US military, technology, arms, tactics

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Sep 2015 12:04

i have no idea but is USMC basic training considered harder than the same in the US Army?
what makes a applicant decide between the marines and the army?
army life sounds cushier to me - big camps with all infra and even burger kings shipped into theater vs being stuck on a amhib ship for months.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 16 Sep 2015 12:49

Singha wrote:i have no idea but is USMC basic training considered harder than the same in the US Army?
what makes a applicant decide between the marines and the army?
army life sounds cushier to me - big camps with all infra and even burger kings shipped into theater vs being stuck on a amhib ship for months.

most of the guys just want to prove to themselves that they can do it.

Yes, Army training is easier except for things like paratroops, special forces. Even at that, the mental strain is far more brutal in the Marines, but I may be biased about that......

rkhanna · Post by **rkhanna** » 16 Sep 2015 13:28

The Average US Marine is a far better Infantryman and Rifleman than a US Army Soldier. (Exclude Rangers and SOF elements). I am saying even better than the 82nd. (essentially just Airborne Infantry).

average shooting time / Mock Deployment training a year is far higher for a Marine than a Soldier.

Also keep in Mind that the USMC is the primary expeditionary unit of the worlds only expeditionary Military

rkhanna · Post by **rkhanna** » 16 Sep 2015 13:46

Singha wrote:
I would differ with TSJ here - just like a average male cannot pass the military drills without training, so cannot the average woman. what they intake is above average in strength and agility. now take any bar esp using upper body and anaerobic strength, there will be more men than women who are (a) interested in military service (b) can pass the bar. but does not mean deserving women who make the bar should be left out if at all its desired to level the playing field.

that exercise to throw the bag up 8 feet and then climb the wall, there is a exercise in crossfit gyms where they stand against the wall and throw up a heavy ball, catch it with a squat and then throw up again.

NSFW but look at these ladies, they can surely pass any mil entrance test if they be interested..traditional womens weak points like pull-ups are not an issue with such xfit types
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrzibHZOPts

wall ball: (this should be SFW) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUo2ONp4iGc

do you know how rare those women are? Marine body requirements are by the tens of thousands each year.

To Add to this:
http://sofrep.com/43113/news-roundup-fe ... army-moms/

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Sep 2015 18:40

Report on 2015 YudhAbhyas in US this year.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military ... /32520023/

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 19 Sep 2015 15:23

kit wrote:SDB 2 is on the way .. i kinda remember an article mentioning SDB being not so effective as supposed ?

SDB II achieved milestone C earlier this year so the first deliveries will be expected to the USN by end of this year or early next year. Regardless of its capabilities they are thinking of extending SDBI production because its significantly lower cost and overall performance is adequate for a large number of missions where a tri-mode seeker is not required (such as SEAD) and is an overkill.

The original SDB is now combat proven having been used on multiple occasions and itself has received 2 incremental improvements based on technology maturity and lessons learnt both from operational evaluation and actual combat used. Its a widely exported weapon that SAAB is turning into a ground launch long range system. There is also the SDB-L that uses a laser targeting system fully developed by Boeing but which is not in production for the SDB given the USAF wanted the cheapest weapon in the original SDB.
___

Also to add to my earlier point about the contrast between russia/soviet and US air to ground guided munitions the difference is not as significant as some of the latest AvWeek articles may suggest. The difference appears to be significant if one looks at the F-22 and PAKFA but one must note that the F-22 was the F-15A-C with an F-15E like ground strike variant expected in the future. However, that aside there are plenty of western stand off weapons in development over the next 3-5 years, and over the longer run that are or will be internal bay compatible both with the F-35 and future UAV's.

JSOW-C-1 - 130km range
Future JSOW-Powered - 500+ Km
Joint Strike Missile - 290 Km
Turkish Stand Off Missile - 250+ Km

Anti Radiation Missile : AARGM - ER - 250+ Km Mach 2+

Long term Future weapons -

ARM: Future BVR Weapon
Future JASSM Variant (Lockheed proposed this variant many years ago to be compatible with both the F-22 and F-35, currently there are 2 short term JASSM variants in development, this will most likely follow them in development).

This is on top of miniaturization projects such as those efforts that resulted in the SDB and SDBII and are also going to yield a significantly better 2000 lb bunker buster (with 5000 pound class weapon like capability).

The only contrast that is apparent is that the USAF and USN have huge inventories of quite modern weapons so aren't in a rush to start developing all new weapons quickly but would do this gradually over time as other requirements emerge. The JASSM is a perfect example, the ER was an all important weapon because the B-52's and B-1's required the nearly 1000 km stand off range. The next priority is to convert the JASSM-ER into LRASM in the short term (like next 2-3 years for production deliveries) a JASSM-XR (more range and performance) and develop a nuclear missile out of it in the medium term. Then there is also the JASSM ER variant that replaces the CHAMP high powered microwave weapon and puts that capability in a form factor that more platforms can carry. This also appears to be a short -medium priority. All these variants mean that a smaller warhead 250-300 nautical mile variant of the original JASSM for internal carriage is going to be pushed back because its really not required at this time.

Sweetmann contrasted the F-22 with the PAKFA because he erroneously believed that some folks think that the PAKFA is analogous to the F-22 (even though the weapon bay layouts have been public knowledge for many years)..However the F-22 is not the only western internal bay carriage platform..there would be the F-35, and UCAV's as well and there are plenty of air to ground guided stand off weapons currently in advanced development (or operational) and planned for the future that are going to be options for these platforms. There is however no pressing rush to order or develop SO weapons because the inventories are quite large to begin with.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Sep 2015 16:58

SDB has around 22 kg warhead with 17kg explosive, but we should at least try for warheads with 501-100 kg of explosive in our scenario.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ray ... ion-06510/
By limiting the warhead size, as you note, the dependence on a highly precise CEP increase manifold plus the need for all sorts of additional sensors.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-SDB.html

SDB has quite a few challenges that were required to be overcome to make it work. As the APA article suggests the size and weight makes it suitable for some missions while not for others and that was the point. It complements J series of weapons allowing flexibility in missions where you have large target sets that do not require a lot of power to take out allowing one to optimize payloads and get more targets per sortie.

The next step is to research further into seekers, payloads and data-links to get cost down significantly allowing the next series of weapons to include such seekers to overcome some of the PNT challenges and combine that with an open systems approach making quick changes possible to the seekers. Basically the aim is to scale this from small to medium and heavy sized weapons with the main enabler being further reduction of cost allowing for many times the acquisition amounts given how the inventory is to be replaced over the next 20-30 years.

http://i59.tinypic.com/2irqf84.png

http://defensetech.org/2013/09/12/air-f ... y-upgrade/
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story_prin ... =123454491

This is where others are also be heading and ultimately where even the IAF would head as it matures its own systems, weapon designs and technology. MDBA also has some program to this end and infant may try to get some AFRL funding for its efforts.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 23 Sep 2015 14:47

some of the newer weapons systems being developed say for the SDB may be able to pick out high value moving targets like tanks. this could transfer over to things like ship targeting sea missiles.

The Harpoon simply does not incorporate the advances that have been made in many systems over the last many decades. The USN had no significant blue water surface threat post-cold war and have therefore developed littoral capability at the expense of upgrading its anti-surface capability. They are currently addressing that capability through an interim LRASM and a more longer term anti-surface weapon which will eventually replace the Harpoon. The SDB can strike ships but you really don't want to get into 40 nautical miles to attack a ship and the Pacific is huge and you can't fight wars with 40 nm weapons unfortunately in such a vast theater.

The entire point of a very long range anti-ship option is to significantly threaten the opponent in an asymmetric way when the opponent is likely to out number you at least in some aspects of the pacific closest to it. Its also tough to set up your own 1800 km anti ship weapon because the amount of sea, air and space assets required to get targeting and then the amount of money and capability required to maintain the integrity of networks isn't cheap so China won't be able to field a credible response until it builds all those capabilities which will take time. In case of the USN--USAF, the P-8A, MQ-4C, RQ-180, Space assets and the LRS-B (which is rumored to have a maritime capability) tied by NIFCCA would provide fairly robust capability to do targeting. The tough portion is to develop a weapon that can still perform its task without all this in a degraded environment...The LRASM does this because DARPA spent years developing the seeker and the autonomy, the Tomahawk would have to incorporate many of these features as well over time and of course you could always increase the size of the JASSM-ER to the JASSM-XR and get nearly a 800 nautical mile range out of it.

The charm of a 1000+ km weapon is that you can field it quite rapidly. The LRASM currently is based on the JASSM-ER that starts off with a 500nm range (LRASM range will most likely be in the 250-350 nautical mile range) but the XR can up that by another 40% or so.. The T Hawk is already operational and thousands are in the inventory...you can fairly rapidly field such a capability fleet wide without significant expense. Long term anti-ship weapons are in the works but the enabler technologies will take time. Technologies such as high speed turbine for mach 3+ flight and even scramjet based hypersonic. On a size and weight category the USN made a call not to trade range for speed so they won't go in for a high supersonic option until they get the sort of ranges they like and that means waiting for this to mature ...-

Turbine Engine Could Pave Way For Supersonic Cruise Missiles

Developers hope to ground test a turbine engine at Mach 3.2 in the coming months, paving the way for long-range supersonic cruise missiles as well as potentially laying the foundation for a viable combined-cycle hypersonic propulsion system.

Testing of high-speed engines is being conducted separately by Rolls-Royce Liberty Works and Williams International under the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory’s (AFRL) supersonic turbine engine for long-range (Stelr) program. A follow-on effort to the joint AFRL and Darpa (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) high-speed turbine engine demonstration (Histed) program, Stelr is targeted at the development of Mach 3-plus weapons and vehicles. These include long-range standoff missiles, air-launched cruise missiles, unmanned air vehicles and advanced cruise missiles capable of sustaining flight at maximum Mach number for 1 hr.

Rolls-Royce’s Stelr engine has already operated for “more than two hours at Mach 2-2.5, and will run up to Mach 3.2 in the next few months,” says John Kusnierek, director of business development and strategy for the company’s Liberty Works unit. Although Rolls has applied lessons learned on its Histed engine, the YJ102R, to the Stelr project, Kusnierek emphasizes the newest development “is not the same engine.”

Speaking to Aviation Week at the Air Force Association convention in Washington, Kusnierek explained that although the Stelr engine is designed for a lower Mach number than the YJ102R, it has longer endurance. The engine has been developed to “run at Mach 2-3.2 continuously.” The design mission is to operate for 1 hr. at speeds up to Mach 3.2, or sufficient to provide a range of more than 2,000 mi. The same system would also, therefore, have the ability to fly 1,000 mi. in 30 min., which is a “capability of interest,” he adds.

Displayed in mockup form at AFA, the engine is similar in size to the YJ102R, which was earmarked for the canceled Lockheed Martin revolutionary approach to time-critical long-range strike (Rattlrs) missile flight demonstrator. Just like YJ102R, the Stelr is nonafterburning, providing longer range at supersonic speed. “At Mach 3.2 the inlet air temperature is 800F, so there is a lot of materials technology in the engine,” says Kusnierek.

Although designed for expendable weapons, the engine’s baseline durability could make it useful for wider, reusable roles. “The need to have enough life to qualify the engine means it can be reusable, so it could probably do 50 missions in an ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] role,” he adds.

Beyond supersonic missiles, Stelr also offers new hope for developers of hypersonic engines. Stelr technology could provide the missing piece of the puzzle for engine-makers looking to close the gap between turbines and high-speed dual-mode supersonic combustion ramjets/scramjets for hypersonic flight. “It fills the niche between subsonic and hypersonic propulsion. There is no companion vehicle program. It is a chicken and egg situation, no one can design a missile until there is an engine, so first we have to demonstrate the engine,” Kusnierek says.

Stelr is one of three active Air Force and NASA high-speed propulsion efforts underway to support development of reusable turbine-based combined-
cycle (TBCC) engines. In these propulsion systems a turbine engine would provide the power from takeoff to Mach 4, with a ramjet/scramjet taking over for higher-speed flight. Speaking at the AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonics Systems and Technologies Conference in July, Darpa deputy director Steven Walker says Stelr “would enable state-of-the-art ramjet takeover.” The program has “identified four turbine engine options and completed vehicle synthesis for each,” he adds.

Companion efforts include AFRL’s medium-scale critical components (MSCC) program, which is exploring first generation, larger-scale scramjet engine characteristics beyond those of the pioneering X-51A hypersonic demonstrator, which last flew in 2013. Designed to evaluate engines with 10 times the airflow rate, performance, operability and thermal management capabilities of the X-51, the MSCC “will test takeover, acceleration and cruise conditions,” says Walker. The Air Force’s Aerodynamic and Propulsion Test Unit at the Arnold Engineering Development Center in Tennessee, has been modified to conduct the first direct connect tests of these larger scramjet engines, and calibration testing began in July. Combustor testing will begin at the site in February 2016.

NASA, supported by funding from AFRL and Darpa, has meanwhile been testing a large-model TBCC under the combined-cycle large-scale inlet mode transition (CCE-LIMX) program. Conducted in the 10 X 10-ft. wind tunnel at NASA Glenn Research Center in Ohio, the test unit consists of a high-Mach turbine simulator or engine paired with a scramjet simulator. A modified Williams WJ38-15 turbojet, similar in size to the company’s XTE88 Histed engine, was made available for the tests, though it was limited to Mach 3. Flow to the engines, depending on the operating speed and mode, is controlled via a set of low- and high-speed ramps and flowpaths.

The initial phases of the program focused on inlet performance and stability at Mach 4, which took up 95% of the early testing. Mode transition schedules were developed during tests in 2011-12, and a Mach 3 bleed configuration was created to help solve a high steady state distortion that was discovered at Mach 3. The goal of the latest phase was to focus on smooth and stable mode transition at Mach 3 and test a closed-loop inlet control system in the process. Walker says the program completed system identification of inlet dynamics for development of controls algorithms and “successfully demonstrated a fully autonomous mode transition with no unstarts.” This latest phase of testing was completed in May.

Stelr is also one of the propulsion options included in a NASA-funded Lockheed Martin study in support of the proposed SR-72 hypersonic, ISR strike aircraft. The study has been looking into the viability of a TBCC propulsion system with several combinations of “near-term turbine engine solutions” and a very-low-Mach ignition dual mode ramjet. Unlike the Mach 4 takeover range of most ramjets conceived to date, this study, together with another similar contract recently awarded by NASA to Aerojet Rocketdyne, is evaluating take-over velocity to be reduced to Mach 2.5 and below.

Here is the image of the engine on a test -

China is only now developing the maritime potential to deny others the use of land far away from the Chinese mainland but they are not there yet. However it is not clear to me how US developments like the F-35 will help US allies in Japan or Korea. Stealth and networking is one thing - but the ability to take out Chinese maritime assets would probably be a good idea. The US can do that - but what about the countries sitting in the shadow of China? What would they have to invest it. Obviously the Brahmos comes to mind but currently that is only for India and Russia

For the USAF and USN the LRS-B and the future fighters would be specifically designed for the Pacific. Supercruise will most likely be left out in the interest of larger fuel payloads and long sorties and time-on station given the theater of operation. The LRS-B will be the first bomber after the B-17 specifically designed for the pacific theater whereas all previous bombers were designed around the cold-war threat. It will also be the most "tactical" out of the bomber fleet and should be expected to perform a vast number of tactical missions from ISR, to Electronic Attack to acting as a relay node if required. The F-22's and F-35's will play a role but they won't be as important as the LRS-B since these fighters (particularly the F-35) have mission sets that extend to all commands and must replace the bread and butter type missions the F-16 and F/A-18's do now. The F-35B may come into play here given that it can be dispersed quite rapidly complicating the targeting of air-bases but other than that the fighters will have to come up with different tactics and how they deploy and fight alongside the LRS-B and future assets. Next generation fighter may be significantly larger given the size of the Pacific and in fact may put even the largest fighters to shame in terms of size especially if they will carry 1st or 2nd generation of directed energy weapons..You are looking at 2000-3000 pound payloads just to support a laser even if you are looking at a few minutes of deployment of the weapon....

https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaw ... 0final.pdf

Some stats on how even a small fleet of large bombers can effect a strike campaign

In the first eight weeks of Operation Allied Force in 1999, the B-2 flew three percent of the sorties but hit 33 percent of the total targets.67 In the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom, B-1B bombers dropped 67 percent of all the 2,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs).68 In Operation Iraqi Freedom, the B-1 alone flew one percent of the sorties but dropped 43 percent of the JDAMs and 22 percent of the guided munitions used in the campaign.6

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Sep 2015 15:26

india faces a similar issue with china. by expanding their empire into tibet and sinkiang they have created this "disposable" fighting playground with nothing much by way of economic targets or national resources to target, while extending their missiles and aircraft to range right over our gangetic heartland.

we should rework the AMCA proposal to make it a large subsonic ELO airframe with LR low-rcs weapons to cause some hurt further east else tibet effectively isolates their heartland from our manned a/c.

in the past indian rulers "letting the defeated foe go" after a defeat has been blamed on hindu chivalry, dharmicness or what not. what is neglected is we lacked the long range cavalry to pursue the retreating invader in depth and wipe them out in the central asian plateau with a counter-invasion of our own. hence they could always use superior and more numerous horses to disappear into central asia and return next campaigning season. they only needed to succeed once to make a breakthrough, and india had to succeed every time to survive. eventually they broke through and the rest is history.

we need similar lrs-B/Pakda type platforms and ER ucavs to chase deep

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 23 Sep 2015 15:38

The sort of capabilities required to build to that specification is at least a decade+ away even to the US. AMCA will be an excellent learning expereince for india given it would be the first stealthy, supersonic aircraft from a design and development perspective, just as the LCA has proven to be a big asset for future systems. It would pave the way for UAV's, UCAV's etc that will all benefit from the lessons learnt through its prototyping and development.

With the sort of power, weight, thermal requirements on the horizon for Next generation aircraft, you can't build a 6th generation fighter without having some highly capable engines and propulsion breakthroughs plus other breakthroughs in electric architectures. Thermal management alone is going to require a long list of technologies that would have to be invented or refined. The jump from An F-16 to an F-35 sees a 5 times increase in the thermal management requirements and one can expect an even steeper climb on larger aircraft that have huge electric generation capacity to power directed energy weapons or the sort of electronic attack capabilities (practically across the entire relevant RF spectrum) being spoken about. Even if you are a research team sitting at the very cutting edge of science and technology research, that's still a decade away if not more for just the enablers (Power and electricity)...

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Sep 2015 14:34

Source Selection 'Soon' for America’s New Stealthy Bomber

The long and stealthy shadow of the U.S. Air Force Long Range Strike-Bomber (LRS-B) program hung over last week’s AFA Conference. Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition) Dr. William Laplante said, “Everything is going well, and source selection will be soon.” But he declined to repeat a briefing on the almost-entirely-classified program that he and other officials gave to Washington-area think tanks on September 1.

At that briefing, officials sought to counter fears that the LRS-B will suffer the huge cost overruns and programmatic changes that bedeviled the B-2 Stealth Bomber program. They revealed that the two rival bidders (Northrop Grumman and a Boeing/Lockheed Martin team) had been working on government-funded risk-reduction contracts since 2010-11. They said that the development contract will be awarded on a cost-plus-incentive-fee basis. Then the first five production lots of 19 to 21 aircraft will be procured by fixed-price-incentive-fee contracts.

The risk-reduction contracts “have brought the designs to an unprecedented maturity,” LaPlante said at AFA. He declined to directly answer AIN’s question on whether the contracts had included flying demonstrators; there have been some sightings of apparently classified aircraft flying from Groom Lake in the past few years. In addition to potential activity at Groom Lake, the Air Force has prepared the remote South Base at Edwards AFB for LRS-B testing, AIN has learned.

“Flying can help, but wind tunnel and ground tests can sometimes be better,” LaPlante said. The contracts have apparently included work on propulsion system integration and antenna design. He hinted at some “sporty” new stealth materials being used in the designs.

The average procurement unit cost (APUC) goal for LRS-B of $550 million in 2010 dollars has been made a Key Performance Parameter (KPP), LapLante told journalists at AFA. But the total development cost will not be known until the Milestone-B phase is reached, after source selection, he added. A true accounting would also include company-funded research and development, and the cost to government of the Next Generation Bomber (NGB), a predecessor program to LRS-B that was aborted in 2009. In the past two years acquisition officials have given three different estimates for total program cost to Congress, settling recently on $41.7 billion.

In the B-2 program, Northrop Grumman complained about changes that resulted in a major redesign halfway through development, but LaPlante said that “we’ve kept the LRS-B requirements stable.” Asked by AIN how this could be, given the various references by Air Force leaders at AFA this year to new Anti Access Area Denial (A2/AD) challenges, LaPlante said: “We’ve made it modular…there are hooks and pivot points in the designs. Our record in predicting the threat is bad…so we are building in margins for size, weight and power (SWAP).” He noted that the Air Force Open Mission Systems (OMS) standards would apply to the program, allowing some recompetition for upgrades.

Meanwhile, the Mitchell Institute for AirPower Studies led by retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Dave Deptula published a paper titled “Beyond The ‘Bomber’” that outlined the need for a long-range sensor-shooter (LRSS) platform that would be optionally manned and air-refuelable, with nuclear and conventional standoff and direct-attack weapons that can be employed against hardened and deeply buried targets. He also called for a versatile and adaptable design. He called for the procurement of 120 such platforms versus the 80 to 100 apparently envisioned by the Air Force.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 26 Sep 2015 17:34

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 30 Sep 2015 18:25

Here's a bit of info on the 1980's and 1990's Red Team Prototyping, development, analysis and simulation of that "era" Low Obvservable technology vs the VHF type radars that were the state of the art then. Just to counter some of the other side to what the AvWeek editors cannot wrap their head around. Post the 90's a lot of the Red Team Analysis capability was taken into the classified world. Do note however that Red Team Analysis capability is a function of investment in a particular area. The 80's and 90s saw the Red Teams pegged to the then investment in Low Observable designs..Given the significantly larger investments in Low Observables since then it isn't a stretch to assume that the Red Teams would have also scaled to meet the demand. While nothing is invincible but the job of the Red teams is to see what capability is required to counter a particular blue force capability, understand that capability, develop a cost understanding of how much it would cost to develop that capability for the adversary and perform a cost-effectiveness analysis on that. Of course they aren't limited to expected adversary capability but think on their own as well in terms of what can potentially be used (beyond something that the adversaries may be developing).

Relevant portion courtesy Quelish at SPF...

Even before the development of the modern cruise missile, the Soviets had deployed thousands of VHF ground radars for aircraft surveillance and early warn- ing. In 1983 the Laboratory initiated a competitive procurement for a VHF test-range instrument, in order to have an instrumentation-quality VHF radar to investigate the issues associated with low-frequency surveillance. General Dynamics of Fort Worth, Texas, delivered this VHF radar in 1985. It is a substantial but transportable radar featuring a 150-ft-wide an- tenna, as shown in the Figure, and it can emulate Russian VHF radars such as Tall King and Spoon Rest (although it has superior electronic performance). What is particularly interesting, especially for clutter and electronic-countermeasure measurements, is that the VHF instrumentation radar can selectively trans- mit in horizontal and vertical polarizations and re- ceive in both polarizations simultaneously. The radar has undergone a number of modifications and up- grades, including extensive waveform changes and the addition of a sidelobe canceler, to enhance its useful- ness to the test community.
The principal contribution of the VHF instrumentation radar has been the development of realistic appraisals of VHF radar capability against low-observable air vehicles. VHF-radar performance predic- tions are rich in phenomenological questions relating to low-elevation-angle propagation and ground-clut- ter effects, and this radar was a national test bed to ex- plore and define these effects.

So as far back as the mid to late 1980's and 90's the Red team was tasked with providing the developers realistic data through both prototyping (hardware) and simulation (that got only better with hardware prototyping and using that to tweak the simulation). Much of the current debate would have a lot of folks believe that no one ever considered this an issue, or prepared for it etc. The one sided articles from some fairly well known corners would give one such an impression if one were not eager or willing to go back into the time and study the process since the advent of low-observable design research. As I have opined before, VHF and even UHF radars and operating in that RF environment is a challenge, and if you as an opponent can increase your opponents reliance on that frequency to defend itself as opposed to the vast majority of air defense systems you have done a very very good job of clipping some (not all) of your adversary's defensive capability and to create anti access issues for your force. This point hasn't been lost on the designers around the world that despite of what Sweetman and co claim (Gripen E is as good as any stealth sixth generation fighter) continue to invest heavily (for some its an exponential increase) in Low Observable technology for manned, unmanned, optionally manned strike aircraft, surveillance aircraft, fighters and bombers. This is likely to continue well into the future.

https://www.ll.mit.edu/publications/jou ... issile.pdf

More on the Red Teaming -

Generally speaking a red team might ask a series of questions such as the following:
• What are the key gaps in my system or capability that an adversary might exploit?
• What are the countermeasures that an adversary could develop to exploit those gaps and how effective would those countermeasures be?
• How difficult would it be for an adversary to implement the countermeasures?
Would the countermeasures be a 10-line software modification, or would it require building a new system from the ground up?
How much detailed information about the US system does the adversary require to make the countermeasure effective? Does the adversary just need to know our system’s general concept, or would the countermeasure depend on specifics that are classified or otherwise difficult to acquire?
• How difficult would it be for the United States to counter those countermeasures that might be effective? How much information would be required about what the adversary is doing to effectively counter the countermeasures?

The Air Force Red Team is much more than a systems analysis group to explore these questions. Much of the Red Team's work involves the development and testing of prototypes of potential future threat systems. Importantly, these prototypes are not based solely on intelligence estimates of what technologies our adversaries are investing in. Instead, the red team process uses systems analysis to determine the technologies that would result in the most pertinent threat capabilities, and then develops prototypes that could be used to test the real-world impact of those technologies in tactically relevant scenarios. Prototyping and testing alone, however, can rarely be used to explore the full impact of a potential threat in a broad range of tactical situations. Therefore, the results of the testing are used to validate the systems analysis models, which can then be extended to assess a range of relevant scenarios. This integrated program of systems analysis, prototyping, and instrumented testing is the core of the highly successful Air Force Red Team. The real benefit of the analysis in this context is to sort through the large number of potential threat responses and narrow down to the few that are most important. those few can be the subjects of more intensive prototyping and testing campaigns to understand the full impact they might have on our systems.

For each air defense element (surveillance, fire control, missile seeker, and fuze), the air defense can use a variety of sensor technologies, including active or passive radar (radio frequency), infrared, or a range of other less conventional sensors. The unconventional approaches proposed as counter-stealth technologies may run the gamut from acoustics to cosmic rays to gravimeters; however, in each case, it is critical to consider not just whether or not a technology can theoretically detect an aircraft, but whether it meaningfully contributes to the adversary's kill chain. For a number of good physics reasons, air defenses rely primarily on radar and infrared sensors. Compared to infrared, radar has the advantage of offering long-range detection with minimal interference from weather or other environmental factors. It is no accient that the most important long-range surveillance and fire-control systems continue to be active radars. One disadvantage of radar systems is that they are potentially susceptible to jamming, also called electonic attack. Therefore, for as long as air defenses have been invested in radars, aircraft designers have invested in electronic-attack countermeasures to those radars, and, in turn, radar designers have invested in electonic-protection counters to those countermeasures in an endless cycle. The key on each side of the cycle is to invest in technologies that are as robust as possible to the other side's likely response.

One class of electonic attack that the United States has invested in is called a towed decoy, illustrated in Figure 6.2. Towed decoys are countermeasures to radar-guided missiles, wether those missiles are guided by a fire-control radar or by a missile seeker. The basic concept of the towed decoy is to detect the radar energy, and to amplify and rebroadcast that energy to the radar, thereby providing a more attractive target to the radar than the aircraft itself. Because our adversaries are well aware that the United States has invested in and deployed towed decoys, it is safe to assume that they are investing in electonic-protection countermeasures, and that the United States should be investing in counters to those countermeasures. However, there are a wide range of countermeasures that our adversaries may pursue, and that is the role of the Air Force Red Team to assess those options from the adversary's perspective to prioritize the ones the United States should be investing in countering.

As with anything having the capability isn't the only thing that's important. Measuring that capability against potential counter-capabilities that the enemy is known to have and even capabilities that that can potentially impact the capability but has not yet been thought out (from the current intel of course) by the adversary is also critically important and essential if you want to stay on top of technology. It is widely understood by observers of US budgets that a significant portion of the classified development and research, and procurement (through SAP's - Special Access program) is on supporting the various red-teams and developing both synthetic and prototype capability to measure the effectiveness of the developed and under-development capability. The size of the "classified procurement" is evident from the fact that classified procurement accounted for more $ in the 2015 Pentagon budget than the single larges acknowledged program (F-35). This then gets factored into decisions made by the Stealth-Counter Stealth committee in the Pentagon that sits and decides on all things from what sort of stealth capability needs to be developed, to deciding what sort of capability can be exported and to whom. While none of this guarantees anything (does anything for that matter?) but it does go to show that unlike the tone of many of the Axe's and Sweetman articles no one was caught sleeping while UHF and VHF radars were being designed, refined and upgraded. We have a clear record from the little material from the 80's and 90's that has been declassified or otherwise shared to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that serious red-teaming of counter-stealth systems was being conducted, and in fact it was that need that led to the creation of the former Lincoln based AF Red team. There is less (or next to nothing) known about the red-teaming activities towards the late 90's and 2000's. One way to get a grip on some of the stuff that could possibly have been done is to look at some of the semi classified programs i.e. those programs that have been acknowledged to exist but nothing has been shared about them. We also know that the indoor facilities for VHF RCS measurement were upgraded at both Boeing and Northrop about a decade ago.

Another idea that some of the same folks try to plant into the minds of the uninformed is that since the F-14D retirement, the US has lost on the investment pool for IRST systems, which will render stealth obsolete. This is easier to disprove given that there has been constant testing of legacy Stealth fighters, bombers and UAV's for complete IR compliance to the extent that the IR signature requirements were mentioned in the contracts. Of course these folks totally ignore the investments being made on future IRST sensors by AFRL, DARPA and the ONR. Anyhow, it isn't like the Red-Team is reading Aviation Week or War Is Boring to get a heads up..They have been constantly investing in dual-band IR sensors, mounting these sensors on aircraft, and flying them against the relevant stealth and non-stealth aircraft...Of course one has to dig in to find this...

Dual Band IR developed specifically for this purpose about 3-4 years ago (below). This is the third such system developed for stealth testing, the earlier two systems (I have earlier posted here as well) were developed in the early to mid 1990's.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 02 Oct 2015 01:58

On PGM's since the GW came up recently

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 02 Oct 2015 02:50

~ $4 Billion in SBIRs? for 5 years? That is like $800 million a year on the average which is almost 1/4 of NASA budget.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 02 Oct 2015 03:20

NASA's budget is about $18 billion per year.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 02 Oct 2015 03:50

Sorry I meant NSF which is ~$3 Billion.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Oct 2015 06:34

since they already have a GPS constellation I wonder why such high spending .... gps guided bomb kits for all maybe?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Oct 2015 06:44

On GPS? Its for the next generation GPS (GPSIII). The spending being talked about above was for the Space based IR system. The funding mentioned in the Graphic does not factor in these munitions since that spending is not under a single budget line but spread both within the budget and outside of it (OCO). The 2016 order for JDAM stands at 12,000 kits for example factoring in for both regular orders and replacements to build up a classified level of inventory.

http://www.losangeles.af.mil/library/fa ... p?id=18830
http://www.afspc.af.mil/library/factshe ... sp?id=3675

On JDAM-

A little more than half is from funds in the actual budget. The rest comes from the OCO account which is political thing between the Republican congress and a Democratic President.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Oct 2015 07:45

amrika seems to buy PGMs like people buy iphones - a lot - every year

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Oct 2015 18:58

Here is a provocative news item, but I post it here to "provoke a discussion". Before I say anything else let me point out that for all its faults the US remains an open society where mistakes are acknowledged even if some are obfuscated or covered up. Most nations do not even bother and simply deny.

The Radically Changing Story of the U.S. Airstrike on Afghan Hospital: From Mistake to Justification

This obfuscation tactic is the standard one the U.S. and Israel both use whenever they blow up civilian structures and slaughter large numbers of innocent people with airstrikes. Citizens of both countries are well-trained – like some tough, war-weary, cigar-chomping general – to reflexively spout the phrase “collateral damage,” which lets them forget about the whole thing and sleep soundly, telling themselves that these sorts of innocent little mistakes are inevitable even among the noblest and most well-intentioned war-fighters, such as their own governments. The phrase itself is beautifully technocratic: it requires no awareness of how many lives get extinguished, let alone acceptance of culpability. Just invoke that phrase and throw enough doubt on what happened in the first 48 hours and the media will quickly lose interest.

In other discussion I had pointed out just this fact - but in less strongly worded rhetoric. But my point is not to curse the US for collateral damage but to post my view on the idea of "pinpoint precision weapons of small yield to avoid collateral damage"

What is the point? The difference between genuine target destruction and "collateral damage" is dependent on exact target identification and pinpoint precision. If either of these is wrong then you would miss the target.The question of collateral damage occurs only when you are trying to achieve pinpoint precision in an area full of non combatants. The bar is set very high in such a situation.

Let me post two scenarios:

1. Genuine war target in a war zone with no non combatants nearby: - here there is no risk of collateral damage
2. Genuine war target that is hidden among civilians: Clearly the choices are limited. The targets must be identified accurately and hit accurately. Even if one does that they may be sitting among non combatants anyway who will get hit even with the most accurate weapons.

Obviously any fighting force that hides among civilians is one that seeks the advantages that such a tactic gives them. They hope that
a. They will not be spotted among civilians
b. Even if spotted they hope that the thought of killing non combatants will place a moral burden on the attacker.

The point I want to make here is that hiding among civilians is a genuine war tactic in asymmetric warfare. It is neither new nor unknown. What is new are the twin ideas that have cropped up mainly after the Vietnam

1. Civilian casualties among an enemy population are politically indefensible in the US and everything must be done to avoid them - so targets must be identified and hit precisely to avoid civilian casualties
2. Body bags of one's own boys and girls too are unsustainable after a time and that must be minimized - so as far as possible the enemy must be hit from a distance so that one's own personnel are not at risk

My contention is that both these ideas are great to sustain a military-industrial complex, but they are both war losing ideas. Both will need to be discarded in serious wars that are fought for nation survival reasons as opposed to keep a lucrative MIC churning out stuff.

I am not saying that I am right - I am simply proposing this as a gut feeling.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 06 Oct 2015 20:11

Singha wrote:amrika seems to buy PGMs like people buy iphones - a lot - every year

Those are USAF only orders but are atypical single year orders. As the graph shows the per year procurement drops so this particular large order for the USAF is most likely a one time large order to replenish used munitions and get back to the desired J series inventory. The Navy had a similarly large single year order a while back iirc. J-series are the most widely and cost effective PGM available in the US so its widely used requiring replenishment and the long lead time from order to deliver means you have to do it in advance.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 09 Oct 2015 14:33

The Europeans are going whole hog with the Meteor. Also, from what I can tell the US is also going with a ramjet program (ref: DARPA - T3 demonstrator) for its AMRAAM-replacement (the Aim-120D uses the same single pulse motor as the C7). AFAIK its the Russians who've opted for a dual-pulse motor for the PAK FA's K-77M. Reportedly, the new Chinese PL-15 fields that too. However, none of them are likely to produce more than one type concurrently

Developers in the US are still split between VFDR and multi-pulse motors and a lot depends upon the kinematic and launch heat signature requirements for stealth fighters. Boeing, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed seem to be more in favor of a multi-pulse motor while Raytheon has tested a VFDR for the T3 but has not given up on a dual or multi pulse motor. Boeing tested a dual or multi pulse motor (in their T3 missile of which they tested 6 examples under the DARPA led effort) just going by some of the concepts they had earlier released and their teaming for the T3. As mentioned earlier the problem with a VFDR is the sheer smoke and heat at launch and that will be an issue for stealthy launches at medium ranges (not so much at long ranges though) which is probably going to be the most widely used envelope for such a missile (you still have to detect and ID aircraft etc).

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Oct 2015 16:28

General Dynamics Land Systems displays M1A2 SEPV3 most advanced digital main battle tank

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 13 Oct 2015 20:43

EM Railgun Ammo..upto 10 rounds/min rate

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 16 Oct 2015 07:47

From the Indian Military Aviation Thread :

shiv wrote:I have seen the claim that Russian land based radars radiate enough power to simply burn through any airborne jammer that may be fielded by the US or NATO. That sort of power is difficult to lug in an aircraft. True or not - that is an interesting concept that I have not heard the US implement- although recently I read (maybe here on BRF) about a US tank transporter or something whose engine can double up as generator when not being used for tank transportation. The Russian have been doing that for decades.

I think that model has been emulated in India when we look at the number of support vehicles for Akash units.

Anything can seriously damage emitters and receivers under favorable conditions and appropriate ranges. Dedicated directed energy weapons such as CHAMP will fry electronics and disrupt others all enclosed in a large cruise missile with a much smaller footprint because they simply get closer to the target. Similarly, stand in jammers such as the MALD-J for example get extremely close (to a point that they are expendable) so that they can suppress emitters despite of very tiny electric/power footprint.

The Russian system referred to in the Aviation Week Article has a power requirement of around 100KW (and a range of around 100-150 nm) which as things stand is slightly more than 3 times the output of a single 1970's era -99 powered by a very old RAT. Also no one expects an AWACS to get that close especially when modern systems have powerful ESM's of their own. As shown in the article posted by me also from the same pulbication, modern RAT's designed for newer pods have demonstrated 90KW already, for a tactical fighter application. If you are to do away with those performance (speed, weight and altitude for a fighter based system) and mount these systems on other platforms you can scale up significantly - This is important for Directed energy applications, both lasers and HPM's. Power generation from external sources is not an issue for Electronic Warfare on airborne systems (as long as you have a RAT solution of course) when you are at a desired altitude and high subsonic - The problem is utilization and even Galium Nitride driven semiconductors and T/R modules will struggle to utilize that much amount of power. Also, that much power is seldom going to be used in a very narrow beam against a very narrow RF simply because these assets act more like strategic EW nodes that are called upon to suppress multiple sources of emissions, from ground based radars, to tactical data links and of course the most important C2 and communication nodes.

Technically you can operate the next gen systems (NGJ) like that if you so wish i.e. the beam can be focused on a very narrow frequency with all the power output feeding the system. That would create an effect very similar to what the Russian system does, if you use it like that. An AESA gives you that advantage hence you get longer range since you are focusing your power on a single beam instead of using the other 2-3 antennas available to you in the pod. This wasn't possible with the older jammers but is with the new ones that are effectively uni-directional radar emitters now as apposed to the older setups that you see in American and Russian pods (even the SAP's).

The NGJ Hi-RAT is 24 in. in diameter, 60 in. long and potentially could generate up to 700 kW, Justak says. But ATGI has tested a 300-watt “micro-RAT” and other versions including a 6-kW system to power intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance pods carried by aircraft such as the Lockheed Martin C-130. ATGI is looking at other applications, including providing power on unmanned aircraft at high altitude.

The ATGI Hi-powered Ram Air Turbine (HiRAT) was developed to deliver compact high density power for the United States Navy. This patented technology is now available for use in any airborne platform that requires additional power. The unique power turbine is capable of developing 100’s of kilowatts of power from sea level to altitudes above 60,000ft.

http://atgi.us/products-and-services/ram-air-turbines/

True or not - that is an interesting concept that I have not heard the US implement- although recently I read (maybe here on BRF) about a US tank transporter or something whose engine can double up as generator when not being used for tank transportation.

There hasn't been a need for it, and its unlikely to exist in the short-medium term. Same thing with SAM development, the only new air breathing target SAM (now that the PAC-3 MSE is done) being worked upon in the US is the AMRAAM-ER and that is an internally funded Raytheon product for foreign customers and very much a short-medium range system. Same with ground based EW systems, there simply isn't a need for that system given the threat and the larger threat is from cruise missiles and hypersonics kill vehicles. From ground based emitters however, the need is however in the HPM, and DEW implementation and plenty of solutions are being worked upon to that end. Northrop Grumman for example just recently unveiled their small vehicle that can generate as much as 100KW of power that can potentially be used for jamming as well - http://breakingdefense.com/2015/10/nort ... eneration/

Developed for the Army’s Light Reconnaissance Vehicle competition, the Hellhound is a mid-sized off-road truck that can generate more electrical power for radios, sensors, defensive jammers, and other gear than much larger vehicles using older technology. The 30-ton M2 Bradley generates less than 20 kW, leading some variants to get brown-outs when fully kitted for Iraq; the 6.5-ton Hellhound, however, generates a whopping 100 kilowatts (kW).

The most important item on board is the integrated starter generator system from German manufacturer Jenoptik. It’s a mini power plant that runs as long as the engine is running and puts out 100 kilowatts of usable power, a first for a small truck

It could thus power a 40 kilowatt laser. A 30kw fiber laser is possible within a matter of months.

The need to get high power for an emitter for the US will come from laser weapons and quite a few programs are already ongoing at the moment. In fact a self enclosed 150KW Solid State Laser is being demonstrated as we speak at White Sands and that comes in a tactical package that is deployable. There is simply no threat that warrants a brute force jamming on a single or dual band emitter for a ground based system, and pursuing one will be a waste. There simply isn't a heavy AWACS or JSTARS threat to the US ground forces where they need protection against Airborne emitters or receivers. Whatever little threat does exist can be accounted for by the air-cover provided by the fighter force. Where heavy electronic warfare, directed energy and sensor package require a very high degree of pull in terms of electric generation there are systems such as Navy ships (DDG-1000 is a prime example through its electric architecture and the significant increase in power generation over the legacy) and aircraft of all shapes and sizes (starting with the Growler's conversion to the Next gen. Jammer but of course this will translate to UAV's and other larger platforms as well (AC-130 is a prime candidate) ). The biggest threat to the US is from Integrated Ground defenses, such as S300, S400, and their Chinese clones - The wide coverage in the RF spectrum that China has established and the software controlled waveforms that are increasing at an alarming pace thanks to the low cost of high end computing and electronics in general. A ground based brute S-Band jammer isn't going to solve any of that, and the problems it may solve don't exist.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 16 Oct 2015 14:32

Since we had been discussing PGM production and inventories earlier.

U.S. Air Force Awards Lockheed Martin $305 Million Contract for JASSM and JASSM-ER Production

ORLANDO, Fla., Oct. 15, 2015 – Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) has received a $305.4 million contract from the U.S. Air Force for continued production of the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) and its Extended Range (ER) version.
The Lot 13 contract includes 140 baseline JASSMs for U.S. and international partners, 140 JASSM-ER missiles, data, tooling and test equipment. The Lot 13 award represents the largest JASSM-ER order to date and brings total missiles under contract to more than 2,300.
“JASSM® and JASSM-ER have an important role in the United States’ and its allied partners’ long-term strategic defense plans,” said Jason Denney, program director of long-range strike systems at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. “The missiles delivered under Lot 13 will provide an effective and more affordable capability against Anti-Access/Area Denial threats, thus providing a strategic deterrent for U.S. and international warfighters.”
The contract represents the fifth production lot for JASSM-ER, which received full-rate production approval last year. Recent program milestones include a Foreign Military Sales contract to integrate JASSM onto Poland’s F-16C/D aircraft and an additional contract in support of F/A-18C/D aircraft integration for Finland.
Armed with a penetrating blast-fragmentation warhead, both missiles can be used in all weather conditions. They share the same powerful capabilities and stealth characteristics, though JASSM-ER has more than two-and-a-half times the range of JASSM for greater standoff range. These 2,000-pound cruise missiles employ an infrared seeker and enhanced digital anti-jam GPS receiver to dial into specific points on targets.
Effective against high-value, well-fortified, fixed and relocatable targets, JASSM is integrated on the U.S. Air Force’s B-1B, B-2, B-52, F-16 and F-15E. The B-1B also carries JASSM-ER. Internationally, JASSM is carried on the F/A-18A/B and the F-18C/D aircraft.
Produced at the company’s manufacturing facility in Troy, Alabama, more than 1,700 JASSMs have been delivered.

http://lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press ... tract.html

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Oct 2015 11:19

a show of force sail past reefs in the south china sea looks imminent.

https://www.rt.com/news/318992-japan-fleet-review-navy/

PM Abe’s visit aboard the Ronald Reagan was the first time a serving Japanese prime minister had toured a US flattop. The move sparked criticism at home from politicians, who oppose Abe’s turn towards a more belligerent Japan.

Accompanying Abe was US Vice Admiral Nora Tyson who was appointed commander of the powerful Eastern Pacific Third Fleet this year. Her visit comes after the Third Fleet was given a greater role in the western Pacific.

The US has scrapped an administrative boundary running along the International Date Line that separates the operating areas of the Seventh and Third Fleets. Previously when the home-based Third Fleet sent its warships to the western Pacific, the Seventh took command of them, but now the two fleets will be working closer together on such missions.

"Admiral Tyson's presence here is just a recognition that we are trying to be as flexible as possible to keep as many options on the table as possible so that we can be as responsive as possible," US Chief of the Naval Operations, John Richardson, said in a media briefing in Tokyo on Thursday.

The Seventh Fleet has one aircraft carrier strike group along with 80 other vessels, 140 aircraft and 40,000 sailors. The Third Fleet based in San Diego, California has more than 100 vessels, including four aircraft carriers. It was on the Third Fleet’s then-flagship, the USS Missouri, where Imperial Japanese officials officially surrendered to the US over 70 years ago.

The US and Japan’s naval beef-up comes as they oppose China’s reclamation of artificial islands in the South China Sea. Beijing claims sovereignty over them and the waters around it. This stance is rejected by Washington, which even plans to sail a warship within a 12-mile distance from one of the islands. It insist that it would remain in international waters.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Oct 2015 11:30

Guam naval base has officially 4 SSN , and the af base(anderson) is a base for B1(new naval strike role) and B52(general mayhem role). seems to have parking stands for no less than 100 heavies. some would be for tankers and transport planes, rest for bombers.

it also has separate naval and Af munitions storage areas which are each kilometers long.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 19 Oct 2015 11:40

If I were Xi I would use this opportunity to make my point that China needs to spend more on Navy and cut army expenditure. This could be a +ve for India and give it 10-15 yrs for defence modernization

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 19 Oct 2015 11:44

Air Force One, a Cherished Perk Awaiting an Upgrade

WHITE HOUSE LETTER

Air Force One, a Cherished Perk Awaiting an Upgrade
By PETER BAKEROCT. 18, 2015
Photo

President Obama boarding Air Force One after campaigning in Florida in 2012. WASHINGTON — President Obama has already made clear what he will miss the most when he leaves office in 15 months. “People sometimes ask me what the biggest perk of being president is,” he told visitors at the White House last week. “No. 1 is the plane.”

In September, he told another audience that “the plane is nice” and that unfortunately for him “my lease is running out,” so he might soon have to “start taking off my shoes again going through security.” In Kenya in July, he noted that when he visited as a young man his luggage was lost: “That doesn’t happen on Air Force One.”

Let’s face it: The plane is, in fact, pretty nice, and the president’s luggage is indeed very rarely lost. But the plane is also getting old. And so after more than a million miles of flying while in office, its current primary passenger is planning to bequeath his successor — or perhaps his successor’s successor — a new-and-improved Air Force One spiffed up for the smartphone age.

Photo

Members of the Air Force One crew set the steps in place for President Obama's return to Washington after a trip to Michigan and Arizona in January. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times
The Defense Department hopes to sign an initial contract with Boeing in the coming weeks to begin the long process of assembling a new presidential aircraft capable of ferrying the commander in chief around the world with the capacity to run a war from midair if necessary. Built on the frame of a Boeing 747-8, it will be bigger, more powerful, able to fly farther and vastly more advanced technologically than the current customized Boeing 747-200B jumbo jet.

Mr. Obama himself will not benefit from the trade-in. By some estimates, the new plane may not be available until 2023, when Hillary Rodham Clinton or Donald J. Trump or whoever beats them may be close to finishing up a second term. And it will not be cheap. The Air Force has asked for $102 million in the coming fiscal year and $3 billion over the next five years, not counting any further cost.

“It’s way overdue,” said Joseph W. Hagin, a White House deputy chief of staff under President George W. Bush who initiated plans for a new plane only to see them shelved when the nation’s finances grew precarious. “You can hang new engines on it, you can cram all sorts of new technology on it, but it’s still a very old airplane.”

Air Force One is actually not a single plane; in fact, it is a radio call sign used for any plane that happens to carry the president. There are two 747-200s, designated VC-25As by the Air Force, that carry the president unless he travels to a place where the runway is too short, in which case he switches to a smaller plane.

Those 747-200s, with tail codes 28000 and 29000, were commissioned by Ronald Reagan and delivered in 1990 under the first President George Bush, when the Soviet Union was still around and White House aides used beepers. The big communications innovation at the time was a fax machine that the president’s staff could use to keep in touch with the ground.

Photo

A Navy ambulance awaiting the body of President John F. Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963, at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington. Credit Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Boeing stopped making 747-200s more than two decades ago, and only 20 of them are left flying in the world, mainly as freight planes in developing countries. Spare parts are no longer made for the plane, so the Air Force often has to have them custom built. Inspections and maintenance work are so frequent that one or the other of the two planes is often out of service.

Air Force One, of course, is not just a plane. It is power. It is national identity. It is even a movie star. The large blue-and-white aircraft with “United States of America” emblazoned on the side has come to symbolize the country and has captured the imagination of even Americans who have not seen the namesake film starring Harrison Ford as a president fending off Russian hijackers.

Franklin D. Roosevelt became the first president to fly aboard a plane converted for his use, called the Sacred Cow, in 1945. The Air Force One designation was said to first be used during Dwight D. Eisenhower’s tenure, but it has achieved such worldwide status that a Kenyan woman who gave birth around the time of Mr. Obama’s visit last summer even named her baby AirForceOne Barack Obama.

“That airplane represents every American, and it’s a symbol of our republic,” said Jeff Underwood, the historian at the National Museum of the United States Air Force near Dayton, Ohio. “People see it as an extension not only of the president but the United States. It has a visceral national pride sort of thing.”

Nine previous Air Force One planes are on display at the museum, including the Boeing 707 that carried John F. Kennedy to Dallas in November 1963, then brought his body back to Washington after Lyndon B. Johnson took the oath of office on board. The Air Force One on display at Reagan’s presidential library in California, seen during the recent Republican presidential debate, is on loan from the Air Force Museum.

Photo
President George W. Bush flying from air base to air base on Air Force One on Sept. 11, 2001. Credit Pool photo by Doug Mills
The current plane is a flying White House with 4,000 square feet of space on three levels, including an office, conference room, bedroom and medical suite that can be used as an operating room. While impressive, it is not splashy in the sense of Mr. Trump’s private jet with its gold-plated fixtures.

On the day of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the second President Bush was kept flying from air base to air base for fear of his being targeted, and he was deeply frustrated with spotty communications, leading to upgrades afterward.

The Air Force selected Boeing as the maker of the next plane earlier this year. The 747-8 that will serve as the frame is 250 feet long with a range of nearly 7,800 miles and 66,500 pounds of engine thrust. Once modified, it will be capable of midair refueling, hardened against the electromagnetic pulse of a nuclear explosion and almost certainly equipped with defenses to deflect heat-seeking missiles.

This sort of project has a way of ballooning in cost. A project to build a new Marine One helicopter got so out of control that Mr. Obama’s administration canceled it after taking office and a new contract has now been issued.

“We hope that doesn’t happen with the plane, that they’ve learned their lesson,” said Thomas A. Schatz, the president of Citizens Against Government Waste, a group that criticized the Marine One project.

As it is, given the reported $180,000-an-hour flying cost, presidents are often criticized for using Air Force One for their political or personal purposes. But so far, members of both parties seem to be going along with plans for a new plane. After all, no one knows which side will have the White House when it becomes available for use.

“Air Force One gives us everything that we want,” said Robert F. Dorr, the author of a book about the plane. “It does convey power, but it also conveys class and style and purpose. It’s just exciting to see it arrive. People get excited. They do love it.”

Mr. Obama is not the only president to love the plane. “I miss Air Force One,” the younger Mr. Bush said last year. “In eight years, they never lost my luggage.” This year, he repeated the sentiment. “I miss, for example, the Air Force’s accommodating me with a shower on the airplane that flew me around,” he said.

When Mr. Obama campaigned with Bill Clinton in 2012, the incumbent joked about Air Force One. “Bill may not miss being president, but he misses that plane,” Mr. Obama said. “Let’s face it, he does. It’s a great plane. And I’ll miss it, too.”

“But not yet!” a supporter called out.

Not yet. But soon enough.

kit · Post by **kit** » 19 Oct 2015 12:55

@ brar_w ., there seems to be new way of GPS signals without using satellites or even anything "up" ..can you elaborate on that ?..thanks

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 19 Oct 2015 17:27

^ This article covers most of them. PNT is one of the biggest programs in DARPA since they were the ones that essentially created the current PNT that lead to PGM's. With eh GPS III, in my opinion they aren't as much worried about GPS degraded (signal is jammed or interfered with) as much as they are about GPS denied (Satellites are knocked out). Making GPS Jam resistant has lead to many serious upgrades to every aspect of the system so the real thrust is towards having a backup PNT that can exist in the absence of satellites and GPS, but is as accurate and most importantly as affordable.

http://www.c4isrnet.com/story/military- ... /70730572/

kit · Post by **kit** » 19 Oct 2015 19:33

brar_w wrote:^ This article covers most of them. PNT is one of the biggest programs in DARPA since they were the ones that essentially created the current PNT that lead to PGM's. With eh GPS III, in my opinion they aren't as much worried about GPS degraded (signal is jammed or interfered with) as much as they are about GPS denied (Satellites are knocked out). Making GPS Jam resistant has lead to many serious upgrades to every aspect of the system so the real thrust is towards having a backup PNT that can exist in the absence of satellites and GPS, but is as accurate and most importantly as affordable.

http://www.c4isrnet.com/story/military- ... /70730572/

Thank you

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 19 Oct 2015 21:09