US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

strehl

Junior Member
Registered Member
Air Launched Assist Space Access
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Using a existing F15E as the true first stage the USAF could create a three stage launch system for 100 pound micro sat's of national security missions

I really hope the Air Force will conduct due diligence and detail how this system will differ from the existing Pegasus launch vehicle so that it will achieve its' price goals and whether the performance (weight/volume) limits will be adequate.

Pegasus can put about 1000lbs into low earth orbit. The original launch cost was targeted at $6M. After throwing in additional services customers required and boosting performance and reliability, the all up price is around $30M. That's around $30K/lb so it's no price breakthrough but then you don't need to pay for a much more expensive launcher with excess capacity.

As a payload normalized cost study, they could just start with Pegasus and examine what it would take to drive down prices to see where the problems lie. I am getting old enough to see these same launch proposals come and go and I never see any continuity in identifying what issues killed the previous efforts and where the new one will do things differently.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)


 

navyreco

Senior Member
US Navy, Air Force and DARPA Tested The Lockheed Martin LRASM Next-Gen Anti-Ship Missile
yROiUvW.jpg

The U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) completed a successful test of the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) Feb. 4, marking a significant step in maturing key technologies for the future operational weapon system.

The joint-service team, known as the LRASM Deployment Office (LDO), conducted the test to evaluate LRASM’s low-altitude performance and obstacle avoidance as part of the program’s accelerated development effort.

“We are very pleased with how LRASM performed today and we are looking forward to continuing integration efforts on the Air Force B-1, followed by our Navy F/A-18, over the next few years,” said Capt. Jaime Engdahl, the LDO’s Navy program manager. “We have a clear mission, to deliver game-changing capability to our warfighters in theater as quickly as possible.”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
A lot of this type of thing...which leans towards what we have seen in other nations over the last 20 years (ie. the UK, Italy, France, and others) where reducing numbers and relying almost solely on a perceived technological edge that is extrapolated from experiences of the last 3-4 decades where potential OPFOR capabilities reduced, is going to be decided for the US in the 2016 election.

It is e.

Yes but there's a obvious problem when it comes to this type of warfare, you loose the "critical mass" in the navy and all it takes is one break down or one ship being sunk or even badly damaged to change the entire dynamics of the war

RN has 6 highly advanced DDG, very good at what they do but only 6, say they have operational 4 at anyone time and one ends of breaking down you have lost 25% of the operational capability and a huge gap in your guard large enough for something to punch straight through to the carrier fleet

Cutting numbers and making then more advanced is fair enough that is until one or more goes down
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
I really hope the Air Force will conduct due diligence and detail how this system will differ from the existing Pegasus launch vehicle so that it will achieve its' price goals and whether the performance (weight/volume) limits will be adequate.

Pegasus can put about 1000lbs into low earth orbit. The original launch cost was targeted at $6M. After throwing in additional services customers required and boosting performance and reliability, the all up price is around $30M. That's around $30K/lb so it's no price breakthrough but then you don't need to pay for a much more expensive launcher with excess capacity.

As a payload normalized cost study, they could just start with Pegasus and examine what it would take to drive down prices to see where the problems lie. I am getting old enough to see these same launch proposals come and go and I never see any continuity in identifying what issues killed the previous efforts and where the new one will do things differently.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)


This new system may use the same concept as Pegasus but it's Pegasus light,
Much smaller payload, only 100 pounds compared to 1000 pounds, a 24 hour set up time and a price goal of under 1 million per launch.
Because it would use a widely deployed tactical system (F15E) as the first stage as opposed to a larger dedicated launcher bird and seems to aim for employment using exiting support personal in the form of the F15E's existing support system.
combined with the 24 hour turnaround and light payload this could be aimed less as a long term satellite launch and more as a contingency response. if say a ASAT system was employed against a National security Satellite like GPS of Keyhole or even a communications satellite, Norad would calculate the opening and find a open orbit then one of these Air Launched Assist Space Access with a replacement nanosats would be loaded on a Strike Eagle and launched with in a few days of the attack plugging the hole.
 
most recent on the LRASM:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Navy, Air Force and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) completed a successful test of the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) Feb. 4, marking a significant step in maturing key technologies for the future operational weapon system.
The joint-service team, known as the LRASM Deployment Office (LDO), conducted the test to evaluate LRASM’s low-altitude performance and obstacle avoidance as part of the program’s accelerated development effort.
“We are very pleased with how LRASM performed today and we are looking forward to continuing integration efforts on the Air Force B-1, followed by our Navy F/A-18, over the next few years,” said Capt. Jaime Engdahl, the LDO’s Navy program manager. “We have a clear mission, to deliver game-changing capability to our warfighters in theater as quickly as possible.”
During the flight from the Sea Test Range in Point Mugu, California, the B-1 Bomber released the LRASM, which navigated a series of pre-planned waypoints to verify aerodynamic performance. In the final portion of the flight the missile detected, tracked and avoided an object that was deliberately placed in the flight pattern to demonstrate its obstacle avoidance algorithms.
Since completing two successful test flights in 2013, LRASM has rapidly transitioned from a DARPA demonstration to a formal, U.S. Navy program of record, with fielding set for 2018. The program reflects initiatives from DoD’s Better Buying Power 3.0, which encourages rapid prototyping and other forms of innovative acquisition to keep a technological edge and achieve greater efficiency and productivity in defense spending.
“We’ve shown that by taking advantage of the Defense Department’s evolving acquisition policy, it is possible to significantly accelerate the fielding of a high-payoff technical system for the warfighter,” said Artie Mabbett, LDO director.
The LDO and industry partner Lockheed Martin are developing LRASM as an air-launched offensive anti-surface warfare weapon to counter the growing maritime threats in an Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) environment. When operational, LRASM will play a significant role in ensuring military access to operate in open ocean/blue waters and the littorals due to its enhanced ability to discriminate and conduct tactical engagements from extended ranges.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



US-Navy-Names-New-Virginia-Class-Submarine.jpg

Naval Today said:
US Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus recently announced that SSN 795, a Virginia-class attack submarine, will bear the name USS Hyman G. Rickover.

Mabus named the submarine to honor U.S. Navy Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, the man credited for developing USS Nautilus (SSN 571), the world’s first operational nuclear-powered submarine.

Virginia-class submarines provide the Navy with the capabilities required to maintain the nation’s undersea supremacy well into the 21st century. They have enhanced stealth, sophisticated surveillance capabilities, and special warfare enhancements that enable them to meet the Navy’s multi-mission requirements.

Virginia-class submarines have the capability to attack targets ashore with highly accurate Tomahawk cruise missiles and conduct covert long-term surveillance of land areas, littoral waters or other sea-based forces.

Other missions include anti-submarine and anti-ship warfare; mine delivery and minefield mapping. They are also designed for special-forces delivery and support.

Each Virginia-class submarine is 7,800 tons and 377 feet in length, has a beam of 34 feet, and can operate at more than 25 knots submerged. It is designed with a reactor plant that will not require refueling during the planned life of the ship, reducing lifecycle costs while increasing underway time.

To date, 12 Virginia class subs have been launched. Approximately two per year should be delivered for the foreseeable future...meaning this vessel will not be launched for another five years.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Here's a report. it was a Tomahawk IV missile, the Tactical Tomahawk and most of us suspected that with its new capabilities, it would be able to do this...now they have proven it:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



US-Navy-Raytheon-Test-Tomahawk-Cruise-Missile.jpg

Naval Today said:
The U.S. Navy and Raytheon Company conducted two successful flight tests on Jan. 27 and 29.

The first flight test demonstrated a Tomahawk cruise missile which was synthetically guided to hit a Mobile Ship Target (MST). The second flight test demonstrated a reduced mission planning time in a realistic “call for fire” scenario.

Mike Jarrett, Raytheon Air Warfare Systems vice president, said:

"The combat-proven Tomahawk is unmatched in its capability. Raytheon and the U.S. Navy are working together to enhance Tomahawk and provide the warfighter with even more options in the battlespace."

In the first test, a Tomahawk Block IV cruise missile fired from the destroyer USS Kidd (DDG 100) flew a pre-planned mission until a surveillance aircraft sent real-time target information to the Joint Network Enabled Weapons Mission Management Capability (JNEW-MMC) located at Naval Air Warfare Center – Weapons Division (NAWC-WD), China Lake. The JNEW-MMC provided updated data to the missile in flight before it successfully struck the MST. This demonstration is the first step toward evolving Tomahawk with improved network capability and extends its reach from fixed and mobile to moving targets.

This flight test was the culmination of a collaborative effort between the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division at China Lake, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme Division and Raytheon Missile Systems.

In the second test, the USS Kidd (DDG 100) launched another Tomahawk Block IV missile on a “call-for-fire” mission in support of shore-based Marines staged on San Nicolas Island.
Using GPS navigational updates, the missile performed a vertical dive to impact on San Nicolas Island, scoring a direct hit on the target designated by the Marines. The test provided valuable data for the Marine Expeditionary Force to evaluate and evolve their call for fire capability.

So they fired the missile, then as it flew, in real time they updated its targeting to hit a moving vessel at sea...which it then did.

GREAT stuff. In addition to showing that this is a GREAT anti-ship missile, it also demonstrates the network centric nature of its capabilities.

These are precisely the types of test you must perform to assure that the system is truly operational and capable of performing its role. Been saying that for years on these forums...and here's another example of real world experience demonstrating it.
 
Top