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

Considered HARMful · Aug 16, 2020

CrippleThreat said:
Why do I get the feeling that this big, new innovation is already outdated?

I think it's called "Tomahawk".

MCLOS Horthy · Aug 16, 2020

This just in: China develops incredibly futuristic mega weapon called a "Cluster Bomb".

OG Swolemaster · Aug 16, 2020

CrippleThreat said:
Why do I get the feeling that this big, new innovation is already outdated?

It's not but it's also not a new type of weapon. Anti-runway glide bombs only started entering service in the late 1990s.

Mister Qwerty · Aug 26, 2020

British Army could axe ageing tanks as part of modernisation plans

British Army considers a future without tanks

Senior Army officers have told the BBC the military may abandon its ageing stock of Challenger 2 tanks.

www.bbc.com

Is the nation which invented the tank about to abandon it?
The British Army's Challenger 2 tank is already old.
In 2019 the then defence secretary, Penny Mordaunt, went as far as to suggest it was obsolete. She noted: "Challenger 2 has been in service without a major upgrade since 1998.
"During this time the US, Germany and Denmark have completed two major upgrades, whilst Russia has fielded five new variants, with a sixth pending."
Previous defence reviews have also seen tank numbers slashed from more than 500. Theoretically, the Army still has 227 Challenger 2 tanks. But in reality only about half of those are out of storage and ready to be deployed.
The Army has been looking at a number of options to modernise its fleet of tanks for almost a decade. They include buying German Leopard 2 tanks, or modernising the Challenger 2 with a new turret and gun.
But senior Army officers have also confirmed to the BBC that they've recently been considering whether they could do without them altogether. While mothballing them could also be an option, there seems to be little point in storing old tanks - unless they're for a museum.

ArthuriusMartyrius · Sep 2, 2020

Mister Qwerty said:
British Army could axe ageing tanks as part of modernisation plans

British Army considers a future without tanks

Senior Army officers have told the BBC the military may abandon its ageing stock of Challenger 2 tanks.

www.bbc.com

I can kind of see their logic. England is surrounded by the sea and isn't very likely to go to war with Ireland, Scotland or Wales any time soon. Additionally, they haven't been partaking in many foreign deployments since the heydays of the British Empire that weren't just tagging along with the US. There isn't really much that a force of tanks could achieve in terms of defending Britain that won't be superseded by the RAF or the Royal Navy.

energ1a · Sep 11, 2020

ArthuriusMartyrius said:
I can kind of see their logic. England is surrounded by the sea and isn't very likely to go to war with Ireland, Scotland or Wales any time soon. Additionally, they haven't been partaking in many foreign deployments since the heydays of the British Empire that weren't just tagging along with the US. There isn't really much that a force of tanks could achieve in terms of defending Britain that won't be superseded by the RAF or the Royal Navy.

At the very least they should retain a token, small armored unit, just so all that precious experience gained over decades isn't lost, throwing it all away isn't wise as I will explain, and also maybe invest in making some protoype MBTs every now and then to keep pace with advancements.

After WW1 the Army was having a similar dilemma where they couldn't see the utility Tanks posed and how to integrate them effectively, brits went from pioneering tank warfare to lagging behind in the interwar period, it ended up causing big issues by the time the 30s came along resulting in the scramble to catch up to Germany, they still wouldn't have an effective Tank force until the middle of the war, after the war the British made every effort to never have this situation occur again, so that's why we got the Centurion, Challenger, and Challenger 2, but it seems now that they have forgotten these lessons..

NerdShamer · Sep 12, 2020

energ1a said:
At the very least they should retain a token, small armored unit, just so all that precious experience gained over decades isn't lost, throwing it all away isn't wise as I will explain, and also maybe invest in making some protoype MBTs every now and then to keep pace with advancements.

After WW1 the Army was having a similar dilemma where they couldn't see the utility Tanks posed and how to integrate them effectively, brits went from pioneering tank warfare to lagging behind in the interwar period, it ended up causing big issues by the time the 30s came along resulting in the scramble to catch up to Germany, they still wouldn't have an effective Tank force until the middle of the war, after the war the British made every effort to never have this situation occur again, so that's why we got the Centurion, Challenger, and Challenger 2, but it seems now that they have forgotten these lessons..

At least the Matilda was the Queen of the Desert, though.

Snekposter · Sep 12, 2020

And then you have the US, who to start off WW2 did what they thought the Germans were doing, only it was what the German wished they had been doing. "Oh shit, the Germans have invaded France with 75mm cannons on their tanks! Quick, we need to mount one on ours!" And then it turns out there like all of four Pz IV tanks in the whole Wehrmacht at the time and those 75mm cannons they had were only marginally better than the mule-carried 75mm pack howitzers we had in service, so us throwing a full-blown 75mm field gun into our tanks with the Shermans caught everyone by surprise, British included.

WinchesterPremium · Sep 12, 2020

https://www.popularmechanics.com/mi...-army-howitzer-shoots-down-simulated-missile/

The Army's Big, Dumb Guns Aren't Dumb Anymore (and Now They Can Shoot Down Planes)

A U.S. Army Paladin howitzer shot down a low-flying cruise missile.
The project is part of an effort to repurpose existing weapons to do new things.
U.S. Army guns, which were originally designed to rain explosive shells on the enemy, can now engage low-flying aircraft, cruise missiles, and likely drones.

A U.S. Army howitzer successfully engaged a simulated cruise missile, shooting it down with a projectile traveling at Mach 5. The howitzer crew was assisted by a new U.S. Air Force battle management system. The test is the result of a Pentagon program designed to take existing weapon systems and modify them to take on new and important roles.

The intercept took place at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. In a key test for the Air Force’s Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS), B-52 bombers launched six BQM-167 “Skeeter’ aerial targets. The “Skeeters” served as a stand-in for a salvo of low-flying cruise missiles.

Air Force sensors detected the “cruise missiles” and then provided targeting data to a F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter and MQ-9 Reaper drone equipped with AIM-9X Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, a ground launcher, a U.S. Navy 5-inch deck gun, and U.S. Army M109A7 Paladin self-propelled howitzer.

According to Air Force magazine, the Paladin fired a new hypersonic Mach 5 hypervelocity projectile and successfully intercepted the target. The Hyper Velocity Projectile, or HVP, is made by BAE Systems and uses technology developed for the U.S. Navy’s railgun program. The result is a howitzer round that flies faster and can be used to precision-target ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, aircraft, ships at sea, and targets on the ground. BAE says a Paladin howitzer can fire the HVP to a range of up to 43 nautical miles, and fire six rounds per minute.

Here's footage of a BQM-167 launch:

The test was a win for the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO). Established in 2016, the SCO’s mission is to take existing military technology and modify it to assume an entirely new role. In this case, a self-propelled howitzer designed to rain high explosive artillery shells on targets more than a dozen miles away was equipped with a new projectile that can shoot down cruise missiles. Until recently, this was known as the Department of Defense’s Third Offset Strategy, meant to ensure the U.S. maintains a lead over a rising China without bankrupting itself in the process.

The test is a big win for the U.S. Army’s artillery branch. Now, in addition to providing fire support to tanks and artillery, the Army’s 155-millimeter howitzers can shoot down cruise missiles–so long as the Air Force's flying sensors can provide targeting data. The test strongly suggests the new HVP round can intercept other aerial targets, including low-flying aircraft, helicopters, and perhaps even drones.

The successful use of a howitzer, of all things, to intercept a cruise missile shows the military can introduce new capabilities without designing entirely new weapon systems. Rather than develop an expensive new anti-cruise missile system, a program that almost certainly would cost billions of dollars, the Pentagon took literally the last weapon system you would think capable of shooting down a cruise missile and made it work.

****

Sounds like HVP development is plodding along

NerdShamer · Sep 12, 2020

Snekposter said:
And then you have the US, who to start off WW2 did what they thought the Germans were doing, only it was what the German wished they had been doing. "Oh shit, the Germans have invaded France with 75mm cannons on their tanks! Quick, we need to mount one on ours!" And then it turns out there like all of four Pz IV tanks in the whole Wehrmacht at the time and those 75mm cannons they had were only marginally better than the mule-carried 75mm pack howitzers we had in service, so us throwing a full-blown 75mm field gun into our tanks with the Shermans caught everyone by surprise, British included.

Well, our light tanks were originally armed with 37mm guns, which wasn't really effective against anything that was reasonably armored. Might as well see what happens when you double the caliber.

Drain Todger · Sep 12, 2020

The HVP is kind of a funny story when you think about it. First, they developed conical, saboted rounds for railguns that were intended to go Mach 7, but then, they realized that the projectile itself was good enough on its own to improve the velocity and time-to-target of conventional guns, making the railgun superfluous.

Railguns are complicated. The gun and the required subsystems are heavy and occupy a large volume. The capacitors take time to charge, limiting the effective rate of fire. Also, they have barrel life issues. The energies involved are basically enough to try and weld the rail. Conventional guns have no such problems.

CDWLTY · Sep 12, 2020

BONE_Buddy said:
For large caliber weapon systems the idea is great. For instance: https://www.defenseworld.net/news/1..._40mm_Cased_Telescoped_Cannon_To_British_Army

40 mm Cased Telescoped Weapon System – Wikipedia

de.wikipedia.org

Telescoping allows much higher energy than would traditionally be available in form factor of that size. It also has a potential to be much lighter pound over pound.

The same applies to small arms technology. Weapon weight is a huge deal for the modern soldier. Especially if you have to hump it over 30 miles of Afghan Mountains.

At the same time, We are going to have to start considering ammunition that is higher powered than the 5.56 as body armor advances in other major powers have started to put into question how lethal a shot to center mass will be.

So, they are testing the platform. If this project works, It will be revolutionary.

All that being said however, I do agree with you. We should have just switched over to a 7.62 round.

I get the feeling that's much better for testing new ammo. I think the bigger ordnance is easier to swap around and test out feasability there first.

For the small arms everyone's constantly playing up, itwill all come to nothing in the end, as long as the desk folk get involved. I remember the guy who designed the A2 M16 mentioned something that caused a big headache between the SAW and the rest of the mags. It was something about packaging them all into a ship, like the efficiency of one shape of clips or belts over another was much greater so they ended up axing the thing all around instead of rethinking their shipping methods. So the new round has to be worth changing the entirety of squad small arms, their webgear, their mags, their mg ammo, their tracers, their AP, etc. as well as pleasing the eco nerds with environmental friendliness. And the beancounters comparing it to cheaper 5.56, and the weird obstinate guys in the command chain that refuse to learn new gear, not to mention all the weird niggles they find over time as they deploy it.

The new gear is cool but ultimately it'll languish in socom armories unless they push hard to get the ammo out there. No one cares too much about small arms (except for the chumps using them) so tthey drop coin to undoubtedly please the Sauer sales reps and burn up some funny money, but that's as far as they go. The most I'd expect now is polymer cased ammo, but that will get shit on from the green groups decrying plastic waste in the oceans, at least brass is resold by uncle sam.

WinchesterPremium · Sep 12, 2020

Drain Todger said:
The HVP is kind of a funny story when you think about it. First, they developed conical, saboted rounds for railguns that were intended to go Mach 7, but then, they realized that the projectile itself was good enough on its own to improve the velocity and time-to-target of conventional guns, making the railgun superfluous.
View attachment 1591648 View attachment 1591649
Railguns are complicated. The gun and the required subsystems are heavy and occupy a large volume. The capacitors take time to charge, limiting the effective rate of fire. Also, they have barrel life issues. The energies involved are basically enough to try and weld the rail. Conventional guns have no such problems.

They're also guided, a not-exactly small feature that allows them to actually be useful in intercepting quickly moving targets.

BONE_Buddy · Sep 13, 2020

BONE_Buddy said:
Hey guys, I just thought I would let you all know that I am going to be on hiatus for about a week. I will be back, to the disappointment of some I am sure. See you gentlemen then!

Heh.... sorry about that.

I do have a couple bits:

Target Gone In 20 Seconds: Army Sensor-Shooter Test

This fall’s first Project Convergence exercise aims to feed targeting data from satellites to artillery so fast that gunners can unleash precision fire in much less than a minute. And that’s just the start.

breakingdefense.com

Target Gone In 20 Seconds: Army Sensor-Shooter Test
This fall’s first Project Convergence exercise aims to feed targeting data from satellites to artillery so fast that gunners can unleash precision fire in much less than a minute. And that’s just the start.

WASHINGTON: Army experiments have shortened the kill chain remarkably – from the time a satellite or drone detects a target to the time an artillery unit opens fire – to “less than 20 seconds,” the head of Army futures Command said this afternoon.

When you’re fighting an enemy like Iraq, “it was probably okay to take tens of minutes between identifying a target and actually putting round on that target,” Gen. Mike Murray told a Center for a New America Security webcast. But in a future fight against “our near-peer threats, both Russia and China… it’s not going to be tens of minutes.”

The Army’s Project Convergence wargames at Yuma Proving Ground will test a kill chain this fall combining Army and non-Army assets, Murray said:

Sensors: Targeting data will come from satellites in Low Earth Orbit – “not Army-owned, [but] joint and really interagency,” Murray said – as well as Army Grey Eagle drones and sensors on the ground.
Command & Control: That data will flow into a C2 hub at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington, where it’ll be processed and analyzed by what Murray called “a developmental program” – almost certainly some form of artificial intelligence able to sort through information far faster than human staff officers. (McChord is also home to the Army’s first-ever Intelligence, Information, Electronic Warfare, & Space (I2CEWS) battalion, whose raison d’être is long-range targeting for both physical and cyber weapons, though Murray didn’t say whether or not they were involved). The C2 node then calculates the best weapon to destroy that specific target.
Shooters: “We’ll put rounds on target from either a [M109] self-propelled howitzer, or from a Grey Eagle, or from a ground platform,” he said.

From beginning to end, satellite to shots fired, Murray said, “right now, we have some success doing that in less than 20 seconds.”

‘Very Immature Technologies’

As head of Army Futures Command, Murray oversees development of 34 high-priority systems programs across six broad portfolios: long-range precision artillery, high-speed aircraft, armored vehicles, the tactical network, air & missile defense, and soldier gear. Project Convergence stems from the Army’s realization last year that, since all of these weapons need to work together on the future battlefield – and preferably as much more than the sum of their individual parts – Futures Command needed to start testing how they’d work together as early as possible in their development.

“We have… almost no programs of record at Yuma,” Murray said. “These are very immature technologies that we’re piecing together to understand potential, to understand what soldiers can do and really what commander can make out of these tools.”

It’s a tremendous work in progress. “Part of the magic out at Yuma is there are people recoding software every night to fix problems — and I see that on a future battlefield,” Murray said. “Brigade commanders and division commanders – if we [still] have brigades and divisions — are going to have kids in their command posts that are able to re-code software to solve problems they came up with that day.”

As the director of the Joint AI Center told me in a recent interview, software can adapt to new threats and opportunities vastly faster than you can upgrade your physical weapons. So in this software-driven way of war, constantly changing your code isn’t a bug – it’s a feature.

It’s not just the Army that needs to connect this way, either. All the services are striving to link together in a single Joint All-Domain Command & Control (JADC2) meta-network, an idea of increasing interest to US allies as well.

While the inaugural Project Convergence this fall will be largely Army, with the significant exception of the LEO satellites, observers from the Air Force and Great Britain will be present. Project Convergence 2021 will be “very much focused on bringing the joint force in,” Murray said, and 2022 will bring in foreign partners. “The UK is signed to participate in ’22 and they will be there this year [observing],” he said. “The Australians are talking about participating in ’22.”

But the new network will never be omniscient and omnipresent, Murray warned, not just because of real-life technical limitations but because enemy jamming and hacking will actively attack its communications links.

“JADC2 [has] been described variously as all sensors, all shooters, all C2 nodes,” the general said. “I think it’s a little more narrow than that, because we’re going to be in a contested environment, restricted bandwidth. We just won’t have wide open pipes to push data through.”
_________________________________________________
Hopefully this new technology and training will make future scud hunts far more successful.

Jimmy Durante's Ballsack · Sep 13, 2020

BONE_Buddy said:
Heh.... sorry about that.

I do have a couple bits:

Target Gone In 20 Seconds: Army Sensor-Shooter Test

This fall’s first Project Convergence exercise aims to feed targeting data from satellites to artillery so fast that gunners can unleash precision fire in much less than a minute. And that’s just the start.

breakingdefense.com

Target Gone In 20 Seconds: Army Sensor-Shooter Test
This fall’s first Project Convergence exercise aims to feed targeting data from satellites to artillery so fast that gunners can unleash precision fire in much less than a minute. And that’s just the start.

View attachment 1592736

WASHINGTON: Army experiments have shortened the kill chain remarkably – from the time a satellite or drone detects a target to the time an artillery unit opens fire – to “less than 20 seconds,” the head of Army futures Command said this afternoon.

When you’re fighting an enemy like Iraq, “it was probably okay to take tens of minutes between identifying a target and actually putting round on that target,” Gen. Mike Murray told a Center for a New America Security webcast. But in a future fight against “our near-peer threats, both Russia and China… it’s not going to be tens of minutes.”

The Army’s Project Convergence wargames at Yuma Proving Ground will test a kill chain this fall combining Army and non-Army assets, Murray said:

Sensors: Targeting data will come from satellites in Low Earth Orbit – “not Army-owned, [but] joint and really interagency,” Murray said – as well as Army Grey Eagle drones and sensors on the ground.

Command & Control: That data will flow into a C2 hub at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington, where it’ll be processed and analyzed by what Murray called “a developmental program” – almost certainly some form of artificial intelligence able to sort through information far faster than human staff officers. (McChord is also home to the Army’s first-ever Intelligence, Information, Electronic Warfare, & Space (I2CEWS) battalion, whose raison d’être is long-range targeting for both physical and cyber weapons, though Murray didn’t say whether or not they were involved). The C2 node then calculates the best weapon to destroy that specific target.

Shooters: “We’ll put rounds on target from either a [M109] self-propelled howitzer, or from a Grey Eagle, or from a ground platform,” he said.

From beginning to end, satellite to shots fired, Murray said, “right now, we have some success doing that in less than 20 seconds.”

View attachment 1592735
‘Very Immature Technologies’

As head of Army Futures Command, Murray oversees development of 34 high-priority systems programs across six broad portfolios: long-range precision artillery, high-speed aircraft, armored vehicles, the tactical network, air & missile defense, and soldier gear. Project Convergence stems from the Army’s realization last year that, since all of these weapons need to work together on the future battlefield – and preferably as much more than the sum of their individual parts – Futures Command needed to start testing how they’d work together as early as possible in their development.

“We have… almost no programs of record at Yuma,” Murray said. “These are very immature technologies that we’re piecing together to understand potential, to understand what soldiers can do and really what commander can make out of these tools.”

It’s a tremendous work in progress. “Part of the magic out at Yuma is there are people recoding software every night to fix problems — and I see that on a future battlefield,” Murray said. “Brigade commanders and division commanders – if we [still] have brigades and divisions — are going to have kids in their command posts that are able to re-code software to solve problems they came up with that day.”

As the director of the Joint AI Center told me in a recent interview, software can adapt to new threats and opportunities vastly faster than you can upgrade your physical weapons. So in this software-driven way of war, constantly changing your code isn’t a bug – it’s a feature.

It’s not just the Army that needs to connect this way, either. All the services are striving to link together in a single Joint All-Domain Command & Control (JADC2) meta-network, an idea of increasing interest to US allies as well.

While the inaugural Project Convergence this fall will be largely Army, with the significant exception of the LEO satellites, observers from the Air Force and Great Britain will be present. Project Convergence 2021 will be “very much focused on bringing the joint force in,” Murray said, and 2022 will bring in foreign partners. “The UK is signed to participate in ’22 and they will be there this year [observing],” he said. “The Australians are talking about participating in ’22.”

But the new network will never be omniscient and omnipresent, Murray warned, not just because of real-life technical limitations but because enemy jamming and hacking will actively attack its communications links.

“JADC2 [has] been described variously as all sensors, all shooters, all C2 nodes,” the general said. “I think it’s a little more narrow than that, because we’re going to be in a contested environment, restricted bandwidth. We just won’t have wide open pipes to push data through.”
_________________________________________________
Hopefully this new technology and training will make future scud hunts far more successful.

I love technologies like this because no amount of theft can allow one of our rivals to utilize the advancement. You would have to construct an enormous support network to even begin to see its impact, not to mention knowing how to use said support system. This is technology augmenting decades of operational experience to great effect.

Snekposter · Sep 14, 2020

BONE_Buddy said:
*snip*

So, if I'm reading that wall of text right, some guy on the ground puts forward a request for fire support, it goes up the chain to an AI in the states, which then sends a fire mission to the appropriate in-theater asset, all in 20 seconds? JFC that is horrifyingly impressive and impressively horrifying, and one step closer to fucking Skynet. I want a Future War of plasma rifles and skull-headed killbots, not automated drone strikes. That said, the people involved are entirely too optimistic about replacing the current chains of command and force organization tables, since ASAT weapons and Kessler syndrome are quite real, and having a conventional chain of command still around to implement orders in case of system breakdown for whatever reason is essential.

BONE_Buddy · Sep 14, 2020

Snekposter said:
So, if I'm reading that wall of text right, some guy on the ground puts forward a request for fire support, it goes up the chain to an AI in the states, which then sends a fire mission to the appropriate in-theater asset, all in 20 seconds? JFC that is horrifyingly impressive and impressively horrifying, and one step closer to fucking Skynet. I want a Future War of plasma rifles and skull-headed killbots, not automated drone strikes. That said, the people involved are entirely too optimistic about replacing the current chains of command and force organization tables, since ASAT weapons and Kessler syndrome are quite real, and having a conventional chain of command still around to implement orders in case of system breakdown for whatever reason is essential.

The I2CEWS battalions will be deployed to Division and/or Corps HQs. They are tasked with taking Intel and Recon from a wide variety of sources, Field Reports, Aerial Recon (from both manned and unmanned aircraft), ELINT, Satellite, and many other sources I can't be bothered to name.

They will then work with Division/Corp HQ to determine the best allocation of Strategic weapons (i.e., Cruise Missiles, IRBMs, Long Range Artillery, etc,) to target Theater priorities. Most Artillery will continue to work with their more locally oriented Brigade/Battalion Commands to target Tactical, and Operational priorities... at least most of the time.

There is no real AI in loop here. They just had a mostly unrelated quote from the Head of the Joint AI Center, talking about how software development is a good thing.
_
Now for a bit of news:

https://eurasiantimes.com/south-koreas-stealth-jet-to-cost-more-than-us-f-35-jets-will-be-unveiled-by-2021/

South Korea To Unveil Its Stealth Aircraft By 2021; Prices It Higher Than US’ F-35 Jets

South Korea’s new KF-X multirole stealth fighter has finally begun its assembly of the first prototype. The development of the twin-engine aircraft began in 2015 and it is expected to be unveiled in April 2021.

KF-X multirole jets will take its first flight in 2022. However, experts have pointed out that the cost of the fighter jet may go well beyond the cost of the American F-35.

The KF-X (Korean Fighter eXperimental) is expected to reach a top speed of about 1,400 mph (or about Mach 1.83), have a range of about 2,900 km, a maximum take-off weight of 25,580 kg, and be capable of carrying up to 7,700 kg of payload, according to Janes.

Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) reported that the aircraft will be produced in both single- and tandem-seat variants, will feature three hardpoints under each wing for weapons and/or external fuel tanks and will also be capable of carrying four missiles under the fuselage.

For all these features, KF-X is likely to cost more than what its buyers would place its worth. According to Korea Joongang Daily, The KF-X — the biggest homegrown weapons development project in Korean history and the government has already shelled about 8.6 trillion won ($7 billion) into the project.

Once the production starts on 120 units of the new jet in 2026, an additional 10 trillion won will be needed, putting the bill for the entire project at around 18.6 trillion won.

“If the newspaper’s figures are accurate, each KF-X could cost around $130 million. That’s slightly more than what a U.S.-made F-35 cost in 2019. But there are reasons to doubt the Korean industry can get the price of a KF-X down that low,” stated David Axe, a Defence and Aerospace contributor at Forbes.

“The F-35 so far is the only stealth fighter with export customers. Indeed, the F-35 has all but cornered the market for radar-evading fighters among countries with healthy diplomatic ties to the United States. South Korea itself is buying scores of F-35s,” added Axe.

One of the reasons behind the high cost of the aircraft is the scale of production. The F-35 were priced at about $100 million in 2019 because the developers have orders for the planes from several foreign buyers. The cost for the Korean KF-X could only come down if it manages to find buyers apart from its own military.

At least 120 jets are expected to replace the Republic of Korea Air Force’s (ROKAF) fleet of aging McDonnell Douglas F-4D/E Phantom IIs and Northrop F-5E/F Tiger IIs, Flight Global reported.

Last month, South Korea has unveiled its newly developed indigenous active electronically scanned-array (AESA) radar prototype for use in the KF-X, reported Janes. The radar system is developed by South Korean company Hanwha Systems and the country’s Agency for Defense Development (ADD) and will undergo ground performance and installation tests before being integrated with the first KF-X prototype for further testing, said South Korean officials, adding that Elta Systems — a subsidiary of Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) — has collaborated on the program and is assisting with the testing phase.

According to officials, AESA is a “state-of-the-art system capable of detecting and tracking more than 1,000 targets simultaneously.”

_

https://news.usni.org/2020/09/07/south-korea-seeking-more-f-35bs-for-future-lpx-ii-carrier

South Korea Seeking More F-35Bs for Future LPX-II Carrier

{ An F-35B Lightning II assigned to the ‘Dragons’ of Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 265 (Reinforced) lands on the flight deck of amphibious assault ship USS America (LHA-6) on Jan. 15, 2020. US Navy Photo }

The South Korean Ministry of National Defense (MND) has decided in August to double its fleet of Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets. A total of forty additional “Joint Strike Fighters” will be procured, including 20 F-35B short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant for its light aircraft carrier project known as LPX-II.

According to multiple local media reports quoting officials, South Korean military authorities plan to acquire an additional 40 F-35 Lightning II fighter jets, among which 20 F-35B will be acquired by the Republic of Korea Navy (RoK Navy). The transfer of F-35B data and technology is seen as essential for designing the future 30,000-tons LPX-II vessel, which should be operational by 2033:

“Detailed information of the F-35B is absolutely necessary for the design of the main parts of the ship such as the deck,” according to a South Korea military official.

In parallel, the Republic of Korea Air Force will order 20 additional F-35A variant aircraft to fulfill its requirement for 60 5th generation fighters. South Korea green-lighted an initial procurement of 40 F-35A on 24 September 2014. About a dozen of F-35A from this first batch entered operational service with the Air Force in December 2019.

Although the F-35B are set to be procured by the RoK Navy’s budget, USNI News understands that the aircraft will be flown by RoK Air Force pilots. While RoK Navy personnel flies fixed wing aircraft (P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircrafts, to be replaced by the P-8A Poseidon), it lacks pilots with experience with fast jets.

{ Concept image of the LPX-II Lighting Carrier from South Korea. Republic of Korea Navy Image }

An initial power struggle between the Air Force and Navy was resolved by granting wishes of both branches: The RoK Navy will receive the F-35B first to accommodate the LPX-II program. The RoK Air Force will operate the Navy’s F-35B while also getting their own additional F-35A after the F-35B are delivered. In the end, South Korea will operate a total of 80 F-35 (60 A variants and 20 B variants).

The final approval is expected during a Joint Chiefs of Staff meeting held in October 2020. The contract is expected to be signed between 2021 and 2022 with delivery beginning around 2025.
_________________
:story:

Snekposter · Sep 14, 2020

@BONE_Buddy

The Army’s Project Convergence wargames at Yuma Proving Ground will test a kill chain this fall combining Army and non-Army assets, Murray said:

Sensors: Targeting data will come from satellites in Low Earth Orbit – “not Army-owned, [but] joint and really interagency,” Murray said – as well as Army Grey Eagle drones and sensors on the ground.

Command & Control: That data will flow into a C2 hub at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington, where it’ll be processed and analyzed by what Murray called “a developmental program” – almost certainly some form of artificial intelligence able to sort through information far faster than human staff officers. (McChord is also home to the Army’s first-ever Intelligence, Information, Electronic Warfare, & Space (I2CEWS) battalion, whose raison d’être is long-range targeting for both physical and cyber weapons, though Murray didn’t say whether or not they were involved). The C2 node then calculates the best weapon to destroy that specific target.

Shooters: “We’ll put rounds on target from either a [M109] self-propelled howitzer, or from a Grey Eagle, or from a ground platform,” he said.

Emphasis is mine. Those I2CEWS battalion look to be full scale theater units, and while likely a significant part of this program, it doesn't look like they'll handle direct tasking, instead creating a list of targets and assets for the AI to match up with and give ad-hoc packages too. Less horrifying than what I was initially thinking, to be honest, but still quite a shortcut.

Dark Edea · Sep 14, 2020

KF-X sounds pretty neat. Can't wait for it to hit the flight sim scene.

RodgerDodger · Sep 14, 2020

BONE_Buddy said:
The I2CEWS battalions will be deployed to Division and/or Corps HQs. They are tasked with taking Intel and Recon from a wide variety of sources, Field Reports, Aerial Recon (from both manned and unmanned aircraft), ELINT, Satellite, and many other sources I can't be bothered to name.

They will then work with Division/Corp HQ to determine the best allocation of Strategic weapons (i.e., Cruise Missiles, IRBMs, Long Range Artillery, etc,) to target Theater priorities. Most Artillery will continue to work with their more locally oriented Brigade/Battalion Commands to target Tactical, and Operational priorities... at least most of the time.

There is no real AI in loop here. They just had a mostly unrelated quote from the Head of the Joint AI Center, talking about how software development is a good thing.
_
Now for a bit of news:

https://eurasiantimes.com/south-koreas-stealth-jet-to-cost-more-than-us-f-35-jets-will-be-unveiled-by-2021/

South Korea To Unveil Its Stealth Aircraft By 2021; Prices It Higher Than US’ F-35 Jets

South Korea’s new KF-X multirole stealth fighter has finally begun its assembly of the first prototype. The development of the twin-engine aircraft began in 2015 and it is expected to be unveiled in April 2021.

KF-X multirole jets will take its first flight in 2022. However, experts have pointed out that the cost of the fighter jet may go well beyond the cost of the American F-35.

The KF-X (Korean Fighter eXperimental) is expected to reach a top speed of about 1,400 mph (or about Mach 1.83), have a range of about 2,900 km, a maximum take-off weight of 25,580 kg, and be capable of carrying up to 7,700 kg of payload, according to Janes.

Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) reported that the aircraft will be produced in both single- and tandem-seat variants, will feature three hardpoints under each wing for weapons and/or external fuel tanks and will also be capable of carrying four missiles under the fuselage.

For all these features, KF-X is likely to cost more than what its buyers would place its worth. According to Korea Joongang Daily, The KF-X — the biggest homegrown weapons development project in Korean history and the government has already shelled about 8.6 trillion won ($7 billion) into the project.

Once the production starts on 120 units of the new jet in 2026, an additional 10 trillion won will be needed, putting the bill for the entire project at around 18.6 trillion won.

“If the newspaper’s figures are accurate, each KF-X could cost around $130 million. That’s slightly more than what a U.S.-made F-35 cost in 2019. But there are reasons to doubt the Korean industry can get the price of a KF-X down that low,” stated David Axe, a Defence and Aerospace contributor at Forbes.

“The F-35 so far is the only stealth fighter with export customers. Indeed, the F-35 has all but cornered the market for radar-evading fighters among countries with healthy diplomatic ties to the United States. South Korea itself is buying scores of F-35s,” added Axe.

One of the reasons behind the high cost of the aircraft is the scale of production. The F-35 were priced at about $100 million in 2019 because the developers have orders for the planes from several foreign buyers. The cost for the Korean KF-X could only come down if it manages to find buyers apart from its own military.

At least 120 jets are expected to replace the Republic of Korea Air Force’s (ROKAF) fleet of aging McDonnell Douglas F-4D/E Phantom IIs and Northrop F-5E/F Tiger IIs, Flight Global reported.

Last month, South Korea has unveiled its newly developed indigenous active electronically scanned-array (AESA) radar prototype for use in the KF-X, reported Janes. The radar system is developed by South Korean company Hanwha Systems and the country’s Agency for Defense Development (ADD) and will undergo ground performance and installation tests before being integrated with the first KF-X prototype for further testing, said South Korean officials, adding that Elta Systems — a subsidiary of Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) — has collaborated on the program and is assisting with the testing phase.

According to officials, AESA is a “state-of-the-art system capable of detecting and tracking more than 1,000 targets simultaneously.”

_

https://news.usni.org/2020/09/07/south-korea-seeking-more-f-35bs-for-future-lpx-ii-carrier

South Korea Seeking More F-35Bs for Future LPX-II Carrier
View attachment 1595185
{ An F-35B Lightning II assigned to the ‘Dragons’ of Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 265 (Reinforced) lands on the flight deck of amphibious assault ship USS America (LHA-6) on Jan. 15, 2020. US Navy Photo }

The South Korean Ministry of National Defense (MND) has decided in August to double its fleet of Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets. A total of forty additional “Joint Strike Fighters” will be procured, including 20 F-35B short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant for its light aircraft carrier project known as LPX-II.

According to multiple local media reports quoting officials, South Korean military authorities plan to acquire an additional 40 F-35 Lightning II fighter jets, among which 20 F-35B will be acquired by the Republic of Korea Navy (RoK Navy). The transfer of F-35B data and technology is seen as essential for designing the future 30,000-tons LPX-II vessel, which should be operational by 2033:

“Detailed information of the F-35B is absolutely necessary for the design of the main parts of the ship such as the deck,” according to a South Korea military official.

In parallel, the Republic of Korea Air Force will order 20 additional F-35A variant aircraft to fulfill its requirement for 60 5th generation fighters. South Korea green-lighted an initial procurement of 40 F-35A on 24 September 2014. About a dozen of F-35A from this first batch entered operational service with the Air Force in December 2019.

Although the F-35B are set to be procured by the RoK Navy’s budget, USNI News understands that the aircraft will be flown by RoK Air Force pilots. While RoK Navy personnel flies fixed wing aircraft (P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircrafts, to be replaced by the P-8A Poseidon), it lacks pilots with experience with fast jets.

View attachment 1595186
{ Concept image of the LPX-II Lighting Carrier from South Korea. Republic of Korea Navy Image }

An initial power struggle between the Air Force and Navy was resolved by granting wishes of both branches: The RoK Navy will receive the F-35B first to accommodate the LPX-II program. The RoK Air Force will operate the Navy’s F-35B while also getting their own additional F-35A after the F-35B are delivered. In the end, South Korea will operate a total of 80 F-35 (60 A variants and 20 B variants).

The final approval is expected during a Joint Chiefs of Staff meeting held in October 2020. The contract is expected to be signed between 2021 and 2022 with delivery beginning around 2025.
_________________

And this is why the “Military Technology Press” is just as skeevy and dishonest as every other branch of Journalist. “OMG! It costs more than the F-35!!” Ummm yeah? It’s a twin engine air superiority fighter. On more par with the US F-22. Which would be the legitimate comparison. An F-16 was not an F-15. Yes the F-16 cost less. They served different roles at different price points.

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.

YANGLOS Horthy

Baptized in Pure Cum

Friendship Windmill

Operation: Desert Snek

Molṑn lolí

Friendship Windmill

ACKNOWLEDGE // SUBMIT

Molṑn lolí

Not dead yet.

Operation: Desert Snek

Not dead yet.

Operation: Desert Snek