War Developing and Upcoming Military Technology - Something new at least 3 times a week.

BONE_Buddy · Jul 21, 2020

Huitzilopochtli said:
@BONE_Buddy No news on ARRW or Stormbreaker?

Did a bit of digging through the backlog, this video has the best overview of our hypersonics, including ARRW. It also has a bunch of other goodies in it.

13:00 for the start of the Hypersonics section, but if you have the time it is a great resource. E: Not quite as good as I remember when it comes to the ARRW, I will try to find something more specific.

As for the SBD-II Storm Breaker has been delayed, looks like it will resume delivery soon though.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/06/12/production-of-one-of-the-f-35s-most-anticipated-bombs-has-been-on-hold-for-almost-a-year/

Production of one of the F-35′s most anticipated bombs has been on hold for almost a year

WASHINGTON — Deliveries of a new precision-guided bomb under development by Raytheon for the F-35 and other fighter jets have been at a standstill for about a year as the company struggles to correct a technical problem involving a key component.

A fix for the issue, which brought production of the Small Diameter Bomb II to a halt in July 2019, could be approved by the government as soon as July, said Air Force spokesman Capt. Jake Bailey in response to questions by Defense News.

However, a June report by the Government Accountability Office pointed out that continued technical issues have already caused a delay in fielding the munition, with Raytheon forced to redesign a key component and retrofit all 598 bombs already delivered to the Air Force and Navy.

The Small Diameter Bomb II — also known as the GBU-53 StormBreaker — was designed with a tri-mode seeker that includes a millimeter wave radar, imaging infrared and semi-active laser that allow the weapon to engage targets in all weather conditions and environments where visibility is obscured by dust and debris.

The Air Force and Navy plan to integrate SDB II with a range of fighter aircraft including the F-15, F/A-18 Super Hornet and F-35 joint strike fighter, but the munition has been mired in development for more than a decade.

This latest stoppage in production was prompted by internal audits by Raytheon, which found that the clips used to hold the bomb’s fins in place “suffered vibration fatigue over long flight hours,” Bailey said. The clips serve “as the backup fin storage device” used to keep the fins in place in case other components fail, noted Bailey, who added that there have been no incidents during tests involving the SDB II fins inadvertently deploying.

However, the GAO wrote that the premature deployment of the fins, which help guide the bomb in flight, could damage the weapon as well as cause a safety hazard for the aircraft carrying it.

“While this problem could affect all aircraft carrying the bomb, officials said the greatest impact is to the F-35, because the bomb is carried in the aircraft’s internal weapons bay and could cause serious damage if the fins deploy while the bomb is in the bay,” the GAO stated.

Raytheon declined to comment on this story, directing questions to the Air Force.

Raytheon plans on mitigating the issue with a newly designed clip that reduces the vibration of the fins, and will completely pay for developing the fix and retrofitting it on the bombs that have already been delivered, the GAO said. The Air Force confirmed that testing of the new device has already been completed and is going through final reviews.

But while Raytheon and the Air Force had hoped to restart production in April, travel restrictions caused by the ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic contributed to further delays. The government now hopes to approve the fix in July, after which production will restart and the retrofit process for existing bombs will begin.

“The fin clip failure is the sole reason production was partially halted; once final government approval is obtained, ‘all up round’ production can resume,” Bailey said, using a phrase that describes a fully assembled weapon. The Air Force estimates that retrofits will be completed by August, as Raytheon’s supplier has already begun manufacturing the replacement component, which are easily installed on the outside of the weapon.

“Until production resumes, the total Lot 3 deliveries remain at 204 of the 312 assets on contract,” Bailey said.

All this puts initial operational capability at least a year later than the service’s original timeline, which predicted IOC would occur in September 2019. The Air Force declined to name a current estimate for when IOC would be achieved, but said it would happen after a separate milestone known as the “initial fielding decision,” which involves the approval of the head of Air Combat Command and is set for the third quarter of 2020.

The issue with SDB II’s fins is just one of several technical problems with which Raytheon is grappling. The program completed operational tests in 2019, but hardware and software changes are needed after 11 failures were reported. Two hardware fixes have already been put in place, and eight failures were related to software problems that will be addressed in future updates, the GAO said.

The sole outstanding issue involves an anomaly with SDB II’s guidance system. Fixing it could require Raytheon to redesign the component and conduct retrofits on all bombs already delivered, according to GAO.

A review board of the problem is in the “final stages of analysis,” Bailey said. The Air Force and Raytheon plan to establish whether a replacement component is necessary no later than June 30.

Although the weapon has not even been officially fielded, some components are already becoming obsolete. A Raytheon subcontractor that makes circuit cards used in the guidance system is expected to stop producing those components years sooner than anticipated.

As a result, that the Defense Department may have to order all circuit cards needed for the program of record before December, according to the GAO.
That timeline has now been extended to January 2022, “which provides ample time for program office action before the new deadline,” Bailey said.

Despite the bomb’s ongoing problems, Raytheon continues to rake in contracts for the program. In February, the Defense Department awarded a $15 million increase to a previous SDB II contract for additional technical support. In September, the company received a $200 million contract for lifecycle support during the bomb’s engineering and manufacturing development phase.

According to a Raytheon news release, the Navy recently completed the first guided release of SDB II from a F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

BONE_Buddy · Jul 21, 2020

Sorry @Huitzilopochtli I haven't been able to find anything decent on the ARRW, at least nothing decent that isn't a year old or split out amount a dozen different articles. About all I could find was budget battles stuff, and that is boring even for me. I will keep an eye out and tag you if I find anything interesting.

__
On a completely unrelated note, an excerpt:

From ‘Mad Hatter’ To ‘Torque:’ Kessel Run Makes Software For F-22, CV-22

"In day-to-day operations, one of our four core values at Kessel Run is 'ideas over rank,' says Kessel Run's Nick Setterberg.

breakingdefense.com

“Kessel Run is not replacing ALIS, but providing applications to make maintainers’ lives easier, making schedule maintenance easier and scheduling flying all in one suite of tools,” Hannah Hunt, Kessel Run chief of staff, told me in an email. “The Mad Hatter Effort is now known as Torque, as we are working towards improving maintenance scheduling tools for other aircraft such as F-22 and CV-22 "

:story:

The "Autonomous Logistics Information System" is a broken shitbox program that 'was supposed to consolidate training, maintenance and supply chain management functions into a single entity, making it easier for users to input data and oversee the jet’s health and history throughout its life span. ' People had to create work-arounds just so that they could make it work as it was intended to. it got so bad that several Air Force Bases cut themselves out of the program entirely. It is supposed to be replaced with ODIN, which may or may not be a rebadged ALIS+, but it will take a while.

So what do we do? Well, we will just develop an entirely different program to patch the biggest holes of the first. Thus negating the supposed benefits that the original was promised to give.

Yeah, that sure is the development of the F-35 in a nutshell right there.

Huitzilopochtli · Jul 21, 2020

BONE_Buddy said:
On a completely unrelated note, an excerpt:

From ‘Mad Hatter’ To ‘Torque:’ Kessel Run Makes Software For F-22, CV-22

"In day-to-day operations, one of our four core values at Kessel Run is 'ideas over rank,' says Kessel Run's Nick Setterberg.

breakingdefense.com

“Kessel Run is not replacing ALIS, but providing applications to make maintainers’ lives easier, making schedule maintenance easier and scheduling flying all in one suite of tools,” Hannah Hunt, Kessel Run chief of staff, told me in an email. “The Mad Hatter Effort is now known as Torque, as we are working towards improving maintenance scheduling tools for other aircraft such as F-22 and CV-22 "

The "Autonomous Logistics Information System" is a broken shitbox program that 'was supposed to consolidate training, maintenance and supply chain management functions into a single entity, making it easier for users to input data and oversee the jet’s health and history throughout its life span. ' People had to create work-arounds just so that they could make it work as it was intended to. it got so bad that several Air Force Bases cut themselves out of the program entirely. It is supposed to be replaced with ODIN, which may or may not be a rebadged ALIS+, but it will take a while.

So what do we do? Well, we will just develop an entirely different program to patch the biggest holes of the first. Thus negating the supposed benefits that the original was promised to give.

Yeah, that sure is the development of the F-35 in a nutshell right there.

This is the new design and development cycle. On inside there are still Developmental Juntas that know what they're doing, but more and more projects are getting smashed together, or teams shaken up. Old projects aren't allowed to die anymore.

BONE_Buddy · Jul 21, 2020

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34982/highly-modified-air-launched-loyal-wingman-drone-tested-with-air-force-f-15-eagle

Highly Modified Air-Launched Loyal Wingman Drone Tested With Air Force F-15 Eagle
F-15s carrying loyal wingmen into the fight is a fascinating proposition, but what these tests could be for beyond that is even more intriguing.
{Insert 1}

The Air Force has been quietly experimenting with air-launching Kratos Defense and Security Solutions' UTAP-22 Mako low-cost loyal wingman drone. The revelation came to us via images showing an F-15C from the Oregon Air National Guard's 142nd Fighter Wing with a highly modified UTAP-22 hanging off its left-wing. The images were taken in one of the Arizona Air National Guard's 162nd Wing's hangars—the unit is located at Tucson Air National Guard Base adjacent to Tucson International Airport. The wing's primary role is training foreign F-16 pilots, but it also hosts the Air National Guard-Air Force Reserve Command Test Center (AATC). The AATC works as the Air National Guard's development and testing arm for unique capabilities.

The F-15C with a jet-powered drone attached to its left underwing pylon was photographed last winter by @tucson.plane.spotter on Instagram. The aircraft's intake coverings feature the 57th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron's insignia. The unit is assigned to the 57th Maintenance Group, part of the 57th Wing, which is very unique as it supports the huge range of aircraft that are hosted at Nellis Air Force Base where it calls home. This includes various tests of developmental systems and subsystems aboard the vast majority of the Air Force's combat aircraft fleet. It turns out that the F-15C in question was borrowed from the 142nd Fighter Wing for trials related to the UTAP-22 drone that could last to around a year.

Kratos describes the UTAP-22 as an "unmanned aircraft capable of collaborative operations with manned assets in contested environments," a role also commonly referred to as "loyal wingman." This means that the drone is primarily intended to operate at least semi-autonomously based on instructions from another aircraft with an actual pilot in it. Beyond their primary loyal wingman mission, the company has also demonstrated the ability for multiple Makos to work together cooperatively on their own and they could operate independently, as well.

{ A BQM-167 target drone. }

The California-headquartered drone maker self-funded the development of the UTAP-22, which is derived from the BQM-167 Skeeter, as part of a $50 million initiative to develop a low-cost tactical unmanned aircraft. In 2012, Kratos had bought Composite Engineering, Inc. (CEI), which designed the BQM-167. The Skeeter, which is presently in service with the U.S. Air Force, is an expendable target drone that offers fighter pilots something to actually shoot at during live-fire training.

Outwardly and in terms of general performance, the UTAP-22 is very similar to the BQM-167. Both can fly to altitudes of up to 50,000 feet, have a top speed just under Mach 1, can pull up to 9Gs, can carry substantial external stores, are highly reconfigurable, and can stay aloft for around three hours, which translates to a maximum range of around 1,500 miles, in total.

The UTAP-22s, which have a reported price of between $2 and $3 million, can carry up 350 pounds of stores or other payloads inside 8.5 cubic feet of readily reconfigurable internal bays, as well as an additional 500 pounds of stores externally on underwing pylons and wingtip pods. Possible payloads could include munitions, as well as other systems, such as electronic warfare jammers or various kinds of sensors to carry out intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions.

{ UTAP-22 can be ground-launched using a rocket booster from basically anywhere. }

Kratos originally designed the Mako to take off from a static launcher on the ground using a rocket booster, as is the case with the BQM-167. After conducting its mission, the drone deploys a parachute and descends to the ground or the surface of a body of water where personnel can then recover it for refurbishment and reuse. It's not clear whether the drone is now capable of routine air-launched use, if so, what platforms beyond the F-15 may be capable of deploying it this way.

In 2015, Kratos announced that the UTAP-22 had flown for the first time. In November of that year, the company conducted a second set of flight tests at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake (NAWS China Lake) that included f the drones flying 'tethered' via data-link to a U.S. Marine Corps AV-8B Harrier jump jet, supporting the Harrier’s mission in a semi-autonomous fashion. Multiple Makos have also flown together during other tests.

During the collaborative tests in 2015, the AV-8B carried a Tactical Targeting Network Technology (TTNT) data link to communicate with and issue commands to the unmanned aircraft. TTNT is already found on the U.S. Navy's EA-18G Growlers and will be a feature on that service's Block III F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.

The Air Force has also acquired at least one UTAP-22, though, curiously, the one seen in the picture attached to the F-15C at Tucson Air National Guard Base carries Navy markings. In 2018, the news came that Mako had been cleared for sale to a number of allies overseas, although details about those potential deals remain shrouded in secrecy. Still, it is the first known loyal wingman drone to reach such a milestone.

{ UTAP-22 after safely landing using its parachute. }

The Mako was also a stepping stone to Kratos' XQ-58A Valkyrie, previously known as the XQ-222, a purpose-built low-cost unmanned aircraft also intended to perform as a loyal wingman-type drone, as part of a networked autonomous swarm, or by itself in various roles, including as a communications and networking relay node. XQ-58A is a clean-sheet design and is roughly three times the mass, has stealthy features, and is more advanced overall than the UTAP-22.

The particular UTAP-22 configuration seen under the Eagle's wings is unlike anyone we have seen before. The pods on the tips of the wings are new, although not new to the baseline BQM-167 design, which can accept a wide array of modular wingtip pods. It isn't clear what they are housing, but the covers on the end apertures look very similar to the design of missile approach warning systems (MAWS) sensors that are used to provide threat awareness and countermeasure cueing on combat aircraft. Their placement would provide seamless coverage around the horizontal plane around the aircraft. If there are additional sensors pointing up and down on the fuselage, the coverage would be spherical all around the aircraft.

The biggest unknown in the drone's configuration is what the large faired golden ball-like protrusion on top of the forward fuselage is meant to do.

It is possible that this is a rotating infrared search and track system (IRST) that can scan the skies ahead of the drone, and far ahead of the Eagle in the loyal wingman role, for potential threats, including those with very small radar cross-sections. It could also be a shorter-wave infrared sensor used to provide navigation and general forward situational awareness for man-in-the-loop control or even totally autonomous operations.

UAE's Block 60 F-16E/F Desert Falcons have a similar system installed on their noses, although the concept dates back to the 1980s in the guise of Falcon Eyes infrared sensor. You can read all about the UAE's system and Falcon Eyes in this piece of ours. Generally speaking, imaging infrared sensor systems can have gold-colored opaque glass enclosures that they peer through. The AGM-65D/G Maverick or the LANTIRN system's navigation pod are good examples of this. On the other hand, the enclosure could be a solid metallic golden finish, with the sensor swiveled inward at the time the photos were taken.

{ An AGM-65G Maverick missile with its imaging infrared seeker. }

With perfect spherical infrared coverage via the distributed infrared sensors and a much more capable primary infrared sensor mounted on the nose, one could potentially fly it with somewhat unprecedented situational awareness for a high-performance unmanned aircraft. It could also provide an enhanced sense and avoid capability that would allow it to autonomously operate with other aircraft in dense airspace with a high margin for safety and without relying on a data-link alone for comparative positioning information. Maybe having a robust and passive ability to safely navigate alongside the manned aircraft that it supports was the idea behind this UTAP-22 test.

Another possibility is that the ball on the nose is some sort of electronic warfare device and the pods also support the electronic warfare mission, but that would be a unique emitter configuration, to say the least.

These are just a couple of the many possibilities. We really don't know what the UTAP-22 is configured to accomplished beyond its primary capability set as a loyal wingman platform and the ability to be networked with other UTAP-22s. What we do know is that whatever is going on with these trials, the ability to carry and launch the UTAP-22 from under an Eagle's wing is central to them.

The Eagle would be the obvious fighter for this mission. It has the ability to lug outsized payloads into the air like no other fighter in the U.S. inventory. This has played a huge factor in the Air Force pursuing the F-15EX, something we posited in detail when we broke the story two years ago.

{ UTAP-22 Mako. }

There are a number of manned-unmanned teaming and attritable (optionally expendable) unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) initiatives currently underway across the DoD's portfolio, with the Skyborg and XQ-58 Valkyrie programs—the latter, as already noted, is also a Kratos product—being the most well known. Could this system be a precursor to those endeavors or something altogether different?

Drones that can dogfight and even potentially beat a human in that highly dynamic air-to-air arena has been a major talking point and objective of the Air Force's recent unmanned experiment push. A major initiative to do just this is underway, with a pilot set to face off against a drone in just one year's time. The UTAP-22 would be far better suited for this experimental role due to its performance capabilities than some of the alternatives, such as the XQ-58, and it is available now, easily reconfigurable, and affordable. Could this be our first glimpse of a dogfighting drone?

The aircraft's configuration would make sense for this, but unfortunately at this time, we just don't know.

We reached out to Kratos for more information, but we have no received a reply. The Air Force has been a different story. The public affairs office at Nellis is actively working to get us some information, but as of publishing, they say it will take an unknown amount of time to get us some information due to the number of players involved in whatever this program.

What do you think? Do these sensors look familiar to you? Let us know in the comments below!

Author's note: A big thanks to @tucson.plane.spotter for letting us use his images in this piece. Make sure to check him out on Instagram by clicking here.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Huitzilopochtli said:
This is the new design and development cycle. On inside there are still Developmental Juntas that know what they're doing, but more and more projects are getting smashed together, or teams shaken up. Old projects aren't allowed to die anymore.

Yeah, I hear ya.

All this seems to be a counter reaction to the post cold war era of cutting the "new" programs even if they are developing working mostly as intended. The F-22 production was cut in half, and the Seawolf Class submarines got Zumwalt class production numbers even though they were revolutionary. This is relatively understandable, because there really wasn't a near peer for us at the time. But on top of that you had programs like JAGM canceled which would have provided an large increase in capabilities for relatively little cost because it was a "new" program, and we could still eek out performance from the Hellfires. There were many such cases.

Then the Defense Sequester hit. You were not getting money for new programs, period. Everything was on the chopping block, and if the project dies, you aren't getting it back even if it is mission critical that you get the capability. So, everything which could be kept on life support just long enough to get it deployed, was. This lead to a culture of "get it into hands, we can try to fix it later when we can." Well, later is now, and we are having to pay for it everywhere.

This was one of the two "Great Evils" of the post cold war era, the other was Concurrent Engineering, which is something I could sperg about all day (you can blame the problems with the Ford Class and the F-35 on it).

Things maybe getting better now, but it is too soon to tell. At the very least, the situation is changing.

BONE_Buddy · Jul 21, 2020

SpaceX launches South Korean communications satellite

SpaceX launched South Korea's first communications satellite to be dedicated for military use Monday evening from Florida.

www.upi.com

SpaceX launches South Korean communications satellite

ORLANDO, Fla., July 20 (UPI) -- SpaceX launched South Korea's first communications satellite to be dedicated for military use Monday evening from Florida.

A Falcon 9 rocket lifted off as planned at 5:30 p.m. from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station into a partly cloudy sky and headed over the Atlantic Ocean. The mission had been postponed twice over the last week.

SpaceX confirmed the satellite deployed at 32 minutes, 49 seconds into the flight.

SpaceX successfully recovered the first stage booster of rocket, which landed on a barge in the ocean about 350 miles east of the launch site. The booster is the same one that launched astronauts to the International Space Station on May 31.

Two recovery ships were to attempt recovery of the fairings, or halves of the rocket nose cone, after they fell back into the ocean.

As a military project, few details about the satellite -- ANASIS 2 -- have been released. The name stands for Army, Navy, Air Force Satellite Information System.

South Korea launched a similar satellite in 2013, but it didn't deploy properly and was lost, said Kaitlyn Johnson, associate director at non-profit Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

This launch is part of a global expansion of the space industry, particularly for smaller nations, she said.

Johnson said the satellite most likely will be positioned directly over the Korean Peninsula, providing secure communications for troops.

BONE_Buddy · Jul 23, 2020

Tiny Missile Interceptor To Defend Aircraft Against Enemy Missile Attacks Moves Forward

These miniature weapons could provide a robust hard-kill defensive option for everything from stealth fighters to bombers to tankers.

www.thedrive.com

Tiny Missile Interceptor To Defend Aircraft Against Enemy Missile Attacks Moves Forward
These miniature weapons could provide a robust hard-kill defensive option for everything from stealth fighters to bombers to tankers.

https___api.thedrive.com_wp-content_uploads_2020_07_msdm-top.jpg

Raytheon has received a contract from the U.S. Air Force to build a "flight-test ready" mini-missile that an aircraft could use to shoot down incoming air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles. This effort is one of a number of aircraft self-defense weapon concepts that the U.S. military as a whole has been exploring in recent years as potential opponents, especially Russia and China, continue to develop and field new and more advanced missiles of their own

The Pentagon announced the deal in its daily contracting notice on July 21, 2020. The first task order under the contract is worth just over $93 million, but it could eventually net Raytheon up to $375 million, in total. The announcement says that the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), which is managing the project, expects the work to be completed by October 2023.

The full announcement is as follows:

"Raytheon Co. Missile Systems, Tucson, Arizona, has been awarded a $375,000,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for a miniature self-defense missile. The contract provides for the research and development of a flight-test ready missile. The first task order is $93,380,234. Work will be performed in Tucson, Arizona, and is expected to be completed by October 2023. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition and two offers were received. Fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $26,712,000 are being obligated at the time of award. Air Force Research Laboratory, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, is the contracting activity (FA8651-20-D-0001)."

Though described here as "a miniature self-defense missile," by every indication, this is the latest development in AFRL's Miniature Self-Defense Munition (MSDM) program. This project first emerged publicly around 2015, at which time the goal was to have finished risk-reduction efforts by the end of the 2020 Fiscal Year and then move on to testing sub-systems for the mini-missile in the 2021 Fiscal Year.

{ The schedule for the MSDM program, among others, as of 2015. }

In 2016, Raytheon had secured a $14 million contract for various missile work, including on MSDM. Lockheed Martin had also received a contract to work on the MSDM program. It seems that this was the company that had submitted the second offer that AFRL said it passed over in favor of Raytheon's proposal for this new deal. Lockheed Martin had previously developed a ground-launched weapon to knock down incoming artillery rounds and small drones for the U.S. Army, known as the Miniature Hit-to-Kill (MHTK) interceptor, which you can read about more in this past War Zone story, a modified version of which would seem to fit well with the MSDM's known requirements.

{ A full-size model of Lockheed Martin's Miniature Hit-to-Kill (MHTK) interceptor. }

In 2017, Northrop Grumman also patented the design of an anti-missile interceptor system for aircraft that also seems similar to what AFRL has described it is looking for in an MSDM in the past. Boeing had also been reportedly involved in earlier stages of the program.

{ Drawings from Northrop Grumman's 2017 patent for anti-missile defense system for aircraft. }

To date, AFRL has revealed relatively limited details about the MSDM program, its objectives, and its progress. It has described the notional weapon in the past as being an "extremely-agile, highly-responsive" missile that is also very small so as to have a "minimal impact to platform payload capacity." The plan was also for it to be a hard-kill {{BONE's note: I think he means Hit-to-Kill, Hard kill just means physically destroying the missile.}} design, meaning that it would not have a traditional explosive warhead and would instead destroy its target by physically slamming into it.

{ A broad overview of the MSDM program as of 2015. }

AFRL has said in the past that the desired length of the notional missile was around one meter, or just under 3.3 feet. This would make it roughly a third as long as the AIM-9X Sidewinder dogfighting missile and even shorter than the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM).

It's unclear if that is still the length requirement for the MSDM. If it is, this would be mean AFRL is looking for a weapon about half the size of Raytheon's own self-funded Peregrine compact air-to-air missile, a design the company revealed last year and has said is around six feet long. You can read more about Peregrine in this past War Zone piece.

{ An artist's conception of the Peregrine missile. }

AFRL has also said that a "very low-cost passive seeker" will be a key component of the MSDM. Associated renderings it has released in the past suggest this could be some form of imaging infrared seeker, which would give the missile a means of finding its target that is immune to electronic warfare jamming.

{ A graphic from 2019 describing "tech enablers" for various AFRL projects, including the MSDM's seeker. }

It's unclear if this would be the MSDM's only guidance option or whether it might include others, such as an active radar seeker. Multi-mode seekers, combined with two-way datalinks, have become increasingly popular on air-to-air, as well as air-to-ground munitions, as a means of defeating various countermeasures. However, an incoming missile is unlikely to have the same kind of self-protection features as an enemy aircraft.

No matter what the exact guidance configuration might be, low-cost seekers could help keep the MSDM's overall unit cost down, which will be critical to making the system cost-effective given that an aircraft will likely carry a significant number of these interceptors and could need to fire more than one at a single threat to ensure that it is destroyed. It can already cost thousands of dollars for a plane to launch decoy flares and radar-confusing chaff cartridges, as well as expendable decoys.

This has also been an issue with regards to ground-based missile defense systems, as well as those specifically intended to shoot down artillery shells and rockets, mortar rounds, and similar lower-tier threats, a mission set commonly referred to as Counter-Rockets, Artillery, and Mortars (C-RAM). The Tamir interceptor that Israel's Iron Dome C-RAM system uses is a good example of a lower-cost weapon, but its reported unit price is, at its very lowest, still around $40,000. Other reports have said each one costs between $100,000 and $150,000.

AFRL has already said that it sees the MSDM as just one element of a new slate of layered hard-kill self-protection options. This could also include a larger weapon it is developing under the Small Advanced Capabilities Missile (SACM) program, as well as directed-energy weapons, such as the one it is working on as part of the Self-protect High Energy Laser Demonstrator (SHiELD) effort. The Air Force recently announced a delay in the testing schedule for SHiELD.

{ An artist's conception of a stealthy aircraft using a laser to shoot down an incoming threat. }

The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps have also been exploring similar hard-kill anti-missile defenses for both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters in recent years and could leverage the Air Force's work in the future, as well. There's also the aforementioned hard-kill interceptor system that Northrop Grumman patented in 2017, indicating that there is growing interest, in general, among defense contractors in similar concepts, too.

Other self-protection systems, including advanced electronic warfare systems, including expandable options, as well as further support from offboard platforms will also be part of this overall defensive ecosystem. Improved networking capabilities will further help link all this together, making it easier to spot threats and do so faster.

A mix of MSDMs and these other systems could be increasingly invaluable for stealth aircraft, including future unmanned combat air vehicles, which may find themselves operating in dense hostile air defense environments with limited outside support. MSDM "enables penetration into contested A2AD [anti-access/area denial] environment," AFRL said of MSDM in 2015.

Similar concerns are driving the Air Force's development of a dedicated Stand-in Attack Weapon (SiAW) that its stealthy F-35A Joint Strike Fighter will be able to carry internally and that will give them another option for dealing with pop-up threats in heavily defended areas. SiAW is a derivative of the AGM-88G Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile-Extended Range (AARGM-ER), which the Navy is leading the development of and that will also be a multi-purpose weapon beyond its primary mission of destroying enemy air defense radars.

Of course, the MSDM would be just as applicable to any other aircraft capable of carrying it, including bombers and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms. It could be especially valuable for protecting vulnerable non-stealthy support platforms, such as aerial refueling tankers and airlifters. If the final design is cheap enough, it could be a useful countermeasure against short-range, man-portable surface-to-air missiles or even rocket-propelled grenades, which pose a very real threat to low and slow-flying aircraft and helicopters, especially when taking off or landing.

{ Still frames from the test of a hard-kill defense system that Israel's Rafael developed to protect helicopters from rocket-propelled grenades. }

It's unclear whether AFRL expects to receive the first MSDM flight-test ready prototype before its new contract with Raytheon wraps up in 2023 or when any actual flight testing will start. What we do know is that there is work going on now to move what could be an important self-defense option for U.S. military aircraft in the future out of the laboratory and into a more practical realm.

Sped Xing · Jul 23, 2020

The "large faired golden ball-like protrusion on top" of the alleged drone is very clearly the cockpit for the monkey.

Snekposter · Jul 23, 2020

It was only a matter of time before aircraft started mounting some extra defenses. How soon until the laser gunpods though? I mean, with the escort drones we're already on the way to Arsenal Birds, and those hypersonic anti-satellite weapons have been around since the 1980's...

Ahriman · Jul 23, 2020

BONE_Buddy · Jul 25, 2020

F-35s Nest In Big New Alaskan Facility Marking Strategic Shift For Critical Region

Eielson Air Force Base's huge new F-35 wing will rapidly become one of the U.S. Air Force’s most important units.

www.thedrive.com

F-35s Nest In Big New Alaskan Facility Marking Strategic Shift For Critical Region
Eielson Air Force Base's huge new F-35 wing will rapidly become one of the U.S. Air Force’s most important units.

The arrival of the first pair of Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning IIs at Eielson Air Force Base on Apr. 21, 2020, was significant on many levels. This remote installation is located 26 miles southeast of Fairbanks in the interior of Alaska and about 110 miles south of the Arctic Circle. The installation has received huge funding over the past three years to create a massive secure enclave for its new stealthy inhabitants. While the sheer amount of work that has been conducted at Eielson to bring the F-35 into the arsenal of the Pacific Air Forces is highly evident, the strategic impact on an increasingly important region that the rejuvenated fighter wing will have cannot be understated.

The resident 354th Fighter Wing hasn’t been combat-coded since 2007 when its A-10 Thunderbolt IIs were redistributed to other units. Since then, Eielson has operated a squadron of aggressor F-16s, which provide support for the resident Red Flag Alaska exercise and for the F-22 Raptors based at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, near Anchorage. Eielson also supports the 168th Air Refueling Group, part of the Alaska Air National Guard, which operates KC-135Rs in support of Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) operations.

Eielson will be home to the U.S. Air Force’s second operational active-duty F-35 wing, the first being the 388th Fighter Wing at Hill Air Force Base in Utah. This emphasizes the strategic importance of Alaska. The 354th will be home to a pair of Lightning squadrons that will operate 54 of the Low observable (LO) stealth fighters by the time deliveries to the base are complete. This target was initially scheduled for December 2021, but is now set for early 2022.

{ An 18th Aggressor Squadron F-16C leads a pair of F-35As over Eielson AFB. The aircraft nearest the camera is one of four on loan from Hill Air Force Base. }

The Arctic assumes greater strategic importance

The USAF unveiled its Arctic Strategy on July 21, 2020. It outlines the unique regional role and efforts to optimize air and space capabilities in this area. “The Arctic is among the most strategically significant regions of the world today — the keystone from which the U.S. Air and Space Forces exercise vigilance,” said Secretary of the Air Force Barbara Barrett. “This Arctic Strategy recognizes the immense geostrategic consequence of the region and its critical role for protecting the homeland and projecting global power.”

The strategy outlines four main focus efforts: vigilance in all domains, projecting power through a combat-credible force, cooperation with allies and partners, and preparation for Arctic operations. Combining the combat capability of 5th generation fighters in Alaska with the reach afforded by an organic force of tanker aircraft provides an impressive means to project air power. Eielson’s F-35s will be able to reach the Asia-Pacific or European theaters with relative ease.

“While the often harsh weather and terrain there call for appropriate preparations and training, Airmen and Space Professionals remain ready to bring the nation’s Arctic air and space assets to bear to support the National Defense Strategy and protect the U.S. homeland,” said Barrett.

{ Fighters based in Alaska have access to the vast Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex. }

Bringing the F-35 to the Arctic

Eielson was announced in April 2016 as the first operational USAF location outside the contiguous United States (CONUS) to receive the F-35A. It followed an exhaustive analysis of the base’s facilities, environmental factors, and cost. But pairing the F-35 and Eielson has been far from straightforward. The extreme winter weather conditions are the toughest yet faced by the USAF’s latest fighter.

With the weather dropping below minus 50 degrees Fahrenheit, combined with snow and dark winter days, this is an extremely challenging operating environment. F-35s were first subjected to cold weather trials in the USAF’s McKinley Climatic Laboratory located at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida in late 2013. A focus on cold-weather testing was also directed at the Royal Norwegian Air Force, with its F-35s expected to regularly operate from snow-covered runways in plummeting winter temperatures. This gave rise to a unique drag chute modification for Norway's F-35s. This is mounted in a removable pod between the aircraft’s vertical stabilizers. The USAF’s jets bound for Eielson don’t feature the same landing stability modification.

{ An F-35A fitted with the Norwegian drag chute modification taxies at Eielson in 2017. }

Following initial trials of the drag chute at Edwards AFB in California, an F-35A with the chute attachment was dispatched to Eielson in late 2017 for runway suitability trials. The second period of extreme cold-weather testing was conducted at Eielson in February 2018 as part of the pre-Initial Operational Test and Evaluation work. “We’re here at Eielson to prove the capability of the aircraft to operate under extreme conditions of cold weather,” said Robert Behler, the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation at the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

The multi-flight evaluation in 2018 ran into problems when pilots received warnings that an important battery was failing in flight. It was discovered that the extreme cold affected the battery when the F-35’s nose wheel bay door was open, according to Defense News. This triggered a warning to pilots, which meant they had to land as soon as possible, according to standard operating procedures. The problem was solved in the immediate term via a workaround, with a full software fix following to correct the issue.

Massive infrastructure changes at Eielson to support new F-35s

In addition to ensuring the aircraft themselves were ready for the harsh northern environment, the base infrastructure at Eielson was also in need of major upgrades in order for it to be able to support the incoming fighters.

The arrival of the F-35s required a major expansion in support facilities at the base, as well as housing to accommodate a huge influx of personnel. Significantly, the arriving aircraft are not recapitalizing other departing assets. Moreover, the stealthy F-35s require significant bespoke facilities to meet security and environmental requirements. Bringing the F-35 to Eielson required huge investment and a lot of new construction.

The Department of Defense asked Congress to fund seven major construction projects at Eielson in the fiscal year 2017. It was the start of a huge effort to support expected population growth of nearly 50 percent at the base as 1,250 active-duty personnel relocated here. By the end of 2021, the number of Airmen at Eielson is expected to rise to 3,250.

The Alaska District of the U.S Army Corps of Engineers is the primary design and construction agency for the massive new facilities to accommodate the two new F-35 squadrons and the men and women that will support them. It is overseeing the reconstruction of 32 new buildings and the significant refurbishment of other structures that equates to more than 420,000 square feet of infrastructure, with an associated price tag of over $500 million.

View attachment f-35-8 Redux.jpg

The Senate’s 2017 spending bill included $563 million in military construction projects throughout Alaska. It received a larger share of the 2017 military construction budget than any other state.

At the heart of the development work are two huge new F-35 weather shelters that include 16 bays, each of which can accommodate one aircraft. These shelters are planned to house all aircraft that are available for daily operations across the two squadrons. As well as providing a welcome refuge for the aircraft, the weather shelters are vital to providing maintainers with insulated and heated space to work in through the cold winter months.

You can examine a full high-resolution copy of the entire satellite image of Eielson AFB that The War Zone obtained here. The one below is a reduced resolution version.

{ The new F-35A squadron complex is at the southern end of Eielson AFB. }

A Senate subcommittee approved $298 million for Eielson construction work during the 2017 fiscal year. A firm-fixed-price contract was awarded to Watterson Construction in January 2018 to design and construct the first of the $58 million weather shelters for the 356th Fighter Squadron, with completion set for November 2019.

Contracts also included the refurbishment of an existing 8-bay weather shelter, previously used by the resident 18th Aggressor Squadron, and the overhaul of Aircraft Maintenance Unit (AMU) facilities. In addition, Coffman Engineers was contracted to upgrade an existing 4-bay hangar. The facility was previously used for general maintenance of F-16s and has been repurposed hazardous maintenance activities to support fuel cell maintenance for the F-35As.

A further $169 million was appropriated in fiscal 2018, and $45 million in fiscal 2019. The House funding bill initially included money for only one weather shelter, however as can be seen in new satellite imagery The War Zone obtained from Planet Labs, seen above, the second is nearing completion. This work is also being undertaken by Watterson Construction following a contract award on June 5, 2018. According to the contract notification, a weather shelter for “squadron 2” was scheduled to be completed by July 23, 2020.

Operations begin

Alaska will be the most concentrated state for combat-coded, 5th generation fighter aircraft. “When you station the F-35 at Eielson and you have the F-22 Raptor down at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, working together in the JPARC [Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex] with our 18th Aggressor Squadron and ground training assets, you have the perfect training field for the F-35 to develop,” said Colonel Benjamin Bishop, the former 354th Fighter Wing commander.

The availability of the JPARC is one of the most important factors in exploiting the full potential of the assembled assets in Alaska. Recently expanded to 77,000 square miles of airspace, this massive restricted area provides a realistic training environment and allows commanders to train for full spectrum engagements, ranging from individual skills to complex, large-scale joint engagements.

JPARC 2025 is an initiative designed to ensure the airspace is optimized for the arrival of the F-35s. “The JPARC will have more 5th generation fighter squadrons stationed locally than any other range,” said Lieutenant Colonel John Anderson, the 353rd Combat Training Squadron commander. “If we’re going to have an opportunity like that, we need to capitalize on it and prepare the training venue for those fifth-generation squadrons. Not just for the local squadrons, but also for temporarily-deployed units from sister services and international partners as well.”

You can examine a full high-resolution copy of the entire satellite image of Eielson AFB that The War Zone obtained here. The one below is a reduced resolution version.

{ This bombing range is 18 miles east of Eielson. }

The arrival of the first two F-35s at Eielson on April 21 was closely followed by the start of local flying three days later. Four jets from the 388th Fighter Wing at Hill AFB were added on April 27 as a temporary measure to increase capacity at the 354th Fighter Wing for two months.

By the end of June, six 354th-owned F-35s had arrived at the base and the jets were slated to continue arriving from Lockheed Martin at a rate of 2 to 3 aircraft per month. However, in the background, the build-up was being hampered by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

View attachment f-35-13.jpg

{The new face of tactical airpower in Alaska. }

According to a report by Defense News, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), an organization charged with delivering new F-35s to customers, was drafted to deliver aircraft to Alaska. It removed the need for 354th FW pilots to step away from local operations and exposure to COVID-19 risks, according to Lt Col James Christensen, the 356th Fighter Squadron commander.

The pandemic meant the DoD put a stop-movement order on personnel that ran until June 30, however sufficient maintainers were already in place at the 354th FW to support the buildup of F-35 operations over the summer. According to the Defense News report, pilots and maintainers going through the training system have been granted a blanket exception to transfer to Eielson.

{ A 354th Fighter Wing F-35A prepares to taxi out for a mission in June 2020. }

Moreover, other potential COVID-19 concerns loom. Speaking at the Virtual Farnborough Air Show on July 22, Lockheed Martin’s Vice-President of F-35 production Darren Sekiguchi said the company expects supply chain issues to lead to production delays of approximately 2-3 months at the Fort Worth, Texas, assembly line. This could have an impact on 18 to 24 deliveries of the 141-target scheduled for this year. Sekiguchi said the company expects to return pre-COVID-19 production levels by the late summer/early fall. It’s unclear how and if this will impact deliveries to Eielson.

The next big focus for the Eielson F-35s is Red Flag Alaska, which will kick-off in August. It will be an initial high-end warfighting test for the new F-35 wing as it ramps up flights from its big new flight operations center. While it won’t feature bitterly cold winter weather, it will provide an initial test for the capabilities of the 354th Fighter Wing as it seeks to stamp its mark on this increasingly critical region with its new F-35s.

BONE_Buddy · Jul 25, 2020

Chile Requests F-16 Modernization Equipment and Services | DefenceTalk

The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Chile of equipment and related services for F-16 Modernization for an estimated cost of $634.70 million. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification...

www.defencetalk.com

Chile Requests F-16 Modernization Equipment and Services

The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Chile of equipment and related services for F-16 Modernization for an estimated cost of $634.70 million. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today.

The Government of Chile has requested to buy equipment and related services for F-16 Modernization to include: nineteen (19) Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS); six (6) inert MK-82 (500LB) general purpose bomb bodies; two (2) MXU-650KB Air Foil Groups (AFG); forty-four (44) LN-260 Embedded GPS/INS (EGI); forty-nine (49) Multifunctional Information Distribution System Joint Tactical Radios (MIDS JTRS). Also included are avionics and Mode 5 equipment and software upgrades, integration, and test; software and software support; ARC-238 Radios; Combined Altitude Radar Altimeters (CARA); Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS) support; Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) AN/APX-126 Combined Interrogator Transponders, cryptographic appliques, keying equipment, and encryption devices; weapon system spares and support; bomb components; High-Bandwidth Compact Telemetry Modules (HCTMs); secure communications and precision navigation equipment; aircraft displays; additional spare and repair/return parts; publications, charts, and technical documentation; integration and test equipment; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistical support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The total estimated program cost is $634.70 million.

This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a strategic partner in South America.

The proposed sale will improve Chile’s capability to meet current and future threats by modernizing its F-16 fleet, which will allow Chile to maintain sovereignty and homeland defense, increase interoperability with the United States and other partners, and deter potential adversaries. Chile will have no difficulty absorbing the upgrades into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this equipment will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin, Bethesda, MD. There are no known offset agreements in connection with this potential sale.

This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.

BONE_Buddy · Jul 25, 2020

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/07/24/army-plans-for-airborne-long-range-missile-fly-offs-for-future-helicopters/

US Army plans long-range missile fly-offs for future helicopters

{The U.S. Army experimented with an AH-64 Apache attack helicopter firing a Spike NLOS missile at Yuma Proving Ground, Ariz., on Aug. 26, 2019. (Staff Sgt. Tim Morgan/U.S. Army)}

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army plans to conduct a few fly-offs to test possible long-range precision munitions for its fleet of future helicopters, according to the chief of operations in charge of the service’s Future Vertical Lift modernization efforts.

While the Army has picked Israeli company Rafael’s Spike Non-Line-of-Sight missile as an interim solution to deliver long-range lethality from its current and future helicopter fleets, it is also in the market for other options.

“The Army has not committed yet to a form factor of long-range precision munitions. If it’s Spike, or something else, we have time to work with that. We have time to do one fly-off or more” over the next few years to inform requirements, Col. Matthew Isaacson told reporters during a July 24 briefing.

The service is molding a future fleet for the early 2030s, acquiring two manned helicopters, a tactical unmanned aircraft system, air-launched effects, and long-range precision munitions that will be networked together on the battlefield using a common digital, modular, open-system architecture.

The Army extensively demonstrated Spike on both foreign and American AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, which led to the decision to buy some to tie the service over until it can assess other capabilities and better refine requirements before developing a permanent solution.

The service fired the Spike NLOS missile from AH-64s in Israel and at Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, last year. Defense News was present for one of six multidomain operations-relevant shots fired from an “E” model Apache at Yuma in August 2019.

Isaacson says there are a number of vendors with capabilities that could meet the future need.

The Army will need to finalize a preliminary design review across the board for assets within its future fleet in the 2023 time frame, so Isaacson said the Army has roughly three years to work with industry to settle on a capability and ensure it is interoperable with platforms “that are still somewhat on the drawing table,” something he said will be challenging.

“We are looking at getting outside of the range of our pacing threats,” he said. The Army is “pleased” with Spike’s beyond 30-kilometer range, he added, “so any competitor in any future fly-off will have to demonstrate that they can do very similar and get at a long range in a timely manner after our pacing threats.”

Isaacson indicated the Army will likely work through cooperative research and development agreements among other means to demonstrate long-range precision munition capabilities at small venues. Then the munitions would be put to the test with soldiers at the brigade level, followed by higher-level demonstrations at venues like the Joint Warfighting Assessment, to inform requirements, he added.

BONE_Buddy · Jul 25, 2020

https://news.yahoo.com/u-talks-japan-marine-force-162816850.html

U.S. in talks with Japan about Marine force overhaul, says commander

TOKYO (Reuters) - The United States has begun talks with Japan about deploying mobile U.S. Marine units in Okinawa armed with anti-ship and air defense missiles that would work closely with Japanese forces on islands that prevent easy access to the Pacific for China's military, the Marine Corps commandant said on Thursday.

"You want to deter, to prevent any potential adversary from taking the next move," General David Berger said in a telephone interview. "If you are looking out from China, that's what you should see, a rock-solid alliance," he added.

In March, Berger published "Force Design 2030" a plan to trim aircraft numbers, dump most cannon artillery and cut heavy armor, including all its tanks, and create "Marine Littoral Regiments" equipped with missiles and drones that could deny an adversary control of contested areas by threatening their ships and planes.

That overhaul begins with tensions between the United States and China growing as Washington accuses Beijing of using the coronavirus pandemic to further territorial claims in the South China Sea and increase its influence elsewhere in Asia.

Beijing insists its intentions in the region are peaceful and has accused Washington of trying to drive a wedge between countries in Asia.

Japan's Okinawan islands are part of what military planners refer to as the "first island chain" stretching from Japan through the Philippines to Indonesia, that hems in China's growing forces.

In his proposal, Berger pointed to a shift in focus to "great power competition and a renewed focus on the Indo-Pacific region."

He said the Marine Corps will have an operational littoral regiment in Okinawa by 2027, with another in nearby Guam and a third in based in Hawaii.

The changes is Okinawa will not, however, mean an increase in troop numbers and will be carried out within the terms of the current U.S. military alliance with Japan, added the Marine commander, who said he will travel to Japan when coronavirus travel restrictions are lifted.

The goal will be to travel to Japan and meet their senior leadership "to explain where we are, and where we are heading."
_________________________________________________________
More moves to beef up our defenses against China and a lesser extent the DPRK.

BONE_Buddy · Jul 25, 2020

South Korea to buy 20 F-35Bs under phase 2 of FX III – Alert 5

Media reports from South Korea says Seoul has decided that it will buy 20 F-35B stealth fighters for the phase 2 of its FX III fighter program.

The country bought 40 F-35A fighters under phase of the FX III. The original plan was to buy another 20 A models so that the Air Force could replace its aging F-4 and F-5 fighters with 60 F-35As. This plan is now disrupted as the new F-35Bs are slated to operate from a new aircraft carrier that Seoul intends to commission into service in the next decade.

Last year, it was reported that the country is studying two aircraft carrier designs, one is a 70,000 ton design that can carry 32 fighters along with 8 helicopters while the second design is 40,000 ton carrying 12 fighters and 8 helicopters. However, these two designs uses the Catapult Assisted Take-Off Barrier Arrested Recovery (CATOBAR) approach. The move to buy the F-35B could signal that the country is leaning towards the Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) configuration that is employed by Britain, Italy and Spain for their carriers

_____________
Japan buys F-35Bs South Korea has to buy F-35Bs. Almost beautiful, definitely humorous.

BONE_Buddy · Jul 25, 2020

Last Articles for today:

Trump Administration Approves Updated Drone Export Policy - DefPost

Trump administration has announced an update to the 2018 Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Export Policy on July 24.

defpost.com

Trump Administration Approves Updated Drone Export Policy

Trump administration has announced an update to the 2018 Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Export Policy on July 24.

With this revision, the U.S. government will invoke its national discretion on the implementation of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR)’s ‘strong presumption of denial’ for transfers of Category I systems to treat a carefully selected subset of MTCR Category I UAS with maximum airspeed less than 800 kilometers per hour as Category II.

A statement from Morgan Ortagus, the spokesperson for the U.S. Department of State, said that all proposed transfers affected by this change will continue to be subject to the same rigorous review criteria outlined in the United States’ UAS Export Policy, the Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, and the Arms Export Control Act, as well as the specific nonproliferation criteria identified in the MTCR Guidelines.

Full Press statement from Morgan Ortagus:

Today, the administration announced an update to the 2018 Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Export Policy which affects one of America’s most innovative industries. With this revision, the U.S. government will invoke its national discretion on the implementation of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR)’s ‘strong presumption of denial’ for transfers of Category I systems to treat a carefully selected subset of MTCR Category I UAS with maximum airspeed less than 800 kilometers per hour as Category II.

All proposed transfers affected by this change will continue to be subject to the same rigorous review criteria outlined in the United States’ UAS Export Policy, the Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, and the Arms Export Control Act, as well as the specific nonproliferation criteria identified in the MTCR Guidelines. This policy change modernizes our approach to implementing our MTCR commitments to reflect current technological realities and helps our allies and partners meet their urgent national security and commercial requirements.

The United States remains a committed member of the MTCR and regards it as an important nonproliferation tool to curb the spread of high-end missile technologies to countries such as North Korea and Iran. Preventing the use and spread of WMD and their means of delivery remains an administration priority.

Statement from White House Press Secretary:

Today, President Donald J. Trump is taking action to improve the standards for exporting Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS). While the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) is critical in slowing proliferation and promoting peace and security, it is in dire need of modernization as it applies to UAS. In a sector of rapidly evolving technology, the MTCR’s standards are more than three decades old. Not only do these outdated standards give an unfair advantage to countries outside of the MTCR and hurt United States industry, they also hinder our deterrence capability abroad by handicapping our partners and allies with subpar technology. More than two years of discussion with MTCR partners were unable to produce consensus on this overdue reform. Therefore, the President has decided to invoke our national discretion to treat a carefully selected subset of MTCR Category I UAS, which cannot travel faster than 800 kilometers per hour, as Category II. As such, the United States has determined that it will overcome the MTCR’s strong presumption of denial for this UAS subset.

This action, which is consistent with MTCR Guidelines and the objectives of the April 2018 UAS Export Policy, will increase our national security by improving the capabilities of our partners and increase our economic security by opening the expanding UAS market to United States industry. It also sets a strong example for other MTCR partners to adopt the same standard.

United States UAS exports continue to be subject to the rigorous review criteria outlined in the UAS Export Policy, the Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, and the Arms Export Control Act, as well as the specific nonproliferation criteria identified in the MTCR Guidelines. Likewise, approving or denying a UAS sale to any country is a whole-of-government decision and takes into account our national security, nonproliferation, and foreign policy objectives, as well as the purchasing country’s ability to responsibly use and safeguard United States-origin technology. The United States looks forward to all MTCR nations joining us in adopting this new standard.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

US Loosens Export Rules For Military Drones

The change would make available all Category I drones currently made by the US, including the long-loitering surveillance and armed systems which have played a key role in Washington’s counterterrorism fights.

breakingdefense.com

US Loosens Export Rules For Military Drones
The change would make available all Category I drones currently made by the US, including the long-loitering surveillance and armed systems which have played a key role in Washington’s counterterrorism fights.

WASHINGTON: In a major shift, the Trump administration has updated its rules for selling drones to allies overseas, opening up new categories of larger and faster drones that can fly as fast as 800 km per hour, eligible for shipment to foreign countries.

The announcement has been expected for weeks. The administration has been working to revamp the rules governing the 35-nation Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) for at least two years in the face of increasing competition from China and Israel in the drone market.

Until now, any system capable of carrying a payload of 500 kilograms for more than 300 kilometers was subject to a “strong presumption of denial” for transfer to a foreign country. By withdrawing this “presumption of denial” for drones that fly up to 800 kilometers per hour, the range of offerings now readily available to foreign partners has expanded to almost anything the US defense industry currently produces. Systems like the MQ-1 Predators and MQ-9 Reaper can only fly at about half that speed, while the RQ-4 Global Hawk tops out at about 575 kph, well under the limit.

The change doesn’t do away with the larger oversight process carried out by the US government when selling weapons systems to partners and allies, R. Clarke Cooper, Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, told me Friday.

“All the proposed transfers affected by the change will continue to be subject to our regular review criteria, so this is very rigorous, [and] it’s outlined already in the UAV export policy,” Cooper said in a phone conversation previewing the change. “This is inclusive of the conventional arms transfer policy, as well as the arms Export Control Act.”

By publicizing the change to the rules by which the US government will follow, he added, “we certainly encourage members of the MTCR, as well as no0members like China as an example, to do the same.”

It’s a move that the defense industry has long lobbied for, as concerns grow over Chinese and Israeli forays into markets, tempting countries to buy drones that may not be compatible with US or NATO systems in use worldwide.

“I think the important aspect of this move by the United States is that it is transparent,” said Remy Nathan, vice president for international affairs at the Aerospace Industries Association, a trade group. “As long as we are setting a standard about what adjustments we’re making, why they’re reasonable, and how transparent we are in applying them, that’s the metric that other countries are going to also have to follow if they turn around and say well now we’re going to make adjustments.”

The change would open all Category I drones currently made by the US defense industry for export, including the long-loitering surveillance and armed systems which have played a key role in Washington’s counterterrorism fights over the past two decades.

There are many skeptics out there who don’t want the US exporting these drones more widely. Rachel Stohl, Vice President at the Stimson Center, wrote recently that “when we’re talking about capabilities that can change the nature of conflict, have generated questions and concerns about the legitimacy, legality, and strategic efficacy of their use, and directly impact civilian lives and livelihoods on the ground, more caution, not less, is warranted.” The Trump administration has been hesitant to punish governments like Saudi Arabia, who have recklessly bombed civilian targets in Yemen using US-made aircraft and weapons, raising fears that they could more cheaply use armed drones to do the same.

By widening the air speed threshold, the US is making rules only for its own potential future sales, and the new rules are not binding on the other 34 member nations party to the MTCR. And not all members appear to have supported the move. “I would say that there were certainly mixed positions coming from the different partners in the MTCR,” Cooper said. The administration talked with countries who have signed the MTCR, but “yeah, there were varying degrees of either interest or lack thereof coming from partners.”

AIA’s Nathan said that the move can expand the threshold of how the US can partner with allies, since military drones “are increasingly the subject of interest from a lot of our allies and partners for co-production and co-development, but as long as we keep saying that UAVs are missiles, that’s going to complicate our ability to work with other countries on co production and co development.”
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Trump admin officially makes it easier to export military drones

The Trump administration hopes to reap the economic benefit of increased sales of military drones abroad.

www.defensenews.com

Trump admin officially makes it easier to export military drones

WASHINGTON — The U.S. State Department has officially loosened restrictions on exporting military-grade unmanned aerial vehicles to foreign nations, a move long sought by the defense industry.

Under a new policy announced Friday, unmanned aerial systems that fly at speeds below 800 kph will no longer be subject to the “presumption of denial” that, in effect, blocked most international sales of drones such as the MQ-9 Reaper and the RQ-4 Global Hawk.

R. Clarke Cooper, the assistant secretary bureau of political-military affairs, announced a change to how the United States interprets the Missile Technology Control Regime, or MTCR, Friday. News that the change was imminent, and that it would focus on reinterpreting the regulations with a focus on speed, was first reported Thursday by Defense News.
The U.S. government’s interpretation of the export controls had led to a blanket denial of most countries’ requests to buy “category-1” systems capable of carrying 500-kilogram payloads for more than 300 kilometers. Instead of having a “presumption of denial” for those drones, where export officials needed special circumstances to allow the sale of the drones, the new guidance would mean those officials would now consider proposed sales using the same criteria as they do for other military exports.

Cooper stressed that the UAVs covere includes “no risk for weapons of mass destruction delivery. Higher-speed systems such as cruise missiles, hypersonic aerial vehicles, and advanced unmanned combat aerial vehicles are not affected by this revision.”

The regulations were primarily introduced to regulate the sale of cruise missiles abroad, but the interpretation also covers certain unmanned vehicles. The United States has been exploring a change in how to interpret the MTCR for some time, with discussions centered around the “presumption of denial” clause for category-1 UAVs.

Speaking at the Hudson Institute shortly after Cooper’s remarks, Assistant Secretary for International Security and Nonproliferation Chris Ford stressed said the administration plans to keep pushing other nations in the agreement to come to a similar stance, but that “the United States is not willing to let U.S. interests be forever held hostage” by international decision makers.

Ford also said that there is a specific member of the MTCR “seems to have prioritized reflexive opposition to anything the United States proposes,” and would block any potential changes. Although not listed by name, Ford later indicated he was talking about Russia.

In a statement, Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called the move a “reckless decision” that makes it “more likely that we will export some of our deadliest weaponry to human rights abusers across the world.” Menendez has been central in trying to block arms sales to Saudi Arabia over human rights concerns.

Industry impact

The decision primarily opens up sales opportunities for General Atomics and Northrop Grumman, which manufacture multiple slow-moving UAS impacted by the presumption of denial clause. Most medium-altitude, long-endurance systems like General Atomics’ MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper fly at slow speeds, with the Reaper clocking in with a cruise speed of 230 mph, or 370 kph, according to an Air Force fact sheet. Northrop Grumman’s RQ-4 Global Hawk, a high-altitude drone used for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, flies at a cruise speed of about 357 mph, or 575 kph.

Immediately after the announcement, both companies issued statement heralding the change.

“It is critical for our national security that our export policies continue to keep pace with the rapid evolution of technology and support collaboration with our allies,” said Northrop Grumman spokesman Tim Paynter. He pointed to the company’s MQ-8 Fire Scout as another UAS that could be more widely exported as a result of the new interpretation.

In addition, Niki Johnson, General Atomic’s vice president for government affairs and strategic communications, said “We welcome the changes announced today that will alter the treatment of General Atomics’ UAS under U.S. export policy. We look forward to this announcement leading to approvals for sales to a larger portion of the international market.”
Ford declined to speculate about how much money may trade hands as a result of the change, aside from broadly saying he expects it will have a “ripple effect” for countries who may be on the market for unmanned systems.

While broadly seen by the defense industry as a positive step forward, one industry source expressed concerns that the changes announced Friday could ultimately be toothless. In April 2018, the Trump administration announced a number of policy reforms aimed at speeding up the sales process, such as allowing certain UAS to be exported via the Direct Commercial Sales process as opposed to the more laborious Foreign Military Sales process. But those changes did not have the intended consequences, the industry official said.
“Implementation of the 2018 policy was very slow. It did not actually lead to that many new approvals in terms of countries that we can export to. So while we think this change will help us overcome the MTCR question during the policy review process, we still think that there is a higher hurdle for UAS within the conventional arms transfer policy ordeal,” the source said.

Companies could still hit “brick walls” within the normal State Department arms sale process if, for instance, the department finds that drone sales negatively alter the military balance among countries in a given region.

“The question for us is: Does this lead to policy approvals that allow us to go sell?” the source said. This person added that if sales do not immediately begin to move forward, it’s possible that — should former Vice President Joe Biden win the presidential election in November — the incoming Democratic administration could roll back the MTCR interpretation changes.

During a phone call with reporters, Cooper stressed that the change in policy will not result in a blanket approval for all UAS sales.

“It is case by case,” he said. “It’s not just a matter of addressing the [MTCR] requirement, because while UAS systems vary widely in their sophistication and application, it’s incumbent upon the United States that we ensure that the systems we sell are used responsibly and will not threaten our interest or those of our allies.”

Rachel Stohl, vice president for defense issues at the Stimson Center, called the unilateral decision by the White House “yet another affront to international agreements and global arms controls.”

“Let me be clear: A presumption of denial is not a ‘no,' ” Stohl said. “It just means you have to work a little harder to get to ‘yes’ and ensure that a lethal system that can change the nature of conflict, has raised serious questions and concerns about the legitimacy, legality, and strategic efficacy of their use, and has demonstrably impacted civilian lives is in the best interest of the United States.

“Once again, the Trump administration is focused on short-term economic gain rather than medium- to long-term security and foreign policy interests.”

But Michael Horowitz, a professor and director of the Perry World House at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that the change is long overdue.

“Treating uninhabited aircraft as missiles for export policy purposes doesn’t work,” Horowitz said. “It has allowed China to capture a significant chunk of the drone export market, including with U.S. allies and partners.”

However, Horowitz added that the decision to focus on speed may miss the big picture. “Rather than simply treating uninhabited aircraft as aircraft for export purposes, the new policy creates a speed test that addresses issues for current platforms,” he said. “Depending on implementation, this could be a policy improvement, but it could also lead to issues down the road as the uninhabited aircraft category evolves.”
___^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^___
Well, I like the change.

BONE_Buddy · Jul 28, 2020

Got some interesting tid-bits for you all:

(The first comes from Fox affiliate WarriorMaven, so it actually is somewhat informative, unlike normal Fox reporting)

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/how-did-the-army-double-the-range-of-artillery-attack

How did the Army double the range of artillery attack?
The Army has employed engineering adjustments to increase its 155mm artillery power

What if an attacking U.S. Army ground force knew its ultra-long-range artillery had already decimated enemy supply lines and troop fortifications in advance of their move to take out the enemy?

Moreover, what if all of that bombardment had been done from a safer standoff range? It is not hard to imagine that such a U.S. force could maneuver with more confidence and more clearly-defined objectives by virtue of having already achieved certain essential battle aims.

With this kind of scenario in mind, the Army has employed engineering adjustments to increase its 155mm artillery power and literally “double” the range out to as far as 70km (43.4 miles).

The program, called Extended Range Cannon Artillery (ERCA), has been on the fast-track for quite some time, as Army developers move quickly to develop and test a new, more lethal and survivable 155mm artillery weapon.

{ File photo - Artillerymen of 1st Battalion, 41st Field Artillery Regiment fire M109 Alpha 6 Paladins, on Tapa Army Base, Estonia, Nov. 27, 2015. (U.S. Army photo by: Sgt Caitlyn Byrne, 10th Press Camp Headquarters) }

Army Futures Command has already demonstrated ERCA’s ability to hit ranges out to 62km (38.5 miles), all while sustaining the requisite amount of precision. Typical state-of-the-art artillery, such as an M777 Howitzer firing a GPS-guided Excalibur round, maxes out at about 30 to 40km (18.6 miles to 24.9 miles). By hitting more than twice the distance, ERCA enables an entirely new sphere of standoff range, meeting the tactical and strategic aims of the program. The goal, as one senior Army official described it to me, is to simply “out-range” the enemy.

As opposed to existing artillery weapons, ERCA fires a longer, 30-foot cannon to achieve the new range.

“ERCA fires a 58 Caliber, which is about 30 feet long. It has a bigger chamber which allows for a different propellant and different breech. Muzzle velocity is generated through the length of the tube,” Brigadier General John Rafferty, director, Long Range Precision Fires Cross-Functional Teams, Army Futures Command, told Warrior in an interview earlier this year.

Rafferty further explained that behind the projectile is a super-charged propellant and a sliding block breech engineered to accommodate the technical challenges of firing a longer-range weapon.

“A robust hunk of metal seals the back of the cannon. The explosive train is ignited electronically and the larger chamber coupled with the longer gun tube allows for much greater muzzle velocity as it exits the cannon,” he said.

ERCA fires the same compliment of 155mm ammunition as existing systems, a dynamic that enables the longer-range weapons to leverage promising new innovations in the areas of target precision and guidance technology. For example, the Army is now working with Excalibur-maker Raytheon on several new, course-correcting rounds able to adjust in flight to hit otherwise inaccessible targets. One such program is referred to as a “shaped trajectory,” a round programmed to shift course and hit targets under bridges or on the backside of a mountain.

“We do have some adversaries who use reverse slope protection that challenges normal artillery because the descending portion of the trajectory can be masked by that reverse slope. A shaped trajectory is a different projectile used in limited numbers. In rugged terrain, it allows a modified trajectory that can enable new effects against targets. We are working with industry to see what is possible,” Rafferty said.

A longer range, more powerful cannon, Rafferty explained, has to be engineered with specific technical mechanisms to disperse the additional “blast overpressure” caused by a longer tube.

“A muzzle brake at the end of the cannon helps with recoil by dispersing the fumes and blast. It helps direct the blast overpressure. When the round is locked in place, the breech rotates into a locked position, then the back end of the breech is sealed. On ERCA, we have a sliding block breech, which is like a tank gun. It is a block of steel that slides up, which seals the launch tubes and allows for the generation of the chamber pressure. Otherwise, the round would come out the back because of the least resistance. The sliding block breech is more robust and can handle a greater explosion. The higher the chamber pressure, the bigger the explosions,” he told Warrior.
_______________________________________________
The first M1299 SPG Brigade will be deliver in 2023. I don't remember the M777ER delivery date, but it should be relatively soon.

BONE_Buddy · Jul 28, 2020

Navy's Super Hornet Boss On The Jet's Game-Changing Infrared Search And Track Sensor

We go in-depth with the Navy's Super Hornet program manager on the new sensor's capabilities, genesis, and how it ended up mounted on a fuel tank.

www.thedrive.com

Navy's Super Hornet Boss On The Jet's Game-Changing Infrared Search And Track Sensor
We go in-depth with the Navy's Super Hornet program manager on the new sensor's capabilities, genesis, and how it ended up mounted on a fuel tank.

The Navy's fleet of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets keeps getting better with age as it soars into the middle of its service life. The latest Block III upgrade package, which will be applied to many earlier Super Hornets and new build models going forward, will offer a big suite of improvements that you can read all about in detail here. These Super Hornets and earlier Block II ones will soon be able to take advantage of an old concept that has become incredibly relevant once again, not to mention far more potent with an injection of new technologies—the Infrared Search and Track system, commonly referred to as IRST.

The Navy has gone without any form of an IRST for nearly a decade and a half, but that is about to change as the Super Hornet's IRST is slated to enter operations with the fleet in September of 2021, and it really couldn't come sooner. With the proliferation of stealth technology and advanced electronic warfare capabilities, being able to leverage a passive sensor, one that uses the infrared spectrum alone, to detect and track airborne targets far beyond-visual-range is becoming essential. Not only can the IRST do this independently, but now, leveraging the latest in sensor-fusion capabilities, it can provide another critical sensor data stream that can corroborate a flight crew's situational air-to-air 'picture' at any given time. It can do this while being totally immune to electromagnetic jamming and other electronic attacks, and it can see right through radar-evading stealth technology.

{ F/A-18F equipped with an IRST. }

Captain Jason Denney, head of the Super Hornet and Growler program for the U.S. Navy, was kind enough to field an in-depth interview and share his enthusiasm for this critical new capability with The War Zone. The discussion below answers a lot of questions many may have about the Navy's IRST 'renaissance' of sorts, such as how the Super Hornet's IRST ended up in the nose of an external fuel tank and how the sensor differs from its evolutionary predecessor found on the F-14D Super Tomcat before its retirement.

{ Captain Jason Denney }

For complete context and background, you can read an in-depth primer I wrote on IRSTs some time ago by clicking here.

Now, without further ado, lets launch into the fascinating and potentially game-changing world of cutting-edge Infrared Search and Track systems with Navy's officer tasked with leading the Super Hornet into the future:

TR: The last time the Navy fielded an IRST was on the F-14D Super Tomcat. That aircraft was pulled from service 14 years ago. What capability was lost with its retirement?

CD: So, an IRST is just another part of the spectrum. So, yes, when we retired the F-14 and we didn't have the follow-on IRST readily available, we lost access to that part of the spectrum. So, if you think about the spectrum, I like to use analogy because I can get the concepts that I want across without broaching anything that is sensitive or classified. So, if you think about the electromagnetic spectrum, you've got parts of it that are widely used and have a lot of traffic like I-5 [the Interstate 5 highway], right? And then, you've got other parts of it that not a whole lot of traffic, they're kind of like that side road, that country road that's got a lot of stoplights and things.

If you're trying to get to grandma's house, I-5 is probably the quickest, most direct way to go. You can get there via the side road, but they may not have been cleared from the latest snow, or you're going to run into some traffic in small towns, but it's a viable way to get there. So, when we didn't have the IRST ready to go when we retired the last F-14 squads [squadrons], we kind of lost that off-ramp into that side road and we're kind of limited to I-5. So, you can see that when you get a traffic jam on I-5, you're either stuck or if you have the ability to get off and take that road, you have another viable way to get there.

{ F-14D with its chin pod holding the AN/AAS-42 IRST on the left side and the Television Cameras System on the left. }

TR: Why does the service want the capability back now?

CD: It wasn't wanting it back now... You got to look at what aircraft were out there at the time, and then, what were we doing at the time with those aircraft. So, throughout the '80s and '90s, you have the Tomcat and that was our air-to-air interceptor. We could do some air-to-ground stuff, but it was an air-to-air machine. And I'm a former Tomcat guy, I was a B guy, I never flew the D, but that thing was an air-to-air machine. Then you had the F-18 [Hornet] that was designed as a replacement for the A-4 and the A-7 with a limited amount of air-to-air capability, right? And then, going throughout Navy fighter history, the dark times of the '90s where Tomcat 21 got shut down, Navy Advanced Tactical Fighter didn't go anywhere, A-12 got shut down, and the Navy is staring at a blank slate going "What's our plan?" And so, that's when they came up with the Super Hornet. "Hey, let's build a bigger, better Hornet," if you will.

So, it wasn't a "We got out of the IRST business." It was just kind of where the aircraft were going at the time and what they were designed to do. If you look at the F-18, one of the aspects that it has that none of the other aircraft that carry an IRST in the nose have, is the location of the gun. Our gun is squarely right in the nose of the aircraft. The other closest one is the F-14, where it's kinda underneath the aircrew. So, there's really no good place to put it in the nose without completely redesigning the whole nose of the aircraft. That was not what they had planned to do with the E/F [Super Hornet]. They needed it, they needed it online now, the cost and the schedule were paramount. So, they said, "Hey, let's get the airframe out there and then we will catch up with the sensors when we need to." Then, fast forward... So, that's the Block I Super Hornet.

In the Block II Super Hornet, they were focused on redesigning the forward fuselage and to integrate the APG-79 AESA [active electronically-scanned array radar], because we wanted that monster radar in there. About the time that this was going on was the early 2000s and we accelerated getting out of the Tomcat business a couple of years early.

{ The Super Hornet's AN/APG-79 AESA radar and M61 Vulcan 20mm cannon take up nearly the entire nose of the aircraft. }

So now, about the time that we got Block II [Super Hornet] out the door, with AESAs at a point where we could field that, now we're looking saying, "Okay, what capability do we need to bring back, now that we've retired the Tomcat?" IRST, first on the list. So, that's when they came in, and our first CDD for that, our Capability Design Document, was in 2007.

That kind of matches right about when we had got that first tranche of Block II capability, which had new mission computers, a new software language, the APG-79, all that stuff in there that we were able to actually now start integrating.

TR: The IRST21 that is being fielded on the Super Hornet is based on the F-14D's AAS-42. What improvements have been made to the sensor in 30 years since it was first fielded?

CD: Yeah, great question. So, for the sensor itself, we've improved the optical design and the detector technology to get up with the 30 years of advancements, and then to provide some improved sensitivity and performance. That's pretty much all I'll say about that. The rest of it really has been a lot of reliability and maintainability stuff. We put a new IMU [Inertial Measurement Unit] in there and upgraded the gyro electronics, so that it could maintain a track more accurately, in line with where we are with technology today. Then a lot of the R&M [Reliability and Maintainability] stuff... We couldn't get the circuit cards anymore, so they were completely obsolete. So, we had to go redesign those and use more modern chipsets and things like that.

Then, things, even just for keeping it on the wing longer, if you will, there's a gear drive that they use to control the elevation, and we found that it was susceptible to getting dust in it and the gears not working properly, so we replaced that with a band drive. Then things like brushless motors, those types of things, just so that when we finally field it again, it has more time on the aircraft and less time being down for maintenance, which was one of the things that really hurt the Tomcat IRST.

TR: What's the current state of the program? Have operational units received any early production models? What is the current fielding schedule and how many are each squadron slated to get when it does hit the fleet?

CD: Alright. So, some of that belongs in CNAF's [Commander, Naval Air Forces] wheelhouse and we can talk about that later, but let me talk at the end of your question... I'm gonna jump around a little bit, because right now, we are in developmental tests of Block II. That's going through developmental tests this year and we're gonna transition to operational tests sometime next year, for the Block II IRST. Now, originally, the Block II IRST was the original IRST that we wanted on the airplane. Due to sequestration, budget cuts, and things going on in the earlier part of this decade, they split it apart, so you have the Block I and the Block II [IRST]. For various reasons, we did not put the Block I out into the fleet as per the plan and a lot of that had to do with folks not really understanding how to use the IRST. We can talk a little bit about that later. So right now, that's where we are, in developmental tests on Block II.

{ IRST21 built into the centerline tank on the Super Hornet during tests. }

For acquisition planning purposes, we have an idea of how many will go to each squadron, but that's just so that we can budget out how many we need to buy a year, how much that's gonna cost, so Congress can hold us accountable and things like that. We have a number in mind for what each squadron would have, but once it's fielded, that's all up to CNAF. They're gonna learn how reliable and maintainable it is, or maybe the tactics, techniques, and procedures. There was an assumption made when we said, "Hey, we're only to give half a dozen to each squadron at fielding." They say, "No, we're gonna use it in a different way now. And now we need 10 or 12 in each squadron." So, they'll move those assets around, and we've done that with everything from ATFLIR [Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared], to ALR-67 [radar warning recievers], to the ALQ-214 jammer. So, that's all just depending on the fleet use...

TR: What type of testing has been done to validate the system? Is there any work being done with the Air Force, which is running a very similar program for the F-15 and potentially the F-16?

CD: Yeah, we did full DT [developmental testing] on the Block I, and like I said, we're in DT for the Block II now. We've done carrier suitability and various things like that, just to make sure that the system noise and vibration, all those types of things, and on performance, like going, "Hey, run it against the sensor, against different scenarios," and things like that. So, that's really how we do developmental test. Operational test, as you know, is where we give it to the operational testers and they try and use it, kind of how they would think that they would use it in the fleet and say, "Hey, is this operationally suitable or effective?"

TR: Right. And that's upcoming still at this point?

CD: Correct.

So, you'd asked a question about the Air Force. We haven't done anything specifically, co-development-wise with the Air Force. There are certain [common] aspects of the IRST, what they're developing and ours. So, with the hardware modifications, things like that, we've kept a lot of those common, and commonality helps us when it comes down to configuration management or being able to buy huge blocks of them. If we all had, say, the same circuit card, for example, then, hey, we combine the Air Force and the Navy buys and then we all get a better price for it. But other than that, we really haven't done a whole lot of close coordination because their requirements and their implementation are very different than ours.

{ F-15C carrying Lockheed's IRST carrying Legion Pod. }

TR: The IRST for the Super Hornet is being fitted on a centerline external fuel tank in a package form where it's all together in one. Why was this chosen over mounting it somewhere internally? I know we talked a little bit about the gun being an issue, but what about another podded form, like, say, on the intake station, or on a wing station?

CD: Yeah, so that's a great question. I was actually a lieutenant in my first tour of the VX-31 [Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 31] when this debate began, and I will tell you, there were a lot of opinions and a lot of heated discussions about it. But ultimately, it came down to, you got a balance of the size/weight/power/cooling requirements of what the IRST would be, what's available on the aircraft versus how much money it costs to develop and integrate that form factor. Then you balance that against the field of regard versus giving up a weapon station versus giving up fuel. So, there were all kinds of discussions on, "Hey, if we put it in a dedicated pod kinda like the Air Force has done, on the centerline, okay, that mitigates the fact that we don't have room in the nose. And that gives you a pretty good field of regard left and right, but now I've given up 3,300 pounds of gas."

Okay, well, that's no good, especially on the Super Hornet. Now, you're limited to having to carry double-bubble fuel tanks. "Well, okay, now I've given up two weapon stations instead of one." So, there are all these iterations of, "Hey, where can we put this thing?"

Then, again, back in 2006-2007, when we were having these discussions, we were right in [the] middle of OEF [Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan] and OIF [Operation Iraqi Freedom]. So, having the ability to carry varied loadouts and maximum flexibility on what you could carry meant that nobody was really willing to give up a weapon station. So, they weighed all of those options and it came down to, "Hey, if we put it in a fuel tank on the centerline, we get the best field of regard that we can, because if you put it on the left or the right wing, you're blanking one side of the aircraft or the other." It's kind of odd to put a sensor in a fuel tank, but now I'm only giving up 900 pounds of fuel instead of 3,300 pounds of fuel.

{ A conceptual diagram of how the IRST21 sensor is mounted in the fuel tank for the Super Hornet. }

That was kind of the trade-offs that went into, "Okay, why are we doing it this way?" And those are the big things, plus, like we said, trying to find room for it in the nose, you'd have to remotely mount the electronics for the optics and they didn't really know how to do that at the time, to work around the gun. So, cost and integration-wise, it was supposed to be simpler and easier to put it where it is.

TR: There have been some questions regarding that location where it's on the centerline, that it would block a lot of the sensor's upward field of view, but it's good left, right, and down. How does this actually work in practice? Is it a major limitation?

CD: I can't get into details of what the field of regard is, but I will say that, in general, unless you are lined up pretty much exactly on centerline, really close and really high, the IRST is gonna see you. Its field of regard is actually surprisingly good, because remember, you're down and aft. So, like in the Tomcat, if I was up close to the chin and underneath the nose, that nose is blocking more angles than maybe if I'm further down and away from the nose. And then, we never fight by ourselves, so I'm going to have a wingman out there, hopefully he's offset enough and has enough range that his IRST is gonna be able to pick up what mine doesn't and vice-versa.

{ Test F/A-18F with the IRST. }

TR: Right. How will the Super Hornet pilot use an IRST? Is it integrated and fused into the mission systems on the aircraft? What do they see in a cockpit, information-wise, when they employ it?

CD: Interestingly enough, in the Tomcat, it was completely separated. And I, as a RIO [Radar Intercept Officer], my job was managing all the sensors. So, when I talk to some of my F-14D RIO buddies, that was one of the things that the pilot used, the IRST, and the RIO managed the radar, and then they kinda correlated together as they got closer to try and figure out what the information was telling them. Obviously, that doesn't work very well in a single-seat cockpit like the F-18E. So, there will be much tighter integration with the systems.

We do have our version of fusion, it's called MSI. It was originally Multi-Sensor Integration, but it's kinda changed to Multi-Source Integration since we added Link 16 into the mix. What that does is, it was originally designed for the legacy Hornet, was to be able to correlate an IFF [Identification Friend or Foe] hit with the radar track. If the computer says, "Hey, okay, I've got an IFF hit here and I got a radar track here, yes, those are the same track." So, we've added Link 16 over the years, and now IRST is going to be a contributor to that as well. So hopefully, what the pilot will see is a fused track on his display that says, "I've got a contribution from the radar, IFF, Link 16, and an IRST."

TR: And for stealthy targets, that means if it doesn't show up on radar, you're still going be able to get some sort of sensor location off of it, hopefully. That'd be the goal, correct?

CD: Yes. So, depending on what's out there, maybe there's a Link 16 track that's somehow able to either not get jammed, or they're in a different band of radar, that says, "Hey, we've got somebody here and the IRST can correlate with that," sure, absolutely. But they're supposed to, hopefully, see some sort of information out there correlated with the other information that's in the jet.

{ With stealth technology now proliferating around the globe, both in terms of fighter designs like the J-20 above, cruise missiles, and especially drones, the IRST will be critical to spotting these threats before it is too late. }

TR: Are there different modes that the sensor can operate in, kind of like a radar? Does it provide an actual image to the pilot of the target for them to even get an idea of what it is, if it's a fighter or what type even?

CD: So, that would be specific capabilities and we're not gonna talk about the image piece of it. But as far as the different modes, yeah, actually it's much more akin to a mechanically-scanned radar than it is anything else. Which is interestingly enough, with this generation of JOs [Junior Officers] that have grown up with AESA, to go back and teach them, "Hey, you've gotta actually have dedicated mechanics to make sure the thing's pointed where you want it to," has been interesting to see, because I grew up with mechanically-scanned radar and it was almost a joke to go to AESA.

So, yeah, it has a couple of modes, more like the Track While Scan [TWS], if you're familiar with TWS on mechanically-scanned radars. So, it's TWS-Manual, TWS-Auto, where either you pick where the sensor's looking or it picks where the sensor's looking based on what track it sees. So, it's very much in line with a mech-scan radar construct.

TR: It can track multiple targets at one time?

CD: Yes, it can track more than one target at a time.

TR: I know range figures are confidential, but is there any way you can just speak to sort of what it's supposed to be able to see, just generally, and how weather and whatnot would impact a sensor like this?

CD: We won't get into specifics, that's capabilities, but you're really talking about physics now at this point. So range, if you think about the submarine using its sonar, it's the same kind of thing, it's a passive sensor. I can get a line of bearing from it, but other information? Now I've gotta do something. So, if I take a line of bearing on anything, and then I move, and I take another line of bearing, and I take another line of bearing. Eventually, I can get kind of a sense of where that thing might be. And if that's a stationary target, that's easier. If it's a moving target, or if I'm stationary and the target's moving, okay, I take a cut, take a cut, take a cut, I can then tell generally which direction he's going, but without knowing something about the range or something about the velocity, I gotta make some assumptions... If it's really close to me, then it may be going really slow to have that same angular displacement in the same amount of time as if it's really far away from me, then it's gotta be going ungodly fast in order to have the same angular displacement, right? So, in order to determine range and things like that, there's a whole lot of crazy math that has to go on, and in the end, your radar is a much better range sensor than an IRST is. Does that make sense?

TR: Yeah. And I'd imagine since you're all data linked together, you could have a couple of Hornets working together with their IRSTs to figure out triangulation and that sort of thing using that same math, correct?

CD: Well, so that would go into specific capability, but like I said before, I have Link 16 tracks coming across, so if somebody else has a range on a track and now my IRST can correlate to it, then I can start correlating my sensors.

{ A render of Block III Super Hornets packing IRSTs. }

It's an extra tool in the toolbox that gives me options that I wouldn't have otherwise if I didn't have it. Then to your question on weather and things like that. Yeah, just like every other IR sensor out there it is also a slave to physics, which is beautiful because physics doesn't care what side of the conflict you're on, it plays fairly both ways. There are parts of the spectrum where either oxygen or water vapor really crush your transmissivity, or if I've got a lot of water droplets or things in the air, it's gonna decrease the amount of infrared radiation that's able to make it to my sensor, and it's going to degrade performance. Believe it or not, that happens to our radar as well. If I see enough water vapor or... Well, not water vapor, but water droplets in the air, my radar can pick that up, and it's actually a useful thing because now I have basically a poor man's weather radar. I can steer myself around thunderstorms and such.

So, there are gonna be limitations to it, and we just have to work through those, and sometimes you can turn them into an advantage. If you think about a submarine that's got the different thermal layers it has to deal with, it actually uses those to hide rather than complain about, "Well, my sonar doesn't work going through a thermal layer." So, these are all kinds of things that, going forward, what kind of mindset do you have? Is it, the degraded performance, is that really always a bad thing or maybe it's helping hide me from them as well?

TR: Right. Will it be able to work in a missile defense role? Or checking out surface targets? Detecting stealthy surface targets, that sort of thing in the future? And is this something that would be tied into CEC?

CD: Yeah, that's all capabilities and TTP. Sorry, Ty.

TR: No worries. Obviously, you've gotten a lot of pilot feedback because this thing has been in the air in some form for years now. What are they telling you? What's their perspective on the new sensor and how do they see it fitting into their potential gameplans during their training and operations?

CD: Topgun is giving us a lot of good feedback right now, believe it or not, because they're working through trying to figure out what the TTPs are going to be so when we fleet release, the fleet has them ready to go. So, a lot of the feedback we've gotten is, like I said, the, "Hey, once you have to manage another sensor and get used to using a mechanically-scanned sensor again," and they've wrapped their heads around that, the feedback's generally been very positive. A lot of the other feedback we've got is more crew-vehicle interface and the ability to... Maybe I can slave it to the radar or I can slave the radar to the IRST, things that we used to do in the Tomcat. But just how that plays out, so that either in an E-cockpit or an F-cockpit, the aircrew can maximize the potential benefits of the sensor. But generally, the feedback has been very positive.

{ F/A-18F takes to the air with its centerline fuel tank/IRST. }

TR: Has the Marine Corps shown any interest in maybe adding something like this to their legacy Hornets that are getting the upgraded with the AESA radar and everything else?

CD: Yeah. So, that's not a priority for them right now, at least IRST, the legacy radar upgrade is. And it's just management of resources and the amount of time they have left on that platform. It takes time to integrate these things, and are they going to get a return on investment by the time they get it on to, by the time that they have to wind down the platform. So, that's the calculus the Marine Corps is going through right now. But right now, they're not purchasing it.

TR: The IRST is kind of an advantage for a fourth-plus generation fighter, that you can put something like this on it without having it screw around with a stealth fighter's low observability. At the same time, obviously, this is being fielded for low observable targets as one of the driving factors. F-35, has there been any work to kind of see if they could work together with an F-35, a Super Hornet with an IRST, and anyway that the IRST could help that team?

CD: Yeah. Well, and you're exactly right. So, what we say here at Super Hornet is we have the capacity to augment the F-35's capability. So, as an air wing, we want to make sure that we have the ability to go out and fight as a cohesive force, the whole 4th, 5th gen mix. So, yeah, there are discussions going on of how the capabilities on the Super Hornet are going to augment what the F-35 is capable of. And that's pretty much all I can say about that.

{DAWDC F/A-18E/F Super Hornets fly alongside F-35Cs }

TR: Any talk about loading this on to an MQ-25 or even a ship? Using it as a sensor on a surface combatant?

CD: I can't really talk about that. MQ-25 is... It is hard-over that the MQ-25A is a tanker only. I'm sure there's probably some discussions going on at Boeing about trying to throw it on there, but that's not a Navy requirement right now. And then for a ship, I haven't personally seen anything on that. I suppose it's possible. I just don't know... I don't know what it would buy the ship. I'd have to see what their requirement is, what they think that they're gonna do with it.

We want to give a huge thanks to Captain Denney for sharing all these wonderful insights into the Navy's IRST program. We would also like to thank Gulianna Dunn for working with us to make this piece a reality.
_____________________________
An IRST in a Fuel Tank... well, I guess they are making it work.

BONE_Buddy · Jul 28, 2020

https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2020/07/28/south-korea-to-have-solid-fuel-rockets-in-major-deal-with-us/

South Korea to have solid-fuel rockets in major deal with US

SEOUL, South Korea — South Korea said Tuesday it has won U.S. consent to use solid fuel for space launch vehicles, a move that is expected to enable Seoul to launch its first surveillance satellites and acquire technology to build more powerful missiles.

Solid fuel offers greater mobility for missiles and rockets, and reduces launch preparation time. But Washington had imposed strict restrictions on Seoul’s use of solid propellant for space launch rockets out of concern that it could be used to produce bigger missiles and cause a regional arms race.

On Tuesday, the South Korean government said that Seoul and Washington have agreed to revise related bilateral missile guidelines to lift such restrictions.

Kim Hyun-chong, deputy presidential national security adviser, told reporters that all South Korean research institutes, companies and individuals are now free to develop, produce and possess space launch rockets using solid fuel.

Kim said the revised agreement still bars South Korea from having a missile with a range of more than 800 kilometers (500 miles). But he said Seoul can discuss altering that restriction with Washington if it’s needed for South Korean national security. A missile fired from South Korea with a maximum range of 800 kilometers is still enough to strike all of North Korea.

Kim said that South Korea’s intelligence and reconnaissance capability would be significantly improved when it produces and launches solid-fuel rockets to put low-earth orbit spy satellites into space. He said it makes more sense to use solid-fuel rockets for such satellite launches because the price of solid propellant is only about one-tenth of the price of liquid propellant.

“Theoretically, we can launch a low-earth orbit satellite via liquid-fuel rockets, but it’s like delivering a dish of ‘jjajangmyeon’ by a 10-ton truck,” he said, referring to a popular delivery food in South Korea.

Kim said South Korea has no military spy satellites, while regional powers have dozens of them. He said the use of solid-fuel rockets would help South Korea get an “unblinking eye” that monitors the Korean Peninsula around the clock.

Lee Choon Geun, a missile expert at South Korea’s Science and Technology Policy Institute, said South Korea could operate two or three low-earth orbit surveillance satellites to better monitor North Korea. He said solid propellants are easier to handle and require much less rocket launch times, though they have weaker thrust forces than high-quality liquid propellants.

Lee said the latest deals with the U.S. would also allow South Korea to expand its space development infrastructure and accumulate know-how to manufacture missiles that can fly longer with bigger warheads. Experts say ballistic missiles and rockets in satellite launches share similar bodies, engines and other technology.

Jung Changwook, head of the the private Korea Defense Study Forum, agreed that technology to produce solid-fuel rockets can also be used to build longer-range missiles. He said the United States likely agreed on the deals’ revision to strengthen its alliance with South Korea to better cope with China.

South Korea’s missile capability is inferior to that of rival North Korea. In 2017, North Korea carried out three intercontinental ballistic missile tests as part of its efforts to build a nuclear-tipped missile capable of reaching the U.S. mainland. In 2013, South Korea succeeded in thrusting an observational satellite into orbit aboard a rocket blasted from its soil for the first time, but parts of that rocket were built with Russian help.
______________________________________
Now Japan will have to develop their own "totally not a ballistic missile" space launch vehicles.

thx1138 · Jul 28, 2020

BONE_Buddy said:
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/07/24/army-plans-for-airborne-long-range-missile-fly-offs-for-future-helicopters/
US Army plans long-range missile fly-offs for future helicopters

<snip>

This pisses me off because the Army had a working NLOS system back in the mid 1990s, but stupid Balkan wars and later Gulf War II electric boogaloo meant it didn't get fielded (nor did the AH-66, or the M8 Buford...all murdered to pay for stupid wars).

So now we've got to "consider" an Israeli system. Not that it isn't good, but what double pisses me off is that even if it is good there'll be a decade of "Well...I dunno...I mean...Not Invented Here, dunno if we wanna buy this and piss off constituents..." followed by a few billion down the drink to build something entirely inadequate (I'm looking at you, everyone's anti-anti-tank missile systems), followed by a license build of this thing.

BONE_Buddy · Jul 28, 2020

thx1138 said:
<snip>

This pisses me off because the Army had a working NLOS system back in the mid 1990s, but stupid Balkan wars and later Gulf War II electric boogaloo meant it didn't get fielded (nor did the AH-66, or the M8 Buford...all murdered to pay for stupid wars).

So now we've got to "consider" an Israeli system. Not that it isn't good, but what double pisses me off is that even if it is good there'll be a decade of "Well...I dunno...I mean...Not Invented Here, dunno if we wanna buy this and piss off constituents..." followed by a few billion down the drink to build something entirely inadequate (I'm looking at you, everyone's anti-anti-tank missile systems), followed by a license build of this thing.

Yeah... I know. There is a lot to be bitter about. So many promising projects scrapped, uselessly burn billions, development frozen in time. Don't even get me started on the hard kill systems (anti-anti-tank missiles: AAT), there were at least half a dozen proposals for something very similar to the Trophy APS (RADAR triggered shotgun/fragmentation device). The funds never came for these projects because the people who should have provided the money looked at the projects and said "That looks like collateral damage to me! Rejected."

Well, the GWoT brought the issue back up. You know how that went: "Hey you know how well the Patriot system works? Yeah, well we want that but for tanks, and use it to shoot down RPGs." Utterly absurd. But we went there because the same bureaucrats who denied the simple solutions got sold on the idea that the AATs would have less collateral damage because a fragmenting missile is soooooo much more technically advance than a frag-panel. Therefore it must be better.... right?

Predictably, those initiatives failed. As it turns out, pop up threats at 50 yards are not the ideal target for a comparatively slow to fire, target, and intercept missile. So the people who pay for things look around and note that Israel had a highly successful Hard Kill system. So, they bought the system that uses a RADAR tripped Frag-panel. A system we had proposals for over 30 years ago, and we rejected.

No, I am not bitter, why do you ask?

Deployed Ships Underway	Non-deployed Ships Underway	Total Ships Underway
46	33	79

Fleet Forces	3rd Fleet	4th Fleet	5th Fleet	6th Fleet	7th Fleet	Total
3	1	2	23	15	56	100

War Developing and Upcoming Military Technology - Something new at least 3 times a week.

Not dead yet.

Not dead yet.

Extinction is the rule, survival the exception.

Not dead yet.

Not dead yet.

Not dead yet.

!Bigfoot! sightings please call 908-314-7784

Operation: Desert Snek

Vivere Militare Est.

Not dead yet.

Not dead yet.

Not dead yet.

Not dead yet.

Not dead yet.

Not dead yet.

Not dead yet.

Not dead yet.

Not dead yet.

Are you now, or have you ever been?

Not dead yet.