“The T-X threshold and objective requirements will enable the T-X to close the ever-widening gap between T-38 performance and that of aircraft such as the [Lockheed] F-22 and F-35.”

In a 10 July notice to industry accompanying a statement from the AETC, the programme office said no extra credit would be applied to competitors that exceed the sustained-g objective. The service does not plan to hold a fly-off, but could request flight demonstrations from the competitors.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... nt-414531/





What King Khan choose looks like a Gripen D with 2 tail wings from the F-18 E/F hornet, so probably they were just curious about the Tejas handling and performance.


The F/A-18 seems to have influenced the design far more than the Gripen imho..SAAB's role is about 10% on this project and they will be producing the central fuselage.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50412
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby ramana » 04 Oct 2018 19:41

Singha wrote:sangars are fixed targets. a single B1 or B52 can drop dozens of JDAMs with individual GPS co-ordinates. the warhead can be tailored to the type of target.


inert weapons but check the hit craters


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50412
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby ramana » 04 Oct 2018 19:42

brar_w, Boeing got the trainer contract.

Boeing has learn't that USAF truly wants the supplier who listens to them and not give advice by offering re-packaged off-the shelf product.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6638
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 04 Oct 2018 22:10

^ Really? Is that also why the USAF chose Boeing's MH-139? :) Is that also why Boeing keeps offering the Silent Eagle even though no one in the USAF is even remotely interested? If anything, Boeing is a master at offering re-packaged products over the last few decades because that was what they could do best given their legacy products and their inability to close competitions like the JSF, LRS-B etc.

Sometimes the best product is a clean sheet design, and at other times it is not in your best interest to pursue that as was the case for Lockheed and Leonardo (or BAE would have done had the Hawk been able to meet the requirements). Bids are judged on evaluation criteria and it is quite likely that a clean sheet design, developed specifically using a particular set of requirements would also be the best performing. From the USAF's perspective, it was probably a better thing that firms took vastly different paths in their bids because it gave them a large trade space within the evaluation criteria to choose the best value.

Boeing needed a major contract because the MQ-25 was unlikely to sustain St. Louis by itself through the 2025-2035 time-frame (when the PCA will likely enter EMD). This directed their internal investment and they designed and produced two flying prototypes of their proposal. They also likely bid very aggressively as their competitors have already pointed out. They needed to go after this hard.

Others like Northrop Grumman had a clean sheet design but didn't bother bidding because of the competition and the expected bidding war. Each company decides what to offer and the USAF knows this and they bake that in when they do fixed price EMD contracting knowing that some will be incentivized to offer lower risk investments while others will do the exact opposite.

In US DOD contracting, if they want to take this discrepancy out (company's choosing to trade internal investment in preparation for a competition for internal reasons) they assume the developmental risk of the product. They do this on the more technically challenging programs such as (recent example) the B-21.
Last edited by brar_w on 05 Oct 2018 05:17, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6638
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 05 Oct 2018 04:58

U.S. Army moves closer to commissioning M777ER howitzer after latest test


The U.S. Army fired a modified M777 howitzer double its previous range, bringing the service one step closer to delivering the prototype Long Range Cannon capability.

According to Nancy Jones-Bonbrest, Army Rapid Capabilities Office, the live fire demonstration, which took place at Yuma Proving Ground on Sept. 19, was a significant step in the Army’s effort to rapidly prototype and equip select units with an interim Long Range Cannon solution. This increase in firepower, targeted for Army Infantry and Stryker Brigade Combat Teams and Marine Corps Expeditionary Formations, is a subset of the Army’s top modernization priority of Long-Range Precision Fires.

“This demonstration highlighted how the Long Range Cannon system-of-systems can achieve ranges with the cannon, projectile and propellant combinations that will help shape the battlefield for battalion and brigade commanders,” said Col. Cobb Laslie, the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command capability manager for Brigade Combat Team Fires. “The partnership between the organizations that participated in the demonstration is focused on putting the best cannon with the most lethal projectiles into the hands of our Soldiers.”

The Long Range Cannon’s increased range, effectiveness and accuracy of beyond-line-of-sight fires is in direct response to operational needs in the Pacific and Europe, and will deliver air mobile extended range capabilities to light and Stryker units. Complementary to the Extended Range Cannon Artillery, or ERCA, program for Armored Brigade Combat Teams, the Long Range Cannon is also leveraging other Army Long-Range Precision Fires prototyping and programmatic efforts, including existing and experimental munitions and future propellant upgrades.

The Long Range Cannon started as the Extended Range M777 project, a partnership between the Army’s Program Executive Office Ammunition and the Marine Corps’ PEO Land Systems. Managed by their Joint Program Office, Project Manager Towed Artillery Systems, the M777 Extended Range leverages technologies being developed by the Armaments Research, Development and Engineering Center for the ERCA program. In 2016, PM-TAS and ARDEC demonstrated the ability to integrate a longer tube into the M777 with minimal modifications to the system.

In early 2018, The Army Rapid Capabilities Office, or RCO, and PEO Ammunition partnered with the Army’s Long-Range Precision Fires Cross-Functional Team and the Army and Marine centers of excellence for cannon artillery on the Long Range Cannon project to ensure programs can leverage lessons learned across their developmental paths.

In creating the prototype, the Army is combining an M777 Extended Range howitzer, a projectile tracking system radar, a surveying device and a variety of advanced projectiles. The demo also showed what a new “supercharge” element could do to achieve double the range of current unguided High Explosive projectiles.

Together, these components are intended to serve as an interim solution to a critical capability gap, while also informing future Long-Range Precision Fires systems. The demo on Sept. 19 was a proof of concept using production representative hardware, developmental propellant and a projectile, in order to demonstrate readiness for continued prototype development and production.

“This approach, of adapting existing systems and combining them with emerging technology to deliver a new capability, is a proven way to move faster and meet an urgent need now while the Army continues to work on a more permanent, long-term solution,” said Mike Foster, Army RCO lead for the Long Range Cannon project. “This demo shows we are on track to provide integrated Long Range Cannon technologies to the units that need them.”

Directed by the secretary and chief of staff of the Army through its board of directors, the RCO frequently partners with other organizations to deliver integrated prototypes to enable the Army to move faster than traditional acquisition systems have allowed in the past.

If successful, the Long Range Cannon would provide the Army with a mobile extended range capability that can be retrofitted into an existing howitzer system to provide new effects. This could provide an interim solution for select units of the Army’s brigade combat teams with towed artillery, which deliver the external helicopter sling-load capability required for artillery raids and provide mobility to locations inaccessible by heavier systems. The technology could also be leveraged for a wheeled 155mm howitzer. At the same time, the Long Range Cannon prototype will help bridge efforts, providing data and lessons learned that the Long-Range Precision Fires Cross-Functional Team can leverage to reduce risk and inform requirements before the ERCA and other enduring programs are fielded.

Following the demonstration, the Army plans to continue testing and development of the Long Range Cannon components, with the first operational assessment in fiscal year 2020. The demo also provided information to support improvements in training, maintenance and operational procedures for the system.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6638
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 05 Oct 2018 18:40

Getting close to demonstrating its speed design performance:

Maximum cruise speed with weapons - 220 knots
Maximum cruise speed clean - 235 knots
Maximum dash speed - 245-250 knots



Also relevant because the US Army this week also launched the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft Competition:

Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft Competition Begins
Aerospace Daily & Defense Report Oct 03, 2018 , p. 1


The U.S. Army has released a broad agency announcement for the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) competitive prototyping program.

Brig. Gen. Walter Rugen, Future Vertical Lift (FVL) Cross-Functional Team lead, told reporters Oct. 3 that the service has gaps in reach, protection and lethality.
“We feel like FARA is part of an ecosystem with all four lines of effort for FVL that will really help us close those gaps,” Rugen says.
Under the FARA competitive prototype program, also dubbed FVL Light or Capability Set 1, the Army anticipates awarding four to six initial contracts in June 2019. The vendors will have nine months to develop preliminary designs and two companies will be chosen during the downselect in the third quarter of fiscal 2020.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6638
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 05 Oct 2018 19:27

U.S. Navy Readies F/A-18E/F, EA-18G Display Upgrade
Aerospace Daily & Defense Report Oct 03, 2018


Image

U.S. Navy officials are close to awarding Boeing a contract to deliver a redesigned cockpit for the Block III version of the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft scheduled to enter service within three years.

The Advanced Cockpit System (ACS) upgrade will be awarded to Boeing under a sole-source contract, the Navy says in an acquisition notice released on Oct. 2. Such notices must be released any time a government agency decides to forgo soliciting competing bids.
The notice details the extensive cockpit changes planned under Engineering Change Proposal 6516.
Boeing will install a 10-in. by 19-in. Large Area Display (LAD) in the cockpit of the single-seat F/A-18E and the forward and aft cockpits of the two-seat F/A-18F and EA-18G aircraft, the Navy says.
The LAD replaces four separate displays in the current version of the cockpit, including the 5-in. by 5-in. Advanced Multipurpose Display, the 8-in. by 10-in. aft Advanced Multipurpose Display, the upfront control display and the multipurpose color display.
Accommodating the LAD also displaces other systems in the cockpit. The existing head-up display (HUD) and engine fuel display will be replaced with lower profile systems.
It also requires upgrades to related systems. Adding a high-speed video network digital video recorder (HSVN/HDVR) is a prerequisite before installing the ACS, the Navy adds.
The ACS is one of several upgrades planned under the Block III upgrade, which comes with the H16 version of the operational flight program in fiscal 2021. The Navy is also adding the Tactical Targeting Network Technology (TTNT) data link and the associated Distributed Targeting Processing-Networked computer, allowing the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G fleets to perform sensor fusion within a multi-aircraft formation.
The Navy is also adding a second-generation infrared search and track (IRST) sensor, conformal fuel tanks and radar cross section enhancements.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6638
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 05 Oct 2018 22:20

Raytheon, Saab demonstrating new guided Carl-Gustaf munition for US Army


TUCSON, Ariz., Oct. 5, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) and Swedish aerospace and defense firm Saab are demonstrating a new guided munition for the Carl-Gustaf man-portable, shoulder-launched weapon system under a U.S. Army contract. There will be three all-up-round test firings against threat-representative targets. This new munition answers a U.S. Special Operations Command requirement to increase the capability of the multirole Carl-Gustaf weapon system built by Saab.

Raytheon and Saab are developing a new guided munition for the Carl-Gustaf weapon system. (Photo: Saab)

The Carl-Gustaf weapon system is used by the U.S. Army and ground forces of more than 40 other countries and has been modernized to meet the changing needs of soldiers operating in the world's most demanding combat environments.

"The Carl-Gustaf system paired with this new guided munition gives U.S. and coalition dismounted forces a tremendous advantage on the battlefield," said Kim Ernzen, Raytheon Land Warfare Systems vice president. "The munition is intended to enable ground troops to engage multiple targets precisely at distances up to 2,000 meters, including moving targets."

The munition's advanced warhead penetrates light armor, bunkers and concrete structures while minimizing collateral damage. With increased range, the new munition offers greater protection for ground troops by enabling them to fire at targets from inside structures.

In 2017, Raytheon announced its partnership with Saab to develop new weapons for infantry forces.

"Collaborating with Raytheon, utilizing their technical and product excellence in combination with our innovative technology solutions, will enhance the already world-leading Carl-Gustaf and AT4 weapon systems with additional capabilities that will further increase the operational benefit for the end user," said Görgen Johansson, who leads Saab's Dynamics business.

Raytheon and Saab will oversee test firing of the guided Carl-Gustaf munition planned for 2020 in Sweden.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35889
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby SaiK » 05 Oct 2018 23:52

New US nuclear bombs and futuristic stealth aircraft to provide mind-boggling military might

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/new-us-nuc ... -might.amp

https://video.foxnews.com/v/5844412176001/

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6638
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 08 Oct 2018 16:47

Marines connect F-35 jet to HIMARS rocket shot for first time


The Corps has been experimenting with an innovative slew of ways to use its rocket precision artillery system known as HIMARS.

And just recently, the Corps set another historic milestone: destroying a target by connecting an F-35B with a HIMARS rocket shot for the first time, according to Lt,. Gen. Steven R. Rudder, deputy commandant for aviation.

“We were able to connect the F-35 to a HIMARS, to a rocket shot … and we were able to target a particular conex box,” Rudder told audience members Friday at an aviation readiness discussion at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, or CSIS.

The shot was all done through data link, according to Rudder. The F-35 used sensors and pushed data about the location of the target that was then fed to a HIMARS system.

The HIMARS unit then destroyed the target.


With the US Army (and possibly Marines) shifting to a common Air Defense and Fires C2 based on the IBCS EOC, being able to autonomously hand off targeting data to systems is going to be critical in an event where the communication space is contested and you may not be able to radio in the information as efficiently. If the Marines can connect their primary fixed wing CAS platform with their most widely used precision fires then they would be able to respond much faster in a contested battlefield. With the TCGMLRS pushing to 140 km range and getting more precise this does open up some really nice opportunities..same for artillery once it gets to the 70+km range with the M777.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6638
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 10 Oct 2018 00:10

Raytheon, US Army upgrade Excalibur projectile
Enhanced munition offers new attack angle, defeats moving targets


TUCSON, Ariz., Oct. 9, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) and the U.S. Army completed development of a revolutionary capability for cannon artillery by upgrading the combat-proven Excalibur® precision-guided projectile. The Excalibur Shaped Trajectory, or EST, variant will enable soldiers to eliminate targets in hard-to-reach locations by selecting the projectile's terminal or final phase attack angle.With the Excalibur EST munition, soldiers can attack a bunker positioned on the opposite side of a mountain slope, target a multi-story building from the side rather than the top or defeat enemy assets positioned under highway overpasses.

"This new version of Excalibur represents a major leap forward in capability for this already advanced guided projectile," said Kim Ernzen, Raytheon Land Warfare Systems vice president. "With these enhancements, enemy forces can no longer hide from the long arm of Excalibur."

The EST variant was successfully demonstrated in August 2018 at the U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, and is now being deployed to U.S. forces. This capability will be made available to allies approved to procure the Excalibur projectile through foreign military sales.

With more than 1,400 rounds fired in combat, Excalibur is the revolutionary, extended-range, precision munition for the U.S. and international artillery forces. The weapon is fully qualified in multiple systems, including the M777, M109 series, M198, the Archer and PzH2000. It's also been tested in the AS90, K9 and G6 howitzers, with plans to integrate it with other mobile artillery systems.

In addition to the Excalibur EST variant, Raytheon has developed Excalibur S, a laser-guided version of the projectile. The company has also developed a 5-inch sea-based variant, the Excalibur N5 munition. It's expected to more than double the maximum range of conventional 5-inch munitions and will provide the same accuracy as the land-based version.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6638
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 10 Oct 2018 02:30

This is quite significant as there are over 130 Q-53's delivered or on order and it will be a substantial boost in capability. The radar is now the backbone of the US Army's Counter-fire/Target acquisition capability and Lockheed was pitching this upgrade in order to significantly boost the range of the radar in that role as well as open other roles such as SHORAD applications and point defense.

Lockheed Martin To Upgrade US Army’s Q-53 Radar With Gallium Nitride


The United States Army has awarded Lockheed Martin a contract modification to insert Gallium Nitride (GaN) into the AN/TPQ-53 (Q-53) radar as part of the full rate production configuration to increase the range of the radar.

The Q-53 radar in the US Army inventory and has the flexible architecture to address aircraft, drone and other threats in the future. The transition to GaN will provide the Q-53 with additional power for capabilities including long-range counterfire target acquisition. GaN has the added benefit of increasing system reliability and reducing lifecycle ownership costs, the company said in a statement Monday.

The primary mission of the multi-mission Q-53 is to protect troops in combat by detecting, classifying, tracking and identifying the location of enemy indirect fire in either 360 or 90-degree modes. Mounted on a five-ton truck, the Q-53 can be rapidly deployed, automatically leveled then operated remotely or from a command vehicle with a laptop computer. The radar is software defined allowing for quick adjustment to address emerging Army capability needs for air surveillance and counter fire target acquisition.

Image


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6638
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 10 Oct 2018 10:09

B-2 hot pit refueling -

Last edited by brar_w on 10 Oct 2018 21:30, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6638
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 10 Oct 2018 21:25

One of the first glimpses of Boeing's solution in the 155 mm Ramjet projectile which will likely compete with a similar solution offered by NAMMO. Although Boeing hasn't come out with its designed performance, NAMMO claims that it can reach a range of 100 km which is closer to the US Army's threshold but much below the objective range of 140 km for this type of munition. Both companies expect to begin testing in the coming 12-24 months. Both solutions use solid fuel.

Image

Artillery has been another major focus for the Army, which is now looking to develop howitzers with extended range, new guided artillery rockets and surface-to-surface missiles, and acquire potentially game-changing capabilities, such as ground-based electromagnetic railguns and hypervelocity superguns. One of the most interesting concepts to come out of this push so far has been an interest in 155mm artillery shells with air-breathing ramjet engines, which could give otherwise conventional howitzers extreme range.

Norway's Nammo, which is also working on more conventional extended-range ammunition, had unveiled a new design for such a round earlier in the year. Boeing revealed its own at AUSA, as well. South Korea's Poongsan, which had previously announced plans to develop this type of ammunition in 2016 and was also at the expo, does not appear to be working on a ramjet shell at present.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24 ... -arms-expo

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6887
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Prasad » 10 Oct 2018 23:23

Damn. Looks like a miniature Brahmos :) Why not just make an ER version of MRLS? These things anyway will be specialty use if ever put into production.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6638
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 10 Oct 2018 23:45

The TCGMLRS is already good for 139 km so that will be fielded ahead of this round. The US Army and Marine Corpse has a requirement for 155mm howitzer capability beyond 100km vs the currently demonstrated 70 km with the M777 ER. The reason why they need these ranges on both systems (MLRS and cannon artillery) is because of how they deploy. The Marines can put a few M777s into the Middle of Syria for example and support them using V22s/CH53s etc. They require better performance within the same logistical footprint and if you begin to consider ATACMS or GMLRS then you really add to your logistical footprint for both getting systems into the field and supporting them. Being able to target at those ranges also improves survivability which is important again in the way the US deploys and the scenarios where it will not have numerical superiority.

Yes these rounds will be expensive and will be complementary to existing shorter ranged rounds but at the tip of the spear the capability is in demand. Moreover, the total cost of actually something in combat is the sum total of all the costs that it takes to get the system into a combat theater and then supporting it and here you have to factor in the logistical cost of getting a M270 or HIMARS into a theater and then flying in rounds vs sling loading an M777 and then resupplying artillery shells. Much like excalibur they will fill a role and not replace either the current dumb rounds or PGK.

The roadmap is for 155 mm artillery is to match the current range of US MLRS (70km) and for GMLRS to roughly double its current range (out to 140km) in the short-term, and then for the 155mm rounds to match the range of the extended range MLRS (out to 140 km) in the medium term (2023-2025). Eventual goal is to then explore even longer ranges but those will likely come through EMRG which are also under contract (long term solutions circa 2030).

Image
Last edited by brar_w on 11 Oct 2018 01:06, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6638
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 11 Oct 2018 00:04

Here's NAMMO product :


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6638
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 12 Oct 2018 00:38

A faulty fuel tube (quality escape most likely) is the likely culprit of the F-35B crash from last week. Precautionary pause of all non essential F-35 missions until inspection to check the fuel pipe is complete. Italian F-35's, and some US F-35's have already gone through inspections and are back flying while the entire global fleet is expected to fly again (minus any aircraft that also contain the faulty fuel pipe) is expected to begin flying in the next 24-48 hours.

Full article from Lee Hudson behind a paywall>

Fuel Tube Defect Grounds F-35 Fleet Aerospace Daily & Defense Report Oct 11, 2018

The Joint Strike Fighter enterprise ordered a grounding and inspections of the entire global F-35 fleet as a result of the investigation into the Sept. 28 crash of a Marine Corps F-35B in South Carolina, Aerospace DAILY has learned.

The accident investigation team identified an issue with the jet’s fuel tube, which is a common component across all three variants of the stealthy fighter. The program decided to ground all jets for inspection as a precautionary measure, and anticipates the grounding will last 24-48 hr. as jets are inspected and cleared to return to flight. Some jets have now returned to flight.

However, the UK Ministry of Defense has decided to continue flight trials of the F-35B aboard the Royal Navy’s RMS Queen Elizabeth II aircraft carrier.
Luke AFB has a Heritage Flight Team that is participating in an air show in Ft. Worth, Texas, over the weekend. A base spokesman said a team began inspections of U.S. aircraft at Luke the night of Oct. 10 and the first two that were cleared flew to Ft. Worth this morning.
The September crash was the first for the program.

The grounding comes with the F-35B involved in multiple operations. Twenty-two of the 33 F-35Bs delivered to Marine operational units are deployed in Afghanistan and Japan, Lt. Gen. Steve Rudder, deputy commandant for aviation, said Oct. 5 at an event hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.


Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1531
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Manish_P » 12 Oct 2018 09:46

Any idea on the root cause of landing gear failure in the crash of the F22 earlier today ?

Second F-22 crash landing in 2018

A Lockheed Martin F-22 coming in for a landing at Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage, Alaska crash landed and skidded across the runway, the second incident with the aircraft type this year.

The US Air Force pilot was able to climb out of the cockpit unharmed, according to Elmendorf AFB. The cause of the incident is under investigation and the extent of damage to the aircraft is unknown.

“We are calling it an emergency landing. Initial indicators are a landing gear malfunction,” says Maj John Ross, a public affairs representative with Elmendorf AFB. “As far as I know, there was nothing unusual about the approach.”

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35889
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby SaiK » 12 Oct 2018 14:48

JSF was grounded couple of days ago

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6638
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 12 Oct 2018 15:18

SaiK wrote:JSF was grounded couple of days ago


Was an operational pause for each aircraft that underwent an inspection that lasted roughly 6 hours before they were cleared to fly. There were aircraft that were inspected and cleared for flight overnight. You can read about it two posts up. In this particular case, a faulty fuel tube was discovered in the aircraft that crashed and they wanted to inspect all other aircraft to see if one was present on them so that it could be replaced. As each aircraft underwent an inspection they were cleared to fly. This was likely due to a quality escape at one of the suppliers.

Any idea on the root cause of landing gear failure in the crash of the F22 earlier today ?


This thing happened quite recently, one would think the investigation board would need a few days, at the very least, to find the root cause unless something very obvious is the culprit.
Last edited by brar_w on 12 Oct 2018 16:14, edited 3 times in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6638
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 12 Oct 2018 15:43

AN/SPY-6 Update. Not mentioned here but Raytheon has spun off two additional radars from the SPY-6 AMDR. Both scaled radars, one meant as a rotating array that will be put on the new built L-Class ships and the future frigate, and one a fixed array that will go on the new CVNs.

Raytheon’s AN/SPY-6(V) radar demonstrates tracking of multiple targets


Raytheon’s AN/SPY-6(V) air and missile defence radar (AMDR) has successfully detected, acquired and tracked multiple targets during demonstrations at the US Navy’s Pacific Missile Range Facility, Kauai, Hawaii.

During the exercise, the radar system exhibited its ability to track multiple threats simultaneously, as well as a ballistic missile, through intercept.

Since its launch in January 2014, the US Navy’s SPY-6(V) programme has successfully met all milestones either ahead of or on schedule.


To be integrated on the US Navy’s first Arleigh Burke-class (DDG 51) Flight III guided missile destroyer, the future USS Jack H Lucas (DDG 125), the AN/SPY-6(V) radar is slated for delivery in 2019.

Program Executive Office above water sensors major programme manager and US Navy captain Seiko Okano said: “AN/SPY-6(V) continues to impress through consistent performance against complex, surrogate threats.

“With production now underway, we’re progressing, with confidence, toward delivery of this exceptional, game-changing radar, which will transform our naval capabilities for decades to come.”

The Raytheon-built weapon system is currently under production at the company’s advanced Radar Development Facility.

AN/SPY-6(V) radar provides greater range, enhanced accuracy and improved resistance to environmental and man-made electronic clutter, higher reliability and sustainability than currently deployed radars.

The system offers increased coverage for early and accurate detection, which optimises the effectiveness of the US Navy’s most advanced weapons, including all variants of Standard Missile-3 and Standard Missile-6.

In August, the company opened a $72m, 30,000ft² radar development facility in Andover, Massachusetts, for integration and testing of current and future radar programmes for the US and international customers.

The US Navy’s AN/SPY-6 radar will be the first system to enter the facility.


Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1531
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Manish_P » 13 Oct 2018 11:32

brar_w wrote:
Any idea on the root cause of landing gear failure in the crash of the F22 earlier today ?


This thing happened quite recently, one would think the investigation board would need a few days, at the very least, to find the root cause unless something very obvious is the culprit.


One would indeed do so for poor SDREs, but would expect King Khan to have real time monitoring for their uber networked platforms, kind of like we see in Formula 1 (not to mention the decades old space programs) :)

I am only half-kidding. I expect such systems to be online very soon (if not already there, but out of public domain)

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 638
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby ks_sachin » 13 Oct 2018 12:00

Manish_P wrote:
brar_w wrote:


This thing happened quite recently, one would think the investigation board would need a few days, at the very least, to find the root cause unless something very obvious is the culprit.


One would indeed do so for poor SDREs, but would expect King Khan to have real time monitoring for their uber networked platforms, kind of like we see in Formula 1 (not to mention the decades old space programs) :)

I am only half-kidding. I expect such systems to be online very soon (if not already there, but out of public domain)

So you are saying that better diagnostics will allow for the investigation board to be done away with?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Arima, Bala Vignesh, brar_w, Lalmohan and 42 guests