USA Armed Forces

News and discussion threads on defence in other parts of the world.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

A great article (thx!) on a topic that does not get covered much.

There are meany mentions of what Mk IVs do, but none of them tie in with this
"Heavily armed for their size with two MK38 MOD 2 25mm Bushmaster autocannons, .50cal M2HB MK50 remote-weapons stations, and six mounts for a combination of .50cal M2HB, 7.62mm M240 medium machine guns, 7.62mm M134 minguns, and 40mm MK-19 automatic grenade launchers, the aluminum-hulled MK VI are also lightly armored around the crew compartment, engines, and fuel tanks. The MK VI has a crew of ten and can transport eight passengers for 600+ nautical miles.

But U.S. Marine Corps Major General Tracy King said that the twelve MK VIs “Were very expensive to maintain.” (The MK VI use two diesel engines to power waterjets instead of shafts and propellers). "

They were ordered for a dual duty, being capable of long endurance patrol, but also acting when needed as command boats and protection for the Riverine (smaller) boats.
- both waterjets and a draught less than half of any other patrol assets [as listed in the article] flow directly from the latter requirement
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
xav
Senior Member
Posts: 1626
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:48

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by xav »

Light Carrier Studies Already Underway As US Navy Considers Role For CVLs In Future Fleet
Image
The US Navy’s engineering community has already started conducting light carrier design and engineering studies, even as the Navy and the joint force still consider whether they’d even want to invest in a CVL to supplement supercarriers to bring more distributed capability to the fleet for less cost.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ure-fleet/

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by SKB »

America invents twin island gas turbine carrier... ?! :mrgreen:

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

It just so happens that this review
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your ... rd%20Brief
re: troops stationed abroad coincides in its duration with the probation that the US has put the Taliban on as for their continued offensive actions
- the biggest immediate impact is the freeze on the 9500 drawdown from Germany

= give peace a chance, and find out from the German parties (whoever wins in the early autumn) if they are willing to do more? Neither of these things are in the report
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
xav
Senior Member
Posts: 1626
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:48

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by xav »

USMC Tested A Naval Strike Missile From A JLTV-Based Mobile Launch Platform
Image
The United States Marine Corps (USMC) tested a Naval Strike Missile (NSM) from a land-based launcher back in November 2020.
The USMC confirmed to Naval News the test was successful in validating certain technologies and capabilities.

The initial mention of this test surfaced in the latest Director Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) report on the Over-The-Horizon Weapon System (OTH-WS), the official U.S. Navy name for the program. The report reads: “The Marine Corps planned a live firing of an NSM from a JLTV-based mobile launch platform in June 2020, but postponed the event after discovering a software misconfiguration on the missile. The Marine Corps intends to conduct this live fire event in November 2020.”

Asked by Naval News whether the test did take place in November, a USMC public affairs officers said:
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... h-platform

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Quite a step (down) from HEMTT trucks that were used in the trials!

But the most interesting nugget was in the full length text:
"We’re closely following the UK’s ISSGW competition and have a solution that meets or exceeds their requirements" which is due for a decision in the summer.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

This Unmanned JLTV platform could offer quite a few interesting possibilities of our lighter forces as both a weapons platform and Logistics carrier. Even more so if we actually bring the normal JLTV into massed usage across the UK's Armed Forces as well. A variant carrying say four ground launch Brimstone 3 for example, or a portee 120mm Mortar, sorry couldn't help myself. :D

Blackstone
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: 13 Aug 2019, 05:00
United States of America

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Blackstone »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Blackstone wrote:the 30mm Mk44 in that spot
Thx, I just haven't paid attention and thought it was the first instance for the LCS ASuW module (=turret) having been rolled out to other ships.
- in what form will the Zumwalts get theirs (as opposed to the originally intended 57 mm's)?
On non-LCS hulls, the Mk46 MOD 2 (latest version of the LCS/LPD turret) is mounted on a pedestal which holds the turret basket and allows crew access for maintenance/reloading.
Image
A pair of pedestals have been installed where the Mk110s were to sit on the Zs.
Image
While ugly as hell, the good news is that by "simply" plopping the pedestals down on top the deckhouse, they likely haven't had to do much expensive structural work and just as likely have preserved the option to return to the 57mm in a future refit if the new guided ammo options become enticing enough.

Sorry for the late re, I was away for a bit.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Blackstone wrote:Sorry for the late re, I was away for a bit.
I love :D the photo angle on the second piccie; looks like a medieval fortress
... if my shooting won't keep you at bay, come a bit closer and some boiling tar will land on you
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

B-52s to become agile dogfighters before they retire (if they ever :) will)

"Looking to extend the combat range of its aircraft and keep human operators removed from danger, DARPA has kicked off the development of a new missile-equipped, air-launched drone under its LongShot program."
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by SW1 »

This may have one or to implications

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/02/cle ... saf-brown/

This will help inform the decisions that I think I need to make internal to the Air Force, and what I would recommend that force mix might be,” Brown told the Defense Writers Group late this afternoon. “Now, I will also tell you I don’t think that everybody’s going to exactly agree with what I say. But I want to actually have a starting point as a point of departure, a point of dialogue.”

The goal would be to finalize the study in time to reflect its conclusions in the Air Force’s 2023 budget request, he said. “In the budget for FY 23, that’s where I see that we’ll really make some key decisions.”

The study will include a “clean sheet design” for a new “four-and-a-half-gen or fifth-gen-minus” fighter to replace the F-16, Brown elaborated. Rather than simply buy new F-16s, he said, “I want to be able to build something new and different, that’s not the F 16 — that has some of those capabilities, but gets there faster and uses some of our digital approach.”

Brown explained that the idea would be to build on the lessons learned in digital engineering for the “e-series” T-7A Red Hawk trainer, and the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD). In particular, Brown said he would like to see any F-16 replacement sport “open-mission systems” that would allow near-real-time software updates to meet new threats.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

Well to find the money for this he is going to have to make some serious cuts in existing plans, with the most likely target being the F-16 upgrade that is about to start to bring the USAFs block 50 and upwards aircraft to almost F-16V standard and extend their lives. There is simply no money available in the existing budget. Of course he could always cut F-35A numbers as an alternative to find the funding.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by SW1 »

Lord Jim wrote:Well to find the money for this he is going to have to make some serious cuts in existing plans, with the most likely target being the F-16 upgrade that is about to start to bring the USAFs block 50 and upwards aircraft to almost F-16V standard and extend their lives. There is simply no money available in the existing budget. Of course he could always cut F-35A numbers as an alternative to find the funding.
Well F35 was the aircraft that was supposed to replace F16.

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by Defiance »

Sounds like they're just doing their DD to me, I wouldn't freak out just yet

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote:Brown explained that the idea would be to build on the lessons learned in digital engineering for the “e-series” T-7A Red Hawk trainer, and the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD)
On the IR and F-35 threads we have been discussing whereto the RAF/FAA Combat Air mix should be headed, in light of what the US and Russia are doing, in trying to tilt the balance in their own favour.
- visibility of current projects reaches out to either side of the middle of this decade.

Had to call Mystic Meg about 2030 and beyond... this was returned as the answer:
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by SW1 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
SW1 wrote:Brown explained that the idea would be to build on the lessons learned in digital engineering for the “e-series” T-7A Red Hawk trainer, and the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD)
On the IR and F-35 threads we have been discussing whereto the RAF/FAA Combat Air mix should be headed, in light of what the US and Russia are doing, in trying to tilt the balance in their own favour.
- visibility of current projects reaches out to either side of the middle of this decade.
Had to call Mystic Meg about 2030 and beyond... this was returned as the answer:

My opinion is things have to be more simply going fwd the aircraft has to be easier for the user to modify and integrate things on and the system in general has to be open. It can’t be so closed that allies and other units can’t interact with its data easily. This will be hard to square.

It’s the unmanned element we’re a number of these unique mission requirements could be meet as air vehicles are rapidly designed for single mission parameters.

As a result the manned element maybe able to dial back on the performance specifications in some areas.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote:As a result the manned element maybe able to dial back on the performance specifications in some areas.
An interesting angle. The above vid (the quotes are attributed to a respected source) in some ways is like back to the (cancelled) A-12
- cutting edge stealth
- a combat radius that (would have) made it relevant in the PACIFIC
- the tech of the day made it heavy (25% heavier than the catapults of the day could 'throw')

However, a lot has probably been drawn from that work, for this round. Unlike in the case of the first USN attempt at a penetrating nuclear bomber: "the AJ-1 Savage attack bomber was built as a carrier-based atomic bomber during the cold war. The plane had two propeller-driving reciprocating engines, AND a tail-mounted turbojet engine."
- which was a dead end
- as was the 'joint' FB-111 as a carrier plane

Going back to the opening quote: yes, manned could be cut back in required payloads, to give it more range/ endurance for manned/ unmanned teaming.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by SW1 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
SW1 wrote:As a result the manned element maybe able to dial back on the performance specifications in some areas.
An interesting angle. The above vid (the quotes are attributed to a respected source) in some ways is like back to the (cancelled) A-12
- cutting edge stealth
- a combat radius that (would have) made it relevant in the PACIFIC
- the tech of the day made it heavy (25% heavier than the catapults of the day could 'throw')

However, a lot has probably been drawn from that work, for this round. Unlike in the case of the first USN attempt at a penetrating nuclear bomber: "the AJ-1 Savage attack bomber was built as a carrier-based atomic bomber during the cold war. The plane had two propeller-driving reciprocating engines, AND a tail-mounted turbojet engine."
- which was a dead end
- as was the 'joint' FB-111 as a carrier plane

Going back to the opening quote: yes, manned could be cut back in required payloads, to give it more range/ endurance for manned/ unmanned teaming.
I would look at it this way would you proposed building a manned fighter today with no radar only carry’s two bombs and is subsonic as that’s arguably the best route for a low observable aircraft with range?

Would you design a very high supersonic M3+ Manned aircraft to overfly air defence sites for recon or ew warfare type missions? You would say the too expensive no way.

Off course these two descriptions are largely based on the f117 and sr71 respectively but you wouldn’t try to combine these characteristics into a single platform and trying to do it with one aircraft.

You may develop a unmanned air vehicle for the first requirements and different one or rocket type air vehicle for the latter and control them from something else let’s for the terminology of the day a loyal wingman The question is can you make the control technology with the manned platform work so you can mix and match.

If you want to look at the US and take the f15ex as a “quarter back” to control such aircraft if you can make it work do I need the add all the expensive bit and associated thru life cost to the manned aircraft I need to fly all the time for things like the national air defence task or can I add them to the unmanned elements that I don’t need to operate all time and were rapid prototyping and more of a test aircraft type progress may be allowed. This is a simplistic overview I know and just used whats about to paint a general picture to consider the sum of the parts may be cheaper that a one size fits all approach

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote: paint a general picture to consider the sum of the parts may be cheaper that a one size fits all approach
Now we can 'matrix' that approach,
map existing and 'under project' assets to the 'cells',
copy identified cells onto a different work sheet,
add costs (real, or projected),
build scenarios of usage (numbers, attrition, sustainability over varied lengths of 'action')

This is really not that difficult. Usable spreadsheets came around in the 80s and usable (and linkable) simulation tools in the 90s.
- ahh, you can't build valid scenarios without a multi-disciplinary approach (military, incl. logistics, technologists... and then also the people to build the frameworks for running the analyses)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by SW1 »

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... revolution


When it comes to phantom aircraft that are the product of 'bleeding-edge' technologies and supposedly exist only in the shadows, the so-called RQ-180 is unrivaled in our time. The existence of this high-altitude, long-endurance (HALE) stealth drone has all but been officially disclosed. Specters of its existence and growing maturity seem to materialize around every turn, and as of November 2020, the public may have gotten its first glimpse of this aircraft that has existed behind a veil of secrecy and innuendo for over a decade. This is the first in a three-part series—the product of a ghost hunt of sorts that has lasted well over two years—that tells the story—as best as we can piece it together—of what is likely the most important military aircraft of a generation.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote:This is the first in a three-part series—the product of a ghost hunt of sorts that has lasted well over two years—that tells the story—as best as we can piece it together—of what is likely the most important military aircraft of a generation.
Well, yes
We certainly need journalists like Tyler:
"we need to start at the basics—what is this aircraft supposed to do and why does it exist?"

... some bits of the long story that caught my eye:

This is an impossible question for us to answer definitively at this time, and details are bound to change, in some cases possibly significantly, but drawing on a large number of clues, open-source information, historical precedent, capability gaps, emerging technologies, ongoing procurement and development initiatives, the picture, at least as we see it, becomes "somewhat clear."

Unsurvivable platforms with capabilities that need to survive...


Let's break these two mission sets down in regards to what this platform could bring to the table and why its capabilities would be so critically important.
- A high-flying, long-endurance, and survivable information gateway

Just because you can build and deploy aircraft like B-21 Raiders, F-22 Raptors, F-35 Lightnings, and advanced unmanned combat air vehicles—low-observable (stealthy) combat aircraft that can work to knock down the enemy's air defenses or sneak past them entirely to deliver devastating blows to critical targets—it doesn't mean you can leverage these forces to their maximum potential.

[Moving on to the poor man's implemantation... that is us, btw]

Another existing datalink fusion capability is the Roll-On Beyond line-of-sight Enhancement system, or ROBE, which can be installed on some KC-135 tankers and enables an 'active net' for Link 16 and Situational Awareness Data Link (SADL) used by legacy non-stealthy assets. It can fuse information from aircraft with those disparate datalinks together and rebroadcast a common picture back on their individual waveforms. Once again, this drastically enhances the situational awareness and cooperative potential of aircraft flying in the battlespace.

The bottom line is that the writing is already on the wall for this technology, the DoD knows it, and it is already being adapted for unmanned aircraft in the unclassified realm. So, considering how well suited this communications application is for an RQ-180 information gateway aircraft, we would expect it to exist, at least eventually, alongside established and emerging secure RF satcom capabilities. This would give the aircraft multiple ways of communicating beyond line-of-sight, which would be key for resiliency, survivability, redundancy, and for overall flexibility of the system.

But no matter what, the aircraft needs secure satcom capabilities to do its basic reconnaissance mission regardless of its configuration, at least in most scenarios we see it being used. So, evolving a reconnaissance-centric RQ-180 into a flying information gateway variant, or to do at least some of that job while also performing its organic reconnaissance functions, isn't just an extremely logical evolution, it seems to satisfy what is becoming among the Air Force's most urgent priorities."
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by SW1 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:[Moving on to the poor man's implemantation... that is us, btw]
Was thinking of Zephyr and potential roles when I read the article

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Sure, but the payloads restrict the function more to a relay, whereas in this we come close(?) to flying Command Post on out tankers:
ArmChairCivvy wrote: existing datalink fusion capability is the Roll-On Beyond line-of-sight Enhancement system, or ROBE, which can be installed on some KC-135 tankers and enables an 'active net' for Link 16 and Situational Awareness Data Link (SADL) used by legacy non-stealthy assets. It can fuse information from aircraft with those disparate datalinks together and rebroadcast a common picture back on their individual waveforms.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by SW1 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Sure, but the payloads restrict the function more to a relay, whereas in this we come close(?) to flying Command Post on out tankers:
ArmChairCivvy wrote: existing datalink fusion capability is the Roll-On Beyond line-of-sight Enhancement system, or ROBE, which can be installed on some KC-135 tankers and enables an 'active net' for Link 16 and Situational Awareness Data Link (SADL) used by legacy non-stealthy assets. It can fuse information from aircraft with those disparate datalinks together and rebroadcast a common picture back on their individual waveforms.
Bit like this you mean

https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/ra ... -partners/

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: USA Armed Forces

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Yes, and surely the demo is on the back of something that already exists.

Still good, BG Galactica, commanded from the upper bridge of the tanker-transport
- on a 747, the Grand Piano would have to make way 8-)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Post Reply