Senate The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology

The Typhoon and Rafale aren't stealthy enough to be Generation 5-external stores. Ditto for the Su-35 and F-16, which also lack supercruise.

 

Speaking of generation 5 of sorts, the Air Force just announced that a group of B-52's will be getting an upgrade to further increase its already insanely long service life. Currently, the B-52 can carry 12 JDAM's on external hardpoints, most commonly 1,000 and 2,000lb bombs. (JDAM is a system that makes dumb bombs "smart") The upgrade allows it to carry 8 JDAM's in an internal rotary magazine.

The interesting part is that with the new system, the B-52 can carry 20 JDAM's for conventional missions, or it can use the internal bay to reduce its radar cross section for more stealthy missions. Cover a specially equipped B-52 in radar absorbing paint, along with the internal smart weapons, and you have a kind of 4th gen hybrid stealth bomber for Special Operations at a fraction of the cost of a B-2 bomber.

It's also another reason why the B-52 is expected to be used until 2040 or later, and can easily see 100 years of service.

 

Yeah well, what I meant was that if the difference between a 3rd and 4th gen fighter is mostly incremental, and if the Typhoon/Rafale are incremental improvements over 4th-gen fighters, then perhaps they should be considered 5th-gen, while the F-22 gets to be called 6th-gen.

Anyway, I hear the Air Force is considering retiring the A-10, F-15C and KC-10 if sequestration continues to remain in effect. Kinda surprised about the KC-10, considering there was a general a while back who said something to the extent of, "I don't care which tanker you choose, I just need new tankers and I need them now!".

 

I think we're buying enough KC-46s to replace the -10, actually. I'd peg the A-10 and F-15C as being way more likely to retire, although the Army always threatens to buy them from the Air Force if they're retired.

Mr44 I remember reading about that-I think its more a leverage of the B-52's endurance than anything else...a 52 can remain on station for a long, long time.

 

AR, it's a bit like splitting hairs because there is spill over between eras, but I wouldn't exactly bump either the Eurofighter or the Rafale into the next generation, because their improvements aren't really game changing-especially the Rafale, which was designed in the late 1980's. I'm sure there is always some debate, but roughly, here's the breakdown:

1st Generation-Initial jet fighters (ie Korean-era) such as the F-86 Sabre vs the MiG 15.
These were basically WWII fighters with guns, but jet powered.

2nd Generation- In the US, the "century line" of fighters (ie F-105, etc...) vs the MiG 21.
What made them 2nd gen vs 1st? use of missiles and engineered alloys.

3rd Generation-(ie Vietnam-era) The famous F4 Phantom vs the MiG 23 Flogger.
What made them 3rd gen vs 2nd? Advanced radars and radar guided weapons

4th Generation-(ie Cold War/WWIII era) all the well known fighters-F15 Eagle, F16 Falcon, F14 Tomcat...The RAF Tornado... The Rafale and Mirage 2000....vs the MiG 29 Fulcrum and Su27 Flanker.
What made them 4th Gen vs 3rd? The use of computers vs the analog control of the 3rd generations.

-4.5 Generation would fit here such as the F/A-18 Hornet, Eurofighter, etc.. The 4.5 generation fighters didn't really have improvements that pushed them into the next era, they just began to put everything together from the 4th Gen fighters, and it's here were true "multi-role" fighters enter into the picture.

5th Generation for the moment only really has the F-22 and the F-35. Fiber optics, super cruise, stealth all fit into 5th Generation. This era will be interesting, because while it's just starting, it's REALLY expensive to design. So it will be interesting to see what gets made here. The other issue is that since 4/4.5 generation fighters can handle anything that exists, money is going to drive what version other countries buy. I bet only the US and/or a combined US and allies partnership will have 5th generation, until the 6th comes along.

6th Generation fighters are going to be pilotless and controlled by A.I.

EDIT: Although I do see your point. With its data-linking and partial AI, the F-22 might even be called 5.5 generation, give or take.

 

So I just saw this picture of the USS Gerald R. Ford under construction, and what jumped out at me was that big bulge at the bottom forward part of the ship. Normally, cruisers and destroyers have a bulge in that area for their sonar array, right? But what does an aircraft carrier need a sonar array for? Or is it something else entirely?

 

That's called the "improved bulbous bow," which I believe was first engineered for the improved Nimitz carriers. I'm no engineer, but basically the design allows large ships like carriers to ride through the water, and not have to push or cut through it. I don't think it increases top speed, but makes existing settings more efficient. The navy conducted trials and the catamaran was found to be the most efficient for ships. But extremely large models, like supercarriers, can't be built on catamarans, so this is along the same lines but for large hulls.

 

So revisiting an old topic here, it looks like after many long years of cancellations, modifications, and delays, the XM25 may actually be moving into initial "low rate" production. When that happens, it won't be an "X" program anymore, and troops will just be using the M25. For review, the XM25 was the last surviving part of a larger program the XM29 OICW, which was initiated in the late 90's to find an improvement over conventional assault rifle/carbines used by the military. The initial XM29 was a 2 part weapon, which had a rifle and a "smart" grenade launcher. Yadda...Yadda...fast forward, and the program was deemed to be too expensive for the results, but the grenade launcher part was continued as a stand alone system. Basically, the XM25 fires 25mm smart projectiles which has the range to the target dialed in.

The XM25 did see some real world testing when hand built experimental models were fielded in Afghanistan, but funding for the program was eliminated during the drawdown. Now, it looks like funding has been restored. It will initially be fielded to Special Operations, the Ranger Regiment, and then to all brigade combat teams. During testing, troops nicknamed the weapon "The Punisher," but most likely that name won't carry on, at least in an official sense.

 

That's pretty awesome news. The airburst utility of this round is what's gotten all the news (appropriate for Afghanistan) but IMO the anti-material round for it is a way bigger deal-it'll go through approximately 2 inches of steel. That's the same penetration as a fair number of light antiarmor weapons, and this has much better range than any of them (the AT4 in particular) and far more precise sights, and has multishot capacity.

 

Well, this is interesting:

China has an Apache










My first thought was that the top image (purporting to be an Apache in China) was a bit off, the top nose sensor in particular-it's rather large and strangely canted for an Apache. Might be wrong about that, though.

 

So, for a bit of military history-themed trivia, tomorrow marks the 30th anniversary of the US's invasion of Grenada.

The backstory behind Grenada was that 4 years prior to the US's involvement, Grenada's elected President was overthrown by socialist rebels backed by Cuba and funded by the Soviet Union. However, almost immediately, things for the new government deteriorated quickly, and after a series of internal coups and assassinations, Grenada ended up being governed by a military dictatorship headed by a crazy Soviet backed leader and his masochistic enforcer, General Hudson Austin (who really ran held the puppet strings). What got the US involved was that weapons were flooding into Grenada from the Soviet Union and Cuban engineers began to construct heavy runways that were only suitable for Soviet long range transport planes. Austin's reign lasted a week before the US liberated Grenada.

The actual invasion of Grenada was a study in contrasts, but for the US military, it had far reaching consequences that are still relevant today. Prior to Grenada, US Special Operations forces were still completely controlled by the service they belonged to (ie..The SEALs were controlled by the conventional navy. Special Forces were controlled by the army, etc...) There was an entity called the "Joint Special Operations Command," but it reported fully to the Joint Chiefs and was largely advisory in nature. As a result, even though Rangers, Green Berets, and Airborne troops were tasked for the invasion under the Army, they had their own plan along side of US Marines and Navy SEALs who fell under the Navy. The Navy's Atlantic Command had overall control of the operation. The original plan called for the Army units to airborne drop onto the island in the middle of the night to use darkness as a cover, but technology of the time didn't allow Navy/Marine amphibious landing ships to navigate at night, so the Navy veoted the plan and the airborne operation was pushed to a daylight drop. Also, the various services used different radio systems, and as a result, ground troops couldn't communicate with the sea units who had command. Out of about 10,000 total US troops, 19 were killed in Grenada. Probably the most serious incident was when 4 members of SEAL Team 6 were killed because they were misdropped by Air Force aircraft in water that was too far out from shore and too deep. The SEAL's were loaded down with equipment and all 4 drowned.

As a result of Grenada- 1) Special Operations Command was elevated to its own independent Command equal to other "4 Star" commands. Also Special Operations now has its own budget line item giving it the ability to procure things outside of their host services. This was quite controversial at the time, but is pretty much taken for granted within the military now. 2)Communications are now standardized across the military. 3)The most appropriate service is now given command of an operation instead of simply putting the highest rank present in charge.

*Bonus trivia-The scene from the Clint Eastwood movie Heartbreak Ridge were a platoon used a calling card to order up an airstrike was based on a true story from Grenada, although with some minor differences. It a team of Navy SEALs, not Marines, who were pinned down in the President's house. Since they couldn't radio nearby ground troops, they used an AT&T calling card to call back to Fort Bragg, North Carolina to order up AC-130 gunships which could loiter in the area.

*Bonus, bonus trivia-US Navy Admiral Joe Metcalf was put in charge as the highest ranking officer, but a little known Army officer named Norman Schwarzkopf was given second in command and acted as laison with the ground troops. Schwazkopf had to be flown out at the last minute to Metcalf's flagship aircraft carrier.

All in all, it's the type of stuff that is more interesting than fiction, but which one just can't make up. Still, the actual invasion was a success, and Grenada firmly became a US ally. Even now, Oct 25th is a national holiday in Grenada called liberation day/thanksgiving.

 

Just to nitpick-JSOC wasn't "advisory"; it included Delta Force, SEAL Team Six, and Task Force 160 from the get-go.

 

Yeah, of course it did. But makeup is a very minor part of the equation. Because JSOC itself didn't have the authority to make independent decisions. As in, if JSOC had a mission in mind for the Green Berets, for example, the conventional military could override it. That's what I mean when I say "advisory." Its early version was more of an informational clearing house and think tank of sorts. Because even though it included specific units, there was no unified command. Certainly, the old JSOC was beholden for each service to provide the purse strings, and back then, it was almost an afterthought. Most of that was the result of the mistrust that conventional military commanders who still had ties back to WWII had, paired with the massive, technological concerns of the cold war. In other words, it could recommend or advise what it wanted to do under a larger umbrella. But my point was that JSOC really wasn't independent if its decisions could be overruled by a administrative, blue water navy officer, for example.

Now, Special Operations uses its own "umbrella.". It is just about its own military branch and makes its own independent decisions and it has its own dedicated financial stream in addition to what is provided by the specific services. But that reality didn't start until about 1987 or so, certainly after Grenada, when SOCOM was reorganized. USSOCOM now is just about the exact opposite of what the original JSOC was back in the early 80's. I guess it's not fair to say "opposite," but it's now a fully realized concept.

 

Yeah, point conceded.

This cropped up today:

Virginia subclass



Beyond the mildly interesting technical aspects, I'm almost tempted to suggest that the Navy is occupying the strategic-conventional part of the military between this and the UCAS-N program. Quiet submarines bristling with cruise missiles and 2,000-mile range armed drones in a world without a competitor Navy anymore are clearly focusing on attacking deeply inland ground targets of strategic value; they're practically tailor-made to breach this:



Much has been made over China's anticarrier ballistic missiles. These would obviously be completely useless against-as well as quite vulnerable to-Tomahawk-armed submarines; use the submarines to force the ASBM units deeper inland, and that gives carriers launching long-range drones freedom to maneuver practically on your doorstep.

 

I thought the ASBMs are based on mobile launchers? Can Tomahawks hit something that can pack up and drive off to another location?

 

Yeah, they've been able to be reprogrammed in flight for a couple years now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)#Tactical_Tomahawk

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/lrasm-missiles-reaching-for-a-long-reach-punch-06752/

There's also the LRASM, which'll replace Tomahawk one day.

 

So, returning to the previous discussion about the different "generations" of fighters, there are a couple of announcements:

1)Boeing has developed a half generation jump for the F/A-18 Super Hornet, called unimaginatively the "Advanced Super Hornet." The most obvious changes include a computer designed shaped fuel tank, and an honest to goodness enclosed weapons pod. Along with improved electronics/countermeasures and additional coatings, and the ASH has a radar cross section that is 50% less than a standard Hornet. The ASH can carry 3,500lbs of fuel in the new tank and 2,500lbs of weapons in the aerodynamic pod. It's interesting to see a "slick bottom" Super Hornet.

2)From Lockheed's "Skunk Works" comes a new spy plane, the SR-72, which is being called the "son of Blackbird." The plane itself uses a dual mode ramjet. It can travel up to Mach 3 with its turbine in "regular mode," with the ramjet kicking in to propel the plane to at least Mach 6, or twice as fast as the original SR-72 Blackbird. What's truly incredible is that Lockheed produced and flew an unmanned prototype that actually reached over 15,000 mph or Mach 20(!).... The prototype itself flew so fast that the exotic metal in its shell separated from itself and the plane crashed. So I suppose its safe to say that somewhere between Mach 6 and Mach 20 is its sweet spot.

 

I think 2) has explained every last Aurora theory in the last twenty years...its been Lockheed trying to hit Mach Six.

It does seem to be well-timed-Prompt Global Strike seems to have hit something of a stone wall these days, I'm assuming because of the issues involved with lofting ICBMs whether they're conventionally armed or not, and the problems that hypersonic cruise missile program has run into with the body coming apart at speed; a hypersonic drone wouldn't make Russia and China freak out if it was launched, and would be retargetable/recallable.

 

Well, Lockheed's developed a weapon for the SR72 (which I'll be calling Aurora from now on if nobody objects ):


Mach Five Missile

I could well be wrong, but wouldn't Mach five launch platform + Mach Five weapon=Mach 10 actual weapon speed? That's honestly insane, although even Mach Five, as far as I'm aware, is faster than any anti-surface weapon ever fired from an aircraft.

 

That blurb explores an interesting shift in power projection, especially in dealing with the footprint that is currently needed. For example, the flight distance from New York to Beijing is slightly less than 7,000 miles. Travelling at Mach 10, that journey would take what? About an hour? (you'd have to factor in fuel capacity and the fact that something isn't going to be travelling that fast the entire way) The point is that's the same time it would take a conventional jet to fly from South Korea to Beijing, and you could launch the jet from back home instead of forward deploying it.

However, their slogan certainly represents an in your face shift in policy. Sure, if "speed is the new stealth," nothing will be able to shoot down your aircraft, but everyone and their brother will know that you launched it. It's an interesting potential for a new arms race of sorts. If the US could strike anywhere in the world in less than 2 hours without fear of any AA missile actually catching up to it...that represents a certain..umm, I'll say... unilateral capability... I suppose in the big picture its not all that different than the US's super carriers and cruise missiles, but there is lots of different potential there.

Also, given the US government's past practice of intentionally "de-estimating" the speed of things like this... (it was always rumored that the SR-71 could always fly faster than its official quoted speed) I'd be willing to bet the current top speed is well above what is being released. I'd bet that Mach 5 is the low capability, and if Mach 20 is current ceiling, then the Aurora should be able to easily travel somewhere in between the two.

 

To be fair-"speed is stealth" was the rationale with the SR-71 as well; yeah, the Russians knew it was there, but nothing they owned could touch it-although that changed with the SA10, iirc.

 

Yeah, but that was back during the cold war, when it really didn't matter who knew what, because the US and the Soviets were always flying planes over each other anyway. I mean in the sense that even if say, an unknown jet was detected flying toward Alaska, the Air Force would assume it was Soviet until proven otherwise and vice versa. Back then, it was more a case of "cat and mouse" rather than "zero dark thirty." You wouldn't want to send a ramjet bomber/drone to conduct an Osirak type of strike, unless of course, you wanted to send an obvious, if not overly blunt, message that you were the one responsible.

But yeah, your post kind of illustrates what I mean. When this thing is fielded in a couple of years, and everyone knows that the US has the capability to literally strike anywhere in the world in an instant while flying faster than any existing defensive missile, its going to shift the US's power projection back to more of a cat and mouse capability/reality. The US President could sit back and say "....if you don't comply with X sanction/stop so and so program (insert political goal here) you will be bombed within the hour..." and there won't even be the iconic news footage of random anti-aircraft cannon fire and AA missile launches, because they will all be moot.

It will force whoever wants to counter these to spend hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars to come up with a hypersonic missile defense system. Not very many (if any at all) countries will be able to do this. Even if they started now, it would probably take a couple of decades, at which time the US will phase out these hypersonic jets because rail guns and laser beams will be perfected, and it will start all over.

 

No, it wouldn't. If we were talking about a gun that fired Mach 5 bullets from a Mach 5 airplane, then the speeds would be added. But a missile flies at its own top speed without regard for the speed of its launching platform. And the weapon in the artist's concept is clearly an airbreathing missile, not a bullet.

 

Thanks Sarge. I wasn't sure about that.

So all we need to do is figure out how to attach a railgun to this thing.

 

Attach it very tightly.