Senate The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology

What's so special about it? Adding a pusher propeller isn't some sort of radical technology...if it's such a nice feature, why wasn't it done decades ago?

 

The problem probably rested in the used of one rotor atop another working correctly. A tail rotor's purpose is to keep the helicopter from simply flying in a circle. With one rotor atop another, I assume, that issue is fixed so a pusher tail rotor can replace the usual tail rotor.

 

Well, contra-rotating propellers aren't new either. It seems like they could have built compound helicopters like this for the military or the civilian market long ago, but instead stuck with the conventional configuration. The army says it wants a helicopter with more speed and range, but the fact that they didn't go for this sort of design in the past probably means there's some sort of trade-off that has to be made, right?

 

Infra-red search and tracking pod installed on F-15 and F-16: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...VR3zvF-Cfv9Aa__IeN5RUhuJc5jMz4upo95Vpl_lFKc04

 

Frikkin laserbeams

They're not going for shark mounted blasters but hey, you gotta start somewhere.

 

Here's something for @Sarge, a modular kit to convert generic C-130s into tankers. Well, hasn't been built yet, but someone's come up with the idea: https://warontherocks.com/2020/09/agility-boom-fueling-innovation-and-the-air-forces-blunt-layer/

 

Interesting. I never did the KC-130, just trash-haulers, but the numbers line up with what I know.

Also, I've heard stories about 130 crews supplying fuel to frontline combat airfields in Vietnam by rolling fuel-filled bladders out the back, occasionally doing that under fire. That's some serious cajones; my hat is off to those guys.

 

DARPA is struggling with recovering reusable drones in mid-air: The first 9 attempts to retrieve swarming Gremlins drones failed. Here’s what’s next. (defensenews.com)

 

So apparently while I wasn't paying attention, the Navy selected its new frigate, and the Air Force selected its new trainer, and they both have names now.

Maybe I'm just being an armchair general here, but I don't see the point of the new frigate. Supposedly the Navy wants a more affordable ship to "establish presence" and carry out missions that don't warrant a larger destroyer. But most of the cost of a warship is in its electronic systems, and the new frigate looks like it just has all the same systems as an Arleigh Burke just on a slightly smaller hull, which I think defeats the purpose. If anything I think they should've deleted the Aegis and gone for a dedicated anti-surface and anti-submarine ship...with the Aegis it's suddenly a "high-value asset" that's too valuable to put in harm's way.

As for the Air Force's new trainer, well I don't know any of the technical specifics, but I'm inclined to think they should've gone for an off-the-shelf aircraft rather than building one from scratch.

 

The last few years have really been a free-for-all for new equipment, besides when trump would get confused at new technology.

Re: the frigates. The Navy really kinda struggled to find a particular mission and equipment set for the LCS, whereas frigates just kinda make sense for a service that’s been using frigates for forever.
As for Aegis making it too valuable to put in harms’ way-not how the US military has ever operated. Our response to insurgents with cell phone detonated roadside bombs was 30-ton, 50-grand trucks

 

I heard the LCS program was horribly mismanaged, but its overall mission seemed to make sense. I always heard the Navy needed to deal with mines and diesel electric submarines and small attack boats...all in shallow waters where you wouldn't want to risk a DDG. Well, the LCS comes along and, at least in theory, was supposed to do all that right?

As for "not how the US military has ever operated" well, I think that's just going to have to change. We spend thousands of dollars per aircraft sortie and wear down the flight-hours on our expensive fighter aircraft just to bomb a bunch of insurgents, when we probably should have procured some light turboprop aircraft for the job. Osama bin Laden said he was going to "bleed America dry" in the Middle East...he's dead now, but it looks like he's gotten the last laugh.

 

Interesting. I went googling about the Swedish Infantry Fighting Vehicle and came across this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Vehicle_90

In April 2015, BAE Systems fitted a CV90 with an active damping suspension system derived from Formula One racing cars. This technology calculates the vehicle's speed and anticipates the terrain ahead, then pressurizes the suspension at independent points to lift the chassis and keep the vehicle level. The suspension, which had been modified to suit a 38-ton armored vehicle rather than the 700 kg (1,500 lb) racing car, reportedly increases speed by 30-40 percent on rough terrain, outrunning main battle tanks, decreases vehicle pitch acceleration by 40 percent, gives greater maneuverability and stability for on-the-move gunnery, and reduces crew fatigue and life-cycle costs.[13]

That’s a pretty great idea, especially the greater speed and stability for firing while moving.

 

about the LCS-I think it’s important to remember that it started life in the 1990s, when it was looking more and more like the littorals were going to be the prime place of combat. (It wasn’t just the LCS that grew out of this-the Marines really changed their amphibious warfare doctrine because of this, and the Virginia-class subs were designed with littoral combat as well).

But then along came China’s Island Chain and area-denial doctrine that attempts to keep the US Navy at least a thousand miles out to sea, and well-where’s the place for a littoral-combat vessel with fairly limited range in that?

 

True, but if what we need are more DDG's, then just buy more DDG's. The frigate looks to me like it's just a smaller version of the same thing, which probably doesn't save much money.

 

well, we are buying more DDGs, though:

https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/P...destroyer-flight-iii-progressing-on-schedule/

 

Pence announces members of the Space Force will officially be called "Guardians"
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...force-members-will-be-called-guardians-448509

Also, France has started an "enhanced soldiers" program, looking into implants and other technologies
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55243014

 

This makes me happy. Now the Air Force has a junior service we can mock just as the Army, Navy, and Marines have always mocked us.

 

I guess there's no way to avoid getting political about this, but I don't see what reason there is for having a "Space Force" as a separate military branch. Whatever functions needed to be carried out in space were already being done by the Air Force. It very much looks to me like just a political stunt by the Trump administration.

 

Ehh. You could’ve said that about the Army Air Force in WW2 and not been wrong.

The thing is, though-just like the Air Force in WW2 no longer being a compliment to ground operations it’s gotten pretty clear that space operations aren’t a compliment to just air operations anymore, they’re a critical part of war that has much broader application to the military as a whole. You could probably justify GPS alone being it’s own service, the military literally can’t operate as they do without that.

 

So what happens in space if we get into a shooting war with Russia or China? They shoot down all our satellites, and we do they same to them? I imagine we probably have a lot more satellite infrastructure up there, so they probably have an incentive to do this even if it pollutes the orbits with space debris for the next century.

 

Ugh, Dunkin Donuts but I don't do coffee anymore.

 

USAF reveals plans to update B-52 for service until 2370 or later:

 

Any idea when it’s projected the airframes will actually no longer be safe to fly? I’d bet that winds up being the real retirement date.

 

Speaking of airframes no longer safe to fly....those WWII-era warbirds. Sooner or later you've got to retire them, right? I've heard about several incidents of these old planes crashing, and well, better to send them off to a museum before they turn into flaming piles of debris and get people killed, right?