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.
Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1599
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Manish_P » 13 Oct 2018 12:38

ks_sachin wrote:
Manish_P wrote:
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?


Nothing of the sort.

I meant to say that diagnostics (especially for digital and software driven systems) have typically gotten better, faster and networked with advancing tech, and these have been useful (in non-mechanical failure cases) to the investigation board to examine/analyze the incidents quicker than before.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 13 Oct 2018 18:57

It isn't quite simple. As your diagnostics are getting better, your systems are likewise getting more complex so unless there is a catastrophic failure which is quite obvious, or you have had a string of failures that point you towards one specific area, you have to really go and investigate because the spectrum of possibilities range from technical hardware malfunction to human factors to non system related things etc.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4665
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Neshant » 13 Oct 2018 22:24

brar_w wrote:A faulty fuel tube (quality escape most likely) is the likely culprit of the F-35B crash from last week.


Somehow I doubt they would say there were problems found in the design of the engine itself as that would kill the entire program. It's always a faulty tube here or a loose nut there..

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 13 Oct 2018 23:26

Neshant wrote:
brar_w wrote:A faulty fuel tube (quality escape most likely) is the likely culprit of the F-35B crash from last week.


Somehow I doubt they would say there were problems found in the design of the engine itself as that would kill the entire program. It's always a faulty tube here or a loose nut there..


Yeah it is all just one big conspiracy theory. Crazy that the current fleet size is 330+ now with cumulative hours inching towards 200K and yet there have been so few actual incidents (this was the first crash). Once you adjust for scale, this has been an extremely safe development program through operational service if one compared it historically against the teens or against more modern programs like the F-22, or the euro-canards. In fact, not a single test aircraft (EMD fleet that numbers in excess of 20) has had a major incident through the decade plus that the fleet has carried out its flight sciences or envelope expansion/weapons testing work. Consider the three types of aircraft (the number of DT-DT/OT deployments of the STOVL aircraft) and the compexity and compare to the F-22 and F-16, both of which lost one or more EMD or PEMD birds.

Back in the real world, investigation boards go with evidence and what they know best at the time. They do their job, and the operators use that information to check the fleet for that id'd fault. Folks on the internet can do what they like, but operators from more than a half a dozen countries, many of whom are development partners took that information, conducted the 6-hour inspection, cleared their aircraft to fly and a substantial portion of the worldwide fleet is indeed now flying.

Somehow I doubt they would say there were problems found in the design of the engine


If you had bothered to do your research, you would have realized that professional investigators ON THIS PROGRAM in prior years have found design faults with specifically relating to the engine (blades rubbing against the cowl), something that could not have happened (disclosure and subsequent re-design requirements) based on your genius logic.

Here too, if they had found a different culprit then they would have announced it (or it would have been discoverable via a FOIA). In this case there is some indication pointing to a quality escape leading to the cause based on which all these nations took a precautionary approach of checking their aircraft. This isn't the first quality escape that has happened, faulty insulation (as a result of a quality escape) in the fuel tanks also caused a similar pause earlier. Historically, once suppliers have ramped up to a stable production rate they usually do a good job of driving down their quality escapes which tend to happen more when they are rapidly increasing capacity.

As I had mentioned earlier, when you have a large and rapidly growing fleet of aircraft that is spread around the world, you will have crashes for umpteen reasons (human factor, technical failure, lapses in maintenance, bird strikes etc). Aircraft like F-16, F-15, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, Su-30 etc have all had crashes and many of them do not exist in the number as the global F-35 fleet. And no, a crash of an operational aircraft is not going to cause the program to be cancelled just like no one is scrapping the SU-30 program, or the Typhoon program because a squadron aircraft somewhere crashed.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4665
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Neshant » 14 Oct 2018 02:11

brar_w wrote:
Neshant wrote:
Somehow I doubt they would say there were problems found in the design of the engine itself as that would kill the entire program. It's always a faulty tube here or a loose nut there..


Back in the real world, investigation boards go with evidence and what they know best at the time. They do their job, and the operators use that information to check the fleet for that id'd fault.


All that stuff doesn't work on me because I've worked in the industry and know what goes on behind the scenes.
There is huge pressure from up top on program managers to _not_ find a major bug linked to their portion of the project once the program has reached a mature stage or deployment.

Doing so risks the profitability and in some cases survivability of the entire company, including the jobs of employees shilling away for the product.

I've been in silly situations where the manager was trying to convince the team that the MIL qualified processor had a flaw in its design and not the code they wrote for it. He went on to have a semiconductor company uncap and disect the chip on each unit looking for hardware flaws instead of addressing the obvious. I managed to track down the issue and suggested the fix which was implemented and saved the entire product line.

There is huge pressure on employees by these managers to fall in line. I remember addressing on a known issue and the manager immediately blurting out loud in the meeting - "I knew nothing about it, nobody told me!" when its obvious he did.

In another instance, I got a mark down on an annual performance review for highlighting a problem in the design that was recurring. This was when the product was still in the R&D stage. The manager was annoyed at this and wanted the problem handed off to another department because he didn't want it on his plate.

As for "professional investigators", the only thing these guys are adept at is looking at requirements, records and logs. They have zero understanding of anything beyond that. Consequently its always a loose nut or tube. They depend on the company's explanation of the low downs to write the investigation report.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 14 Oct 2018 02:40

Neshant wrote:All that stuff doesn't work on me because I've worked in the industry and know what goes on behind the scenes.


Of course, it works on actual customers who are actually connected to the program, and the operators who fly it with more than half a dozen nations around the world (and who get access to these reports and recommendations).

But that $hit don't work on you :D

Neshant wrote:There is huge pressure from up top on program managers to _not_ find a major bug linked to their portion of the project once the program has reached a mature stage or deployment.


Yet, I just pointed you to not ONE, but TWO examples where folks tasked with investigating incidents, looked and found both a design flaw that required correction, and picked out a quality escape. I can go through and list other times where they did the same i.e. exactly what you claim they wouldn't because "you've worked in the industry and know what goes on behind the scenes" ..

You claimed earlier that a true engine "design flaw" (being "from the industry", you seem to have done your own preliminary investigation and think that there is an engine flaw) will never be reported by the investigators because that will kill the program. All reasonable people can do is point you to an example, from the recent past, where investigators in fact DID JUST THAT.. That I did earlier.

I can give you more examples, but I'll stop at these two and let you do your own research.

Neshant wrote:Doing so risks the profitability and in some cases survivability of the entire company, including the jobs of employees shilling away for the product.


Do you have any idea who investigates?

Neshant wrote:I remember addressing on a known issue and the manager immediately blurting out loud in the meeting - "I knew nothing about it, nobody told me!" when its obvious he did.


I don't see how this is at all relevant here. Are you claiming that military investigation boards are completely ineffective at what they do because you "remember addressing on a known issue and the manager....."? What next, outsource it to forums?

If this were a case, universally, around the world, no incident investigation board would ever be able to pin point the root-cause of a particular accident or safety incident. Yet, we know of examples from this program itself (leave aside the thousands of other military hardware programs out there) where that was not the case. So how come your example didn't apply then?

Look, If you want to criticize investigators or their investigation, feel free to do so. No one is above criticism. But doing so, as a default, without even reading up on (because it has not been released yet) the report smacks of a bias especially when there is no indication (AT ALL) of a systemic problem manifesting itself in repeated component failures. This was the first type crash in more than 12 years of flying, with more than 150,000 cumulative fleet hours.

In fact, given how quickly the investigators were able to turn around and make recommendations to the global operators on a specific part inspection likely points to the fact that the root cause was quite obvious.

Neshant wrote:In another instance, I got a mark down on an annual performance review for highlighting a problem in the design that was recurring. This was when the product was still in the R&D stage. The manager was annoyed at this and wanted the problem handed off to another department because he didn't want it on his plate.


Over the last dozen plus years, more than 10 DOT&E reports have been published on the F-35. These reports are a litany of "discoveries" during the various stages of development and operational life of the aircraft. If your life-experiences were an effective barometer of how things work in this case, there would have been hundreds of people fired, had their annual reviews downgraded and not promoted because their entire job was to put the aircraft through its paces, and discover faults so that they could report them to the appropriate authorities who could then begin working on corrective actions and begin designing and implementing fixes.

In fact, this forum once had a dedicated thread where certain forum members took pride in reporting "discoveries" as major faults and rather than spending time to study how it was discovered, what it meant and what corrective actions were being taken (a natural process of development) they used it as a stick to attack the aircraft and its performance. All of that would never have even occured, if we are to believe that everything is going to be covered up and that it is all a big Conspiracy (let's throw in the deep state while we are at it).

Finally, the aircraft's EMD and operational phase safety record does not agree with your assessment either. If we are to believe your unsubstantiated claims that true design defects are being hidden (from everyone BUT you) then how come more than 300 aircraft are flying daily off of ships, from land and more than a dozen air-bases over three continents and these problems are not manifesting at a rate which would indicate systemic flaws which you claim are always covered up? The program is delivering close to 2 aircraft a week, aircraft are flying off of L-class ships in the Persian Gulf, and the Sea of Japan, aircraft are forward deployed in Japan, and are flying in Italy, Israel, Norway and the UK. Israel has flown 2 operational missions and the USMC one. The USAF will likely fly its first operational mission early next year. Yet all with massive hidden design flaws which only you are aware of.

Neshant wrote:As for "professional investigators", the only thing these guys are adept at is looking at requirements, records and logs. They have zero understanding of anything beyond that. Consequently its always a loose nut or tube.


So, If i read your claim above, and take it at face value, I would not be able to find A SINGLE example where professional investigators tasked at looking into a program, incident or safety concern, actually found a major or minor "design flaw".

One doesn't need to be a subject matter expert to dismiss that conclusion. As I pointed out in my earlier comment, investigators in this program alone have found design flaws while investigating incidents, mishaps or during testing. One need not look outside to disprove that BS conclusion.

The fact of the matter is that the current global F-35 fleet is larger than, for example, the Rafale, the F-22, or the Gripen fleet. In fact, it is fast approaching the size of the Eurofighter fleet. One aircraft is currently being delivered every 3 days so in a short amount of time the cumulative fleet size will outgrow most 4.5 generation programs. Once you have that many aircraft flying daily, some will crash or have some other form of emergency.

Most reasonable people will treat this with appropriate degree of attention that the incident deserves..i.e is it a one off thing, is it a pattern etc etc. Others will shout "Cover up" regardless of what happens.

Perhaps you think that when an aircraft crashes and the investigators find the root cause then they by default hide the true root cause. Just out of curiosity, is this your attitude towards everything or just this? Just trying to see whether you go through your spiel of being "from the industry..." to know that when aircraft crash, then its always a covered up design defect that is the culprit.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1599
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Manish_P » 14 Oct 2018 12:47

Ma Nature has been harsh on all gens

Tyndall Air Force Base In Ruins After Michael, Fighter Jets Seen Inside Roofless Hangars

Yesterday, we reported that Tyndall Air Force Base—the home of F-22 training and the USAF's full-scale aerial target program—took a direct hit from Hurricane Michael, with its eye passing right overhead. Now we are seeing just how bad the damage is and it is downright horrific.


Official reports state that the damage done to the critical base is very widespread and severe, with virtually every structure on the installation having some level of roof damage, most of which is extreme. Water, sewer, and power are totally knocked out and will be for the foreseeable future.

Maybe what's most concerning is that it looks as if aircraft packed into the base's large hangars were left open to the elements after their roofs were torn away during Michael's onslaught. And all that debris went positively everywhere, turning pretty much any innocuous object into a missile.


Many F-22s, T-38s, and QF-16s, as well as other aircraft that call the base home, were able to escape to areas unaffected by the storm, but some were also left behind because they were not capable of flight. Major damage to F-22s, which have become something akin to priceless treasures within the USAF due to the fact that only about 187 of them exist, in particular, would be most troubling. Three of the stealth super-fighters have already been damaged during landing incidents in just the last six months.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1599
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Manish_P » 14 Oct 2018 13:00

They sure know how to make headlines

Army Building 1,000-Mile Supergun

Why is the Army confident it can build a Strategic Long-Range Cannon to shoot with precision more than one thousand miles? Because the superweapon will be essentially supersizing proven technologies found in the existing 155 mm howitzer and rocket-boosted artillery shells from the 1980s.

“I don’t want to oversimplify, (but) it’s a bigger one of those,” Col. John Rafferty told reporters here. “We’re scaling up things that we’re already doing.”


Image

How much bigger are we talking about? Will it just look like a scaled-up M109 Paladin howitzer, I asked, or more like a World War II railroad cannon, or even Saddam Hussein’s infamous never-finished “supergun“?

It’ll be “pretty big,” one of Rafferty’s officers said, but it’ll be “mobile” — or, he added after a pause, at least “movable.”

“Relocatable,” another officer suggested.


The Strategic Long-Range Cannon (SLRC) would probably be the shorter-ranged of the two, according to at least one reliable report, at about 1,000 miles. It would use a cannon barrel to launch artillery shells with built-in rocket boosters that ignite in mid-air. Since the cannon is reusable, this should be significantly cheaper than using one-shot rockets for every phase of flight. Lower price for shot, in turn, allows the Army to take out large numbers of lightly protected targets: truck-borne missile launchers, radar antennas, and mobile command posts, for example.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63631
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Singha » 14 Oct 2018 17:22

in the end only one base in the center of US will be required. everything from global strike unmanned platforms to hand grenades with ICBM range will be fired efficiently from there :)

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 14 Oct 2018 19:02

Manish_P wrote:Ma Nature has been harsh on all gens


Tyndall AFB's shelters were designed for Cat. 3 storms. Unfortunately for the folks there, and the people in the region, Micheal turned out to be 2 miles per hour shy of a Category 5 and the base was smack in the middle of it all. Preliminary assessment points to something like a dozen F-22's there that are damaged with some likely to be put in long term storage indefinitely. It is a critical base for the USAF adjacent to one of its largest ranges which is why they put an F-22 training unit there. Most of the damaged raptors would not have been combat coded so this may be a good opportunity for them to invest in not only getting them back up on their feet but to also upgrade them so that they can serve both an operational and training role. But once you factor in the damage to the aircraft and the extent of damage to the base itself this is a major expense and will require a lot of time to rebuild.

Manish_P wrote:
Image



That Hypersonic Missile mentioned in the far right will likely be just a scaled down version of the 2000+ miles/3400 km Hypersonic Boost Glide system that the US Navy successfully tested last October (Flight Experiment 01/linked below). Specifically, it will most likely feature the same guidance section, boost glide warhead but could potentially feature a different propulsion stack. DARPA is putting something together under "Operations Fires" for demo shortly so the US Army can choose between either depending upon how mobile they want this missile to be or if they are willing to wait a couple of extra years for a new rocket motor to be put through the paces.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7088&p=2227441#p2227306

The Pentagon successfully demonstrated a hypersonic glide vehicle Oct. 30, lofting an experimental payload on a rocket from Hawaii that -- during its ultra-fast, unpowered flight to the Marshall Islands across the upper reaches of the atmosphere over the Pacific Ocean -- verified technological advances relevant to a potential future U.S. military hypersonic strike system.

The event -- dubbed Flight Experiment-1 -- was a high-stakes assessment three years in the making by the Defense Department's Conventional Prompt Strike program and comes six years after the last successful U.S. military flight demonstration of a hypersonic boost-glide vehicle.

Vice Adm. Terry Benedict, head of the Navy's Strategic System Programs office, which executed the test, declared the event a “success” during remarks at a Nov. 2 Navy Submarine League Conference in Arlington, VA......

“What I can tell you at this [unclassified] level is we matured a number of the technologies that have relevance in associating capabilities in what a warfighter might need in a future operational capability,” Weatherington told Inside Defense.

“We are assessing the results of the test,” he said during a Nov. 2 interview at the Pentagon. “Generally, I will say, we were mostly satisfied with the results.” He declined to say how fast the glider traveled or anything about its trajectory, but noted the payload took less than 30 minutes to reach its target.

“The specific flight objectives are classified, and the department is assessing the data to discern if we met those flight objectives,” Weatherington said.

Last year, however, the Office of the Secretary of Defense told lawmakers the objectives for FE-1 included a first-ever live warhead integration with hypersonic glider, demonstrating flight control software improvements, higher G-loads while maneuvering, advanced avionics, miniaturization of subsystems and improved guidance algorithms.

Did the Defense Department integrate a warhead on the hypersonic glider in FE-1?

“I have no comment,” Weatherington said.


Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1599
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Manish_P » 14 Oct 2018 21:09

My interest in that post was the ultra long range artillery gun (if it can be called that).

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 14 Oct 2018 21:19

Yes the strategic fires cannon is something that they just received a green light to go ahead and begin doing the S&T on. However, as far as time frames are concerned, the ops fires missile (1400 mile hypersonic missile) will come into the picture earlier.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1599
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Manish_P » 14 Oct 2018 21:58

Will be very interested to see it's progress. Do share if any interesting tidbits come your way. Artillery is way up there in my interest pyramid of Mil related disciplines.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 14 Oct 2018 22:01

It is going to be a long time before you hear or see anything on that front. This is very much a 2030 time-frame program.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1599
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Manish_P » 14 Oct 2018 22:27

Ah. Well i hope to be around (might require some lifestyle changes). Also hoping that the fascinating program doesn't get canceled..

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 17 Oct 2018 16:10

Raytheon adds GaN to GEM-T to improve reliability; Jane's Missiles & Rockets; October 2018

Raytheon announced it will begin using gallium nitride (GaN) computer chips in new production Guidance Enhanced Missile-TBM (GEM-T) interceptors to replace travelling waveform tubes (TWT) currently used in the missile’s transmitter.

By upgrading GEM-T’s transmitter with GaN chips, Raytheon expects to see improved reliability and efficiency with the interceptor. Additionally, transitioning to GaN in new production missiles will mean the transmitters will not need to be replaced for the life of the interceptor, Bob Kelley, a senior manager at Raytheon IDS, told Jane’s on 8 October at the annual Association of the United States Army (AUSA) symposium in Washington, DC.

Additionally, because of the power efficiency in GaN, users will get a missile that can go from cold status to ready-to-fire status quicker. Additionally, the GaN chip will not require additional cooling.

The transmitter connects the missile with the ground system, enabling it to control the weapon during flight. The GaN version in GEM-T uses solid state instead of the conventional travelling wave tube design, which requires a supply of parts and recertification to match the life of the missile, Raytheon said.

GEM-T has a 45-year life span and requires recertification once during that period. As part of the recertification process the transmitter is swapped out, replacing the TWT unit with a GaN chip.

Raytheon is installing the upgraded transmitters currently and testing will begin soon, Kelley said. Right now, the company is doing ground-based laboratory testing.

“There is a plan for a live missile flight test – that should be coming up in the near term,” he said.

Raytheon is building the GaN chip to the same form, fit, and function as TWT. Additionally, the company will produce the GaN chips in its government-certified foundry in Massachusetts.

“We make GaN chips in multiple bands for multiple different radars with multiple different purposes,” Kelley said.

The GaN chip for GEM-T is a C-band chip, he added.



brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 23 Oct 2018 04:53

EURONAVAL 2018: RAYTHEON SM-2 CONTINUES TO EXPAND PORTFOLIO



Raytheon’s Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) continues to expand its portfolio in terms of capabilities and customer nations which are using the missile as a fleet-area defense weapon, providing anti-air warfare and limited anti-surface warfare capability against today’s advanced anti-ship missiles and aircraft out to 90 nautical miles and an altitude of 65,000 ft (20km).

The baseline technology is mature and evolving, enabled by more than 2,700 successful firings as this article was submitted.

John McClintock, Raytheon’s Standard Missile 2 Acting Program Director, noted the current SM-2 production run is providing 282 missiles to four international customers. “There are a mix of IIIA and IIIB missiles in this total. First deliveries of this run are scheduled for 2020. The specific delivery schedule is the purview of the US Navy,” the weapon sector expert added.

Raytheon’s industry team members for this run include Aerojet, GD-OTS, Honeywell, Kaman, L3, Raloid and Thales Nederland.
Mr McClintock differentiated between the current Block III A and B missiles in build, noting whereas Block IIIA and IIIB have the same range, altitude and speed capabilities, “the IIIB has an IR seeker which enhances capabilities during homing phase.”

Last December, the US Navy stated its intention for Raytheon to engineer and develop an active seeker to the missile, forming the SM-2 Block IIIC. Mr. McClintock provided on update on Block IIIC, noting, “the US Navy has stated its intent to provide an active seeker capability to SM-2. The US Navy and Raytheon team have already initiated work on this effort. Per usual, it is expected that Raytheon will have industry partners.”

Current SM-2 nations are Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, Spain and Taiwan. This July, the US State Department notified the US Congress of a proposed Foreign Military Sale to Denmark of up to 46 Standard Missile, SM-2 Block IIIA All-Up Rounds.


ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1469
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby ArjunPandit » 23 Oct 2018 19:02

Now that we're part of mtcr, cant we sell them our pencil IRBMs?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 23 Oct 2018 22:25

I don't think they will look into IRBMs per say but more on getting the GLCM back (either TLAM or JASSMXR). Intermediate ranged fires on the high speed side will simply be Operations Fires with the Common Boost Glide system being developed with the Navy which has already been demonstrated at >3000 km range.

On the SRBM side they will likely now introduce a PrSM-ER in the 500-1000 km range from the notional range of 499 km of version 1.Others have brought up the "son of Pershing-II" which I guess cannot be ruled out, but I doubt they will look to put out strategic systems at those ranges (from land). A TBG system in the IRBM class would be a worthy conventional son of PII given what that system was able to demonstrate for its time.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36074
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby SaiK » 24 Oct 2018 11:16

At the same time, Hostage made it clear that the F-35 is not the plane to send in for hot dogfights. It is, instead, the first US aircraft built specifically for taking out advanced Integrated Air Defense Systems (IADS) such as the Russian S-300 and S-400. The plane that would lead the way to take out enemy fighters in close-up battles would be the F-22.

https://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/f-1 ... whos-best/

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 24 Oct 2018 16:00

SaiK wrote:At the same time, Hostage made it clear that the F-35 is not the plane to send in for hot dogfights. It is, instead, the first US aircraft built specifically for taking out advanced Integrated Air Defense Systems (IADS) such as the Russian S-300 and S-400. The plane that would lead the way to take out enemy fighters in close-up battles would be the F-22.

https://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/f-1 ... whos-best/


I believe that Mike Hostage interview was a watershed moment in that prior to it, no one in the USAF (let alone the senior most officer at the Air Combat Command) was willing to openly talk about the Cyber Electronic Warfare (CEW) and Electronic Attack side of things on the F-35 even though it had been nearly a decade since the USAF fielded some form of that capability on the F-16 CJs (Project Suter).

F-22 was designed specifically for Air-Superiority. Its residual A2G capability, though useful, is limited (1000 lb JDAM or SDB-I). The fact that only about 120 or so F-22s are combat coded basically limits how much of that capability they can enhance. You simply need those for the A2A role.

The F-35 was designed as a multi-role platform specifically against the IADS threat. Its networked nature, sensor capability, EW/EA and the payload is tailored more to that mission. Moreover, at its peak production, between the USAF and the Department of the Navy, they are buying as many (or more) F-35's annually as the entire combat coded F-22 fleet. That said, it is really a "team" mission so it is just not the F-22 in Air Superiority, and it is just not the F-35 in Anti A2AD or SEAD. It requires a combination of platforms and techniques/tactics. The system of systems approach is what is leading down to the Loyal-Wingman and other efforts which is actually relevant just now because it seems that the USAF has awarded Kratos a contract for the first few UAVs/UCAVs beyond the test units it had ordered earlier:

Kratos Wins New Production Order For Secret UAS


Kratos Defense and Security Solutions will deliver six unmanned air systems of an undisclosed type for an unnamed, “national security” customer, the company said.
The contract award announced earlier this month adds to a string of similar announcements this year by the San Diego-based manufacturer of jet-powered UAS and target drones.

“The recurring orders that we receive for our systems continues to reinforce our ability to satisfy these requirements,” said Steve Fendley, president of Kratos’s Unmanned Systems Division (KUSD).

In addition to delivering target drones, Kratos is also the designer of the XQ-58A, a UAS developed for testing by the Air Force Research Laboratory as an unmanned “wingman” to a manned fighter.

Last January, Kratos announced it had received a $23 million production award for new “high performance, jet-powered unmanned aerial drone systems which have been under development.”

That Jan. 8 announcement described the award as the first of several annual production contracts for such a vehicle.

Kratos officials were not immediately available to discuss the latest contract award.


The XQ-58A is actually expected to fly shortly (in the next few weeks)

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 24 Oct 2018 19:51

Rishi_Tri wrote:Why would one want to develop Artillery with range greater than that of MBRLs. As it is such high range artillery are sort of hybrids of MBRLs and Artillery. MBRLs are way more agile, have more impactful barrage, offer broad ranges, and modern MBRLs are very accurate. Is it the cost?


For many reasons. One of them being that MBRLs are themselves getting range extension to take them beyond 150 km. In the US context, they deploy with a very long logistical chain and anytime they can get more with their existing systems, they reduce their logistical burden. Think of the recent deployment of US Marine Artillery systems to Syria. They took a few guns, likely deployed them via a helicopter and put them down range while supporting them using their CH53s or V-22s.

Going forward, they can do this a little better (CH53K, V22 and FVL) while also being able to sling load things like 300 km surveillance (by end of this year) radars and its C2 system and deploy if they need to set up air-surveillance for counter battery stuff as well. The ability to go after targets at 100km range right now would require the Marines to GMLRS which means they would somehow need to get a HIMARS into the region which introduces logistical burdens and those logistical chains need protecting. Same when you go and support these units..Not only do you need to constantly supply support and ammo to those M777s but also need to support GMLRS units. You can avoid this if your target set needs can be satisfied by long range artillery systems.

Same applies to getting ranges with GMLRS which prior to this would have required an SRBM which is not only the more expensive option but is also more expensive from a logistical point of view.

Finally, they want to have better survivability and lethality compared to their peer threats because they realize that they will always fight "away" battles and will likely be outgunned and out numbered so they need this qualitative advantage.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 25 Oct 2018 06:31


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 25 Oct 2018 07:01

The upgraded Javelin Command Launch Unit (CLU) expected to enter production in 2019/2020. Besides the CLU, The G variant Javelin will also get a new seeker

Image

The technology behind the Javelin Lightweight CLU reduces the weight of the system by 50 percent and decreases the overall size by 35 percent while providing equal or greater detection, recognition and identification performance than the current Javelin CLU. AMRDEC’s investments in critical technologies provide the capabilities to reduce Soldier load, greater force protection to ensure survivability, and persistent surveillance and acquisition to enable battlefield dominance. A smaller infrared target acquisition sensor provides increased detection, recognition and identification performance, and advanced composite and foam materials used in the CLU housing improve strength, thermal management and shock absorption. Production is planned for FY20. (Figure courtesy of AMRDEC)



The LWCLU prototype was completed in mid-2017 for initial user and engineering evaluation. A spokesperson for Lockheed Martin had previously told Jane’s that “in addition to reducing CLU weight by an estimated 1.9 kg, the LWCLU will also integrate an enhanced user interface that will feature a high-definition day and IR [infrared] camera and a high-resolution display.”..It is expected that the new production missiles would be of FGM-148F standard and configured for the multi-purpose warhead (MPWH).

The warhead, developed through the Javelin Spiral 2 improvement programme, had completed system qualification and flight testing in June 2017. The Lockheed Martin spokesperson said: “The fragmenting shaped charge warhead and new missile software together provide an estimated [greater than] 50% increase in lethality against alternate targets while continuing to exceed all hard armour requirements.”..The G-model will feature an uncooled seeker in the guidance section and will include a new launch tube assembly and battery unit.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36074
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby SaiK » 25 Oct 2018 08:27

Long Wave infrared + sensor fusion = weapon tracking anti-stealth
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/10/l ... ealth.html

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 25 Oct 2018 15:58

^ That exercise focused on using distributed LWIR IRSTs and high speed networking in order to be able to target in areas where there is intense jamming and radar performance is severely degraded. Leave it to a third rate click bait website to totally flip the context in order to get hits. High bandwidth/low latency communication, Passive detection and tracking, and sensor fusion is what the F-22 and F-35 use as well to detect and the only differences between what the F-35 does and what the F-18 block III will do (and what the Growler does now) is that the F-35 will use a dedicated LPI data-link while the F-18/EA-18 will not (TTINT). Again, this is in addition to highly capable radars which are still your best sensor on the aircraft.

More here - viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7088&start=880#p2296016

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 27 Oct 2018 21:45

Singha wrote:brar sahib will know the intricate details, but usaf is working on two fronts
- a LR AAM that can tackle ac and cruise missiles - called T3 triple target eliminator => replace the aim120C/D
- a small (50% size of amraam) SACM thing designed to HTK inbound large AAMs + act as a wvr aam => use a small cheap agile missile to take out AAMs than rely only on a/c countermeasures to evade...this is a defensive weapon ... large AAMs using boost and dive tactics will follow predictable path centered on the movement of the target a.c to shape their path....the target a.c being the SACM shooter will hence lead the dance and reply back with a shot :D

designed to work with internal carriage from 5th gen platforms, cost and complexity will be on a no-objection basis

in ECM, khan was always the best.


Those are different programs. The Triple Target Terminator (T3) concluded with Boeing and Raytheon each demonstrating their solutions for a faster and longer ranged weapon than the Aim-120D back in late 2014. On the propulsion side, one team demonstrated Aerojet's VFDR motor, and the other a multi-pulse rocket motor likely from Orbital ATK (Northrop Grumman).

At the moment, the USAF has 4 tracks :

- LREW - Long Range Engagement Weapon which is a follow on to the T3
- Small Advanced Capabilities Missile for A2A and Cruise Missile Defense
- Miniature Self Defense Munition - For defending against SAMs and A2A missiles
- Directed Energy Self Defense (and offensive) capability

The First is being worked upon by Raytheon, the second by Raytheon and Lockheed (CUDA) the third by Raytheon and the fourth by a AF labs and most OEMs in that space.

All four are complementary to the AMRAAM. I don't think there will be a push to replace the Aim-9. They will instead go for just one type of short and medium ranged weapon, and Long Range weapon. 2024 is the last year the US buys the AMRAAM. In total, more than 20,000 missiles have been produced and I don't think the USAF has ever gone a single year without buying an A2A missiles since the first one was acquired decades ago. So one or few of these will have to be in production then. A2A weapons are one of the most secretive development aspects of the USAF S&T and R&D accounts so very little is known.

Link to Boeing announcement of its T3 flight tests :

Davis also disclosed that the Phantoms had conducted four flight tests under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's Triple Target Terminator (T3) program. The test vehicles, about the size of an AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile, flew "faster and farther" than an Amraam, Davis said, but he did not provide any other details. LINK


Aerojet supplied propulsion to at least one of the two teams for these demonstrations :

We maintain key positions on ground-breaking government hypersonic propulsion demonstration programs such as the Triple Target Terminator (“T3”) program, which successfully demonstrated breakthroughs in innovative technologies related to variable flow ducted rocket ramjet. LINK


It is very tempting to look at seekers with X Y Z. However, there are far more stressing targets that take care of the seeker development but what is going to be an area of high investment and technology bets will be around fusion, missile-missile and missile-aircraft communication and cooperative targeting. Just slapping an AESA seeker on a long range motor doesn't get you where you want to be..you really have to find better ways to detect, track and target under a very dense EW environment against low-observable targets and within a fairly tight cost because you still have to buy these missiles in the thousands.
Last edited by brar_w on 27 Oct 2018 23:07, edited 2 times in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 27 Oct 2018 22:59

U.S. Successfully Conducts SM-3 Block IIA Intercept Test


The U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA), and U.S. Navy sailors aboard USS John Finn (DDG-113) successfully conducted an intercept of a medium-range ballistic missile target with a Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA missile during a flight test off the west coast of Hawaii.

The SM-3 Block IIA is being developed cooperatively by the U.S. and Japan and operates as part of the AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense system.

On October 26, 2018, the target missile was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility at Kauai, Hawaii. The USS John Finn (DDG-113) detected and tracked the target missile with its onboard AN/SPY-1 radar using the Aegis Baseline 9.C2 weapon system. Upon acquiring and tracking the target, the ship launched an SM-3 Block IIA guided missile which intercepted the target.

“This was a superb accomplishment and key milestone for the SM-3 Block IIA return to flight,” said MDA Director Lt. Gen. Sam Greaves. “My congratulations to the entire team, including our sailors, industry partners, and allies who helped achieve this milestone.”

Based on observations and initial data review, the test met its objectives. Program officials will continue to evaluate system performance.

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense is the naval component of the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense System. The MDA and the U.S. Navy cooperatively manage the Aegis BMD program. The Missile Defense Agency's mission is to develop and deploy a layered Ballistic Missile Defense System to defend the U.S., its deployed forces, allies and friends from ballistic missile attacks of all ranges in all phases of flight.





Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1599
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Manish_P » 28 Oct 2018 11:52

Boeing Is Developing A New High-Speed Apache Gunship With A Pusher Prop On Its Tail

Image

Boeing has revealed that it is testing a compound helicopter derivative of its AH-64E Apache Guardian that would be faster, have longer range, and be more fuel efficient than existing gunships. The announcement comes as the Army is exploring the possibility of a new attack and reconnaissance rotorcraft and amid reports that the service may need to dramatically upgrade its existing Apaches to keep them capable and relevant until the armed versions of whatever design wins the Future Vertical Lift competition reach full operational capability.

Jane’s 360 was among the first to report the details about the new helicopter development, which Boeing is presently calling the AH-64E Block 2 Compound. The gunship will feature an enlarged main wing, revised engine exhaust arrangement, large vertical tail fin, and a rear-mounted pusher propeller. The design may also feature a new, rigid rotor system, which is a standard feature on other compound helicopter designs.

Boeing estimates that the revised configuration will give the helicopter 50 percent more speed and range and allow it to be 24 percent more fuel efficient during flight, according to Jane’s. The current AH-64E has a top speed in level flight of more than 170 miles per hour and has a range of around 300 miles. If the AH-64E Block 2 Compound does get a 50 percent boost in top speed over the standard Apache Guardian, it could be traveling at more than 250 miles per hour.

An Apache-derived platform would present a lower-risk option when compared to newer, clean-sheet designs such as the Sikorsky S-97 Raider. The compound AH-64 would also have at least some commonality with the Army's existing Apaches, which would allow the service to make use of existing maintenance and logistics pipelines to some degree, and could make Boeing's offering even more attractive. This is especially true when it comes to receiving funding from Congress.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 28 Oct 2018 23:43

^^The author's analysis is not accurate. The AH-64, or any potential future variant of it does not compete with the S-97 Raider, which one would assume that Lockheed/Sikorsky would offer for the future reconnaissance helicopter program (that the US Army just announced a few weeks ago) which is a completely different category largely seen as a recapitalization of the OH-58 capability along with some enhancements on the attack side. They aren't going to replace that with a Heavy Attack helicopter.

What he likely meant was that yet another AH-64 upgrade might be a substitute for, or might move to the right, plans for the heavy attack helicopter side of the Future vertical lift effort. That is a possibility but from what I can tell the US Army is interested in going after a new reconnaissance helicopter first, followed by a blackhawk replacement and then potentially look at another heavy attack helo. The US Army is going to be fielding the AH-64 E Version 6 by mid 2020s so it is quite likely that there could be a V7 or 8 beyond that though I do not think they will go for such a dramatic re-design at this late stage of the program.

Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63631
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Singha » 29 Oct 2018 07:56

looks like everything will end up on the KA52-mki template .... a hybrid of a fixed and rotary wing ... add pusher props for more speed.

the age of the hinds and apaches pulls to a close.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 29 Oct 2018 15:58

The SB>1/S-97/X-1 lineage at Sikorsky goes back to the early 1970's and the company's work on the S-69 which was able to demonstrate level flight at speeds exceeding 230 knots and speeds exceeding 250 knots during shallow dive.



There was an interesting article on it many years ago parts of which are below (I don't have a link to it anymore but these are the excerpts that I had saved):

The second project I worked on was called the Advancing Blade Concept (ABC) helicopter, and it did get to fly. All existing Sikorsky helicopters from the tiny VS-300 to the giant S-64 and CH-53 used a single main rotor for lift and propulsion and a smaller tail rotor to react the torque of the main rotor and to control yaw. All of our main rotors used articulated heads; each blade was hinged at the root, allowing it to flap vertically and to lead and lag in the horizontal plane.

The ABC was quite different: it eliminated the tail rotor and employed two, three-bladed, coaxial, counter-rotating, rigid rotors. Its small rotor heads did not hinge the blades to flap or lead/lag. While the blade roots, rotor heads, shafts and bearings did see increased reactions, the fuselage did not experience many of them, since opposing forces from the two rotors balanced one another out. But depending on how the rotors were phased, either a strong 3/rev blade-passage rolling or pitching moment would reach the fuselage. Having the blades cross over the nose cancelled the third harmonic pitching moment, and a hydraulic/pneumatic roll-direction active isolation system filtered out the resulting 3/rev rolling moments. The ABC became the S-69 and first flew on July 26, 1973. It was a sleek looking two-place craft of 12,500 pounds gross weight with 36-footdiameter rotors.

Mr. Sikorsky did not live to see the S-69 fly, but I think he would have liked it. In a sense, the coaxial three-bladed rotors would take his design life full circle. The first helicopter he designed and built in 1909 (at age 19 in Kiev, Ukraine) had the same configuration. The Si didn't fly - its 15 horsepower Anzani motorcycle engine could not produce enough lift. But his 25 HP S2 of 1910 did lift itself, though not with a pilot. Mr. Sikorsky put his development of a vertical takeoff machine off for 28 years, but he never let that dream die.


The SB>1 will fly soon, possibly late 2018 or early 2019. Recently, a reporter asked Lockheed what the holdup was given that the V-280 has been flying for 10+ months and has almost demonstrated its entire speed envelope by now:

Even if first flight slips to 2019, Boeing and Sikorsky say, they’ll have plenty of time to get the Army all the test data it needs to make its decision on what to buy. “We’ll give them that data, whether it’s in December or some later date,” said Sikorsky’s FVL director, Rich Koucheravy. (Sikorsky is part of Lockheed Martin).

In fact, the SB>1 Defiant team is already providing data to the Army’s Aviation & Missile Research, Development & Engineering Center, every day. “We have AMRDEC representatives in our daily and weekly meetings,” Koucheravy told me. “We share with them everything that we can.”So what does the program have to share today? It’s simulations, components on test stands, and a full-scale aircraft “bolted to the ground,” Koucheravy said. This Powertrain System Test Bed (PSTB) lets them run the engines at their full “combined 9,000 shaft horsepower,” he told me, and see how all the components hold up without risking a crash should something fail. What the test bed lacks is landing gear and flight controls — since it can’t go anywhere — and, for the moment, rotor blades.


Those rotors have been the biggest holdup for the SB>1. That’s partly because the design requires extremely rigid materials to control vibration, partly because the Army asked Boeing to try out a new manufacturing technique, called automated fiber placement. It would actually have been faster to do this first set of blades by hand, Rotte told me. But while mastering automated manufacturing took longer than planned, he said, it’ll pay off later in more efficient production — that is, if the Army decides to buy SB>1s in bulk. As of now, Rotte said, the first blades are on hand and about to be installed on the static testbed for their first real workout.

The challenge ahead? While Sikorsky’s earlier, smaller X-2 and S-97 Raider aircraft used the same basic design, called a compound helicopter, the SB>1 scales the technology up to an unprecedented size. That means vibration, airflow, and other dynamics may change in ways the models don’t predict.

“This is about a 30,000-pound-plus aircraft,” Koucheravy said. “There has never been a compound helicopter at this size, flying 230, 240, 250 knots and having to maneuver.”

If you boil all their arguments down, Sikorsky and Boeing are saying that their aircraft is taking longer than Bell’s because their design is more inventive — harder, riskier, and more time-consuming, yes, but ultimately better. In particular, while the SB>1 looks like it’ll be a little slower than the V-280, going by the companies’ projections for top speed, Sikorsky and Boeing say their machine will be much more maneuverable...

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10/sb1 ... ky-boeing/


Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 30 Oct 2018 17:16

Part 2 of the Next Generation Jammer has selected 2 finalists who will now develop and demonstrate their solutions over the next 20 or so months before one is selected. Raytheon's pods meanwhile are progressing along with the second wave of trials with active jamming having concluded late last year. Based on the two sets of trials with a fully populated pod, they are now working on putting together their finalized design which should enter flight testing shortly.

L3, Northrop Grumman receive NGJ low-band technology contracts



The DET phase is intended to inform the NAVAIR as to existing technologies supporting an airborne wideband low-frequency (LF) band jamming application where significant size, weight, power, and cooling constraints (SWaP-C) exist. Notable objectives include the demonstration of a low-band transmitter group within the SWaP-C constraints and allocations of a pod concept that fits on Station 6 of the EA-18G, and performance assessments in areas such as frequency coverage, Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP), spatial coverage, spectral purity, and polarisation.

In addition, the DET phase will assess the potential to rapidly deploy an interim pod solution or early operational capability prior to planned initial operational capability, and explore the use of open architectures to support a potential block upgrade approach.

Under a separate activity, Boeing is being contracted by NAVAIR to support the integration of the NGJ-LB onto the EA-18G aircraft. This activity will encompass system-engineering technical review and requirements decomposition, pod analysis, engineering change proposal design, and development and test.

To support the objective of demonstrating mature technologies in a representative environment, the DET phase will include a joint government/contractor test period during which a prototype Technology Demonstration Unit (TDU) will be installed on Station 6 of an F/A-18E (used as a surrogate for the EA-18G) aircraft airframe at the navy’s Patuxent River facility for antenna and radar cross-section measurement. The prototype TDU – the outer mould line of which should be consistent with the contractor’s NGJ-LB pod concept – will be the subject of several demonstrations including full EIRP and antenna pattern measurements.


Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 03 Nov 2018 22:39

US Army awards Raytheon $191 million contract for multi-mission radar


TEWKSBURY, Mass., Nov. 1, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Army awarded Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) a $191 million contract for Ku-band radio frequency radars. KuRFS, an advanced electronically scanned array system, fills an immediate U.S. Army operational need for a counter-unmanned aerial vehicle radar. Already deployed, KuRFS delivers precision fire control as well as "sense and warn" capability for multiple missions including detection of rocket, artillery, mortar and swarming UAS threats.

"Seeing threats – like swarming drones – as soon as possible on the battlefield is essential to protecting critical assets and saving soldiers' lives," said Andrew Hajek, senior director of tactical radars at Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems. "KuRFS makes this possible by delivering a unique combination 360-degree situational awareness, precision and mobility."

KuRFS enables defense against multiple threat types through integration with the Land-Based Phalanx Weapon System, 50-caliber guns and 30 mm cannons. The radar also supports high-energy laser and the Coyote weapon system in both a ground mounted or vehicle mounted configuration.

Raytheon' KuRFS is able to quickly address the urgent needs of the Army through a model of rapid-turn development and deployment. This reduces time to fielding, while providing enhanced flexibility to adapt to a quickly-changing threat environment in the drone space.


Image

Designed and built by Raytheon, KuRFS is an advanced electronically scanned array, or AESA, radar that uses the ku-band frequency for precision tracking. One of its main missions is to provide nonstop surveillance of airborne objects, while another is to sense incoming threats such as rockets, artillery or mortars and warn soldiers so they can take cover.


https://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/kurfs-radar

Kati
BRFite
Posts: 1098
Joined: 27 Jun 1999 11:31
Location: The planet Earth

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Kati » 03 Nov 2018 23:07

Emerging high-tech: Robo-Insect (tiniest drone that uses laser as a fuel feeding system) being developed at the University of Washington

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/02/about-t ... s-off.html

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 04 Nov 2018 08:57


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby brar_w » 04 Nov 2018 19:27

The US Navy is investing in a smaller/scaled version of its SPY-6 Gallium Nitride S-Band Air and Missile Defense Radar for backfitting on existing DDG-51 Flight II destroyers. The radar that is currently installed in Hawaii and New Jersey and will be mounted on the first Flight III Destroyer has 5300 T/R Modules per face while the variant that will backfit and replace SPY-1 on existing Flight IIs will have 3400 T/R Modules per face.

This takes the variants of the SPY-6 to 3 with a rotating and non-rotating 1400 T/R Module EASR in the middle which is headed for USMC's L-Class ships, the next CVN in production (to replace Raytheon's Dual Band Radar), backfitting on Nimitz class CVNs and the next USN Frigate (whichever design is selected).

A brief overview of the SPY-6 variant mission requirements and array configuration is provided as follows:

The Government's planned procurement strategy is to award two contracts: a Leader and a Challenger. The Government intends to award a higher proportion of work to the Leader, exact proportion to be determined. The Challenger would be awarded a smaller proportion of work. The Leader would also retain responsibility and scope for maintaining the hardware TDP and hardware maintenance for fielded SPY-6 units. Notional award date for the FY21-25 production contract is Q3FY21. The contract type will be fixed-price type.


1. AMDR (AN/SPY-6(V)1) is designed to meet mission performance and size, weight, and power - cooling (SWAP-C) requirements of the DDG-51 FLT III ships with AEGIS Baseline 10 (BL 10) combat system. The AMDR S-Band Radar will provide volume search, tracking, Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) discrimination, and missile communications in a wide diversity of environments and conditions. This variant includes 37 Radar Modular Assemblies (RMAs) per array, each which contain independent transmit and receive LRUs and provide SPY +16 dB minimum sensitivity. There are 4 arrays per shipset.


2. AMDR Backfit (designation to be determined) is designed to meet mission performance and SWAP-C requirements of the DDG-51 FLT IIA ships with a variant of AEGIS Baseline 10 (BL 10) combat system, to be defined. The AMDR Backfit Radar will provide volume search, tracking, Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) discrimination, and missile communications in a wide diversity of environments and conditions. This variant includes 24 RMAs per array x 4 arrays per shipset.


3. EASR Rotator (AN/SPY-6(V)2) is designed to meet mission performance and SWAP-C requirements of the Landing Helicopter Assault (LHA 8+) hulls, Landing Platform/Dock (LPD 29+) hulls, and backfit onto CVN (Nimitz) and Landing Helicopter Docking (LHD) hulls. This variant includes a single array on a rotating platform with 9 RMAs.


4. EASR Fixed Face (designation to be determined) is designed to meet mission performance and size, weight, and power - cooling (SWAP-C) requirements of CVN (Ford) class carriers and Future Frigate (FFG(X)). This variant includes 9 RMAs per array and there are 3 arrays per shipset.



Image

Image

There isn't a ship large enough in the current USN inventory to accommodate the large, 18 ft diameter/69 RMA AMDR (first slide) yet but it is widely believed that when the USN picks its Future Large surface combatant in the coming few years, one of the requirements would be to be able to provision enough space, weight and power to support 4 69 RMA arrays along with the new X-Band radar that will also be headed on the DDG Flight IIIs.

AMDR is the largest Military GaN program in the world by annual production/volume required over the baseline (SPY-6) and its offshoots. Raytheon, at its peak, would need to produce in the ballpark of 100,000 T/R modules a year to support all the arrays that go into each delivery.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63631
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Postby Singha » 04 Nov 2018 20:41

What is the point of a 500km tracking if still subject to earth curvature los limit?

At 500km out its radar floor height will be quite high and vlo bogies can still sneak around

The height of the mast mount aint changi

May have some use in tbmd but how so vs sea skimmers and low flying manned platforms ?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests