US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

SamuraiBlue

SamuraiBlue

Captain
AndrewS said:
In terms of EM technology development, remember that China leads the US in the civilian deployments.

In terms of overall R&D spending, China is currently at 2.1% and aiming for 2.5% by 2020, and will possible target 3% by 2025. Note that the US devotes 2.7% and Japan devotes 3% of the economy on R&D spending.

China already has the world's largest economy in terms of actual output, so what are the chances that China will become a hi-tech country?

When you combine that with China speed in terms of execution ability, China will likely have the financial and technological resources to develop working railguns.
Click to expand...

First off why do you think China lead the US in EM technology?
US had spent much more time in terms of decades in this field doing research on the　generation mechanism and control of EM. They have basically wrote the book on applied physics in this field.

Another information for you is Lorentz force the phenomenon behind powering railguns is well known and is taught in high school which you might have heard AKA Fleming's left hand rule.
As I said the problem would be in endurance and power which has very little to do with elector-magnetism and all about mechanical design, electrical components to control the powerful electric currents that runs through the projectile and material science non of which PRC is really strong at.



AndrewS said:
Despite what you think, the US has actually accumulated a large stockpile over the past 40 years of VLS cells and missiles.

What do you call the large numbers of expensive VLS modules located on the vast fleets of Los Angeles submarines, Ticonderoga cruisers and Arleigh Burke destroyers which are over 20 year old?

And yes, missiles do have a shelf-life, say 20 years. But China only really started building reasonably large numbers of missiles some 10 years ago.

So on balance, making existing missile technology obsolete works in China's favour.
Click to expand...

The VLS system could be 20 years old but the canisters that actually has the missiles inside? Don't think so. The propellants within the rocket engine maybe sweating due to slow chemical reaction.
As I said they have shelf life as any other material on this planet.



AndrewS said:
And you think that ALL the old missiles can be usefully used in exercises?

For example, there have been over 10000 Patriot air defence missiles manufactured over the years, with the shelf-life increased to some 22.6 years. Yet almost none of them have actually been fired in anger, and you don't need to fire thousands of them in an exercise.
Click to expand...

No but many are and the others are recycled to upgrade the system. I believe the US military initiates a burn test annually to see degradation of the propellants of each batch to see how much shelf life is left. The projectile is intact and can be loaded on to a new launch vehicle which is much more cost efficient .


AndrewS said:
I agree that defensive railguns will likely replace short range SAMs, and not bigger SAMs tasked with ABM or long-range air defence.

But remember that the cost equation would be for big expensive SAMs shooting down much cheaper incoming missiles or railgun projectiles, which is inherently a losing proposition.

And if railguns become very effective air defence weapons as the US hopes they can be, then it makes no sense to launch long range offensive missiles which will be far more expensive and few in number.
Click to expand...

Again this is overly simplifying the situation since projectiles from a rail gun can't really change target or pursue a fast moving target but a missile can.
The projectile from railguns are fast but it's not going to be easy to hit a jet that is zigzagging it's course doing evasive maneuvers at Mach 1. To catch that you'll need to spray the air with an artillery barrage just like the good ol'e days.
Another example is trying to make a surgical strike at a moving freight 200Km away surrounded by non combatants. Basically it's like a snipper shooter hitting a target more then a Kilometer away needing to anticipate the next move of the target as well as wind and other variables. With a missile it will track the target with radar and/or other tracking mechanism so you can shoot and forget.

As for airborne rail guns they are easier then you think since the jet fan engine generate massive amount of electricity. It's just a matter of tweaking the balance of speed of projectile, the weight/caliber of projectile with the endurance of the railgun barrel. The only problem is how to shield the various electronic component within the plane from the EM blast generated each time a round is fired.

As for the A-10, if the GAU-8 Avenger Gatling gun was exchanged with a rapid fire rail gun spitting out DU rounds at 3,000 rounds per minute at twice the velocity of conventional bullets now that would be something to see. It will not only chew up tanks but will also chew up reinforced concrete bunkers making them a sand pile as well.
 
Last edited:
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
Jura said:
really?
Hypersonic missiles could be operational in 2020s, general says

source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
related:
Hypersonics could help Air Force thwart enemy anti-air defenses
Hypersonic missiles that travel five times the speed of sound could help the Air Force penetrate advanced anti-air systems that are being fielded by potential adversaries, a group of congressmen and experts said Tuesday.

“Hypersonics is no longer Buck Rogers stuff,” said retired Maj. Gen. Curtis Bedke, former head of the Air Force Research Laboratory. “Hypersonic weapons are now both important for us to develop, and they are inevitable for somebody to develop. It’s time to get serious and focused about not falling behind.”

The super-fast missiles could allow the U.S. to threaten targets deep in enemy territory that are protected by advanced anti-air and aerial denial systems. Especially in a fight with a near-peer adversary such as Russia or China, hypersonic missiles would allow the U.S. to speed past outer defenses to strike vulnerable targets, without risking pilots lingering too long in areas where they would be in danger of getting shot down.

“If you can have a weapon that can get to the enemy a lot quicker than the enemy can get to you, then you might win,” said Rep. Steve Knight, R-Calif.

The U.S. has invested in hypersonic technology before, with the most recent test occurring in 2013 with the X-51 Waverider — a cruise-missile-like weapon powered by an engine capable of going hypersonic.

The test-missile flew at speeds approaching 3,500 mph for more than three minutes. Despite widely being regarded as a success, the next U.S. test is not scheduled until at least 2019, Bedke said.

By that time, experts fear, Russia and China could already be well ahead of the U.S. in developing hypersonic technology, and could have deployed anti-air systems that would threaten almost all fourth-generation non-stealth fighters.

“We need hypersonic weapons to help us mitigate the threat of anti-aircraft technology,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. “Because of Russia’s willingness to proliferate weapons systems to rogue regimes and China’s startling advancement in technology…it is all but inevitable that our forces will routinely encounter these sophisticated systems in both the near and the long term. To defeat these advanced systems we need a technology that will definitely give us an edge. In short, we need hypersonics.”

Hatch implored his fellow congressman to support funding for hypersonic technology development, despite a tightening fiscal budget.

Bedke and the Air Force Association’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies released a report Tuesday on the advantages hypersonic missiles could have for U.S. defense. The
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
is written for members of Congress, their staff, and civilians, Bedke said, in hopes that it will start a dialogue on the importance of the technology.

“The path forward is not wild and expensive,” he said, adding that the U.S. need to ensure “the wasted opportunities of the past are not repeated.”

Those “wasted opportunities” include the fact that the U.S. has had hypersonic technology since the 1960s, but didn’t really do any serious testing with it for the next 30 years, Bedke said.

In fact, Knight’s father, William “Pete” Knight, flew the X-15 hypersonic test plane in the 60s, and holds the world record for speed in a powered winged aircraft at Mach 6.7.

The representative lamented that there’s been little new development in hypersonic speed since then.

“That record shouldn’t stand today,” Knight said. “We should have passed that record a long time ago. If my father was still alive today, he’d say the exact same thing … If we are going to advance, if we are going to get to the next technology, then we have to do it through this technology.”
Click to expand...
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
@SamuraiBlue

I think China is probably about equal to the USA in terms of civilian EM technology, but does lag behind on military EM technology. But China has a consistent track record in terms of catching up, and has the financial/personnel/technological resources to do this. There is a reason why China Speed and the China Price are a commonly acknowledged term.

Plus you state that China is not good at physics or materials science. That is no longer the case, as evidenced by the fact that in 2014, China was no1 in volume of scientific papers in materials science and only behind the US in numbers of citations which is an indicator of quality. Reference below

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



I also just listed the Patriot missile life of 22 years, but naval SAMs in the same weight class should be fairly similar. And remember that VLS modules do cost money and most of the CG/DDG fleet is built around those VLS modules providing the vast majority of defensive and offensive firepower.

Think about how these 80-odd AEGIS ships represent a construction cost of circa $160billion over the past 40 years, and would prove much less effective if railguns become widespread. In comparison, China has only just begun building VLS equipped ships in the past 5 years, so doesn't have that much invested in VLS technology.

And we can expect to see guided railgun projectiles in the future. The US navy is due to start testing next year. See below

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I would still disagree that an airborne platform can generate more electricity than a sea-based one.

Yes, most marine gas turbines use the same engine cores as their airborne counterparts, but an airborne platform has to emphasise a lightweight engine, size and fuel efficiency. Plus the engine needs to devote sufficient thrust to keep the airplane flying in the air.

In comparison, a ship can have multiple engines which can be larger and heavier. They don't have to worry about running out of fuel as much and could devote most of the engine output to electricity instead of movement.

Look at the example of the E-767, which has 2 x 150KVA generators located on the engines, but remember that fighter jets will have fewer/smaller engines which are less efficient.

In comparison, a destroyer could have 4 gas turbines which can generate more free electricity, and can use an additional steam turbine to extract more electricity.

And we haven't yet considered the requirement for electricity storage which takes space and weight, which does not favour an aircraft. Nor how liquid cooling would work on an aircraft.

And I don't really see the A-10 model being that useful in the future, because the Western Pacific is a naval-air theatre for the USA. But even if it does become one, it is China that will benefit from the widespread use of airborne railguns because of China's situation. It is also a naval-air theatre for China, but there are also so many potential land scenarios where airborne railguns come in useful.
 
Last edited:
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
The defense industries in Russia and China are mainly government owned which limits wages and bonuses.

So it should only be the privatised US companies that are popping champagne corks at the prospect of having to hire all those consultants at $500 or $1000 per day, and the cost-plus nature of the contracts.
 
SamuraiBlue

SamuraiBlue

Captain
AndrewS said:
Yes, most marine gas turbines use the same engine cores as their airborne counterparts, but an airborne platform has to emphasise a lightweight engine, size and fuel efficiency. Plus the engine needs to devote sufficient thrust to keep the airplane flying in the air.

In comparison, a ship can have multiple engines which can be larger and heavier. They don't have to worry about running out of fuel as much and could devote most of the engine output to electricity instead of movement.

Look at the example of the E-767, which has 2 x 150KVA generators located on the engines, but remember that fighter jets will have fewer/smaller engines which are less efficient.

In comparison, a destroyer could have 4 gas turbines which can generate more free electricity, and can use an additional steam turbine to extract more electricity.

And we haven't yet considered the requirement for electricity storage which takes space and weight, which does not favour an aircraft. Nor how liquid cooling would work on an aircraft.

And I don't really see the A-10 model being that useful in the future, because the Western Pacific is a naval-air theatre for the USA. But even if it does become one, it is China that will benefit from the widespread use of airborne railguns because of China's situation. It is also a naval-air theatre for China, but there are also so many potential land scenarios where airborne railguns come in useful.
Click to expand...

You don't need that much electricity to fire a small railgun. Like I posted previously;

It's just a matter of tweaking the balance of speed of projectile, the weight/caliber of projectile with the endurance of the railgun barrel.
Click to expand...

You don't need to fire 10" projectiles from them, a 20~30mm would do meaning less need for electricity.
Muzzle velocity of 2~3Km/second is more then enough which is still faster then the Gatling gun in comparison again less requirement of electricity. It is still more then enough to pierce armor into confetti.
This type of gun can be utilized as CWIS against incoming supersonic missiles in which you need speed to get those rounds reach the missile before it hits the ship.

As for your confidence in PRC R&D achievements, good for you. My only suggestion is do some actual reading into those science papers you mention and not just compare the amount of paper that had been announced. It will give you more depth in understanding towards the subject.
 
Last edited:
Brumby

Brumby

Major
SamuraiBlue said:
You don't need that much electricity to fire a small railgun. Like I posted previously;



You don't need to fire 10" projectiles from them, a 20~30mm would do meaning less need for electricity.
Muzzle velocity of 2~3Km/second is more then enough which is still faster then the Gatling gun in comparison again less requirement of electricity. It is still more then enough to pierce armor into confetti.
This type of gun can be utilized as CWIS against incoming supersonic missiles in which you need speed to get those rounds reach the missile before it hits the ship.

As for your confidence in PRC R&D achievements, good for you. My only suggestion is do some actual reading into those science papers you mention and not just compare the amount of paper that had been announced. It will give you more depth in understanding towards the subject.
Click to expand...

A word of caution. I am afraid you have fallen into a trap to a bunch of fallacies in reasoning being offered to you and that you have accepted at face value. Whether China will lead because of trajectory or spending scope concerns future contingencies and are not matters of logical necessity or inevitability. Such type of argument has been around since Aristotle presented this problem and his arguments connected to fatalism. Such claims can be dismissed outright because the truth value of such a proposition cannot be established as necessarily true or false. In other words, once the basic premise of such generality is debunked, the discussions can then be directed at the core issues of rail guns and not future contingencies.

The benefit of rail gun to my understanding in terms of US strategic objectives are primarily directed at two key areas :
(i) Augmenting the mid tier defence in the multi layered approach. The attractiveness of the rail gun is that it adds capacity to the VLS limited platform; and
(ii)It offers a very favourable cost exchange ratio against your adversary, a key offset feature.

As such, whether there are degradation of functionality of existing missile inventory is rather irrelevant because the problem exist regardless of rail gun. Obviously the utility of rail gun has to be established in terms of reliability and performance, and hence a future conversation rather than an assumed position.
 
FORBIN

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Found no link, with a map.

Definitely F-15C planned for Gowen Field, Idaho come from Lakenheath in more this Sqn have exactly 20 Eagles, they are starting to be replaced by F-35A in 2021.

To Lakenheath 2 F-35A Sqns but in more of 2 actually on F-15E ? it would be surprising or ANG/reserve units stand down maybe in this case possible the F-16 Sqn to Spangdalem alone is stand down.

2 new F-35A Sqns to Eielson, begin in 2019, re activated units, 2 new FS for active ? it would be surprising or ANG/Reserve units stand down but sure the Agressor Sqn remain.


USAF ORBAT changes end 2010's/early 2020's

The Air Force is adjusting its original plan for replacing Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve A-10s after several failed attempts to divest the fleet.

A new Force Structure Action plan based on the Fiscal 2017 budget request details what Guard and Reserve units will fly once they lose their A-10s. USAF now plans to begin replacing the venerable Warthogs on a "squadron-by-squadron" basis in Fiscal 2018.

The final aircraft is slated to retire in 2022 after the F-35 comes on line.
For example, in 2018, the Reserve A-10 unit at Whiteman AFB, Mo., and the Guard unit at Fort Wayne ANGS, Ind., will both transfer to F-16s.

In 2020, the unit at Martin State Airport in Maryland will lose 21 A-10s and gain eight C-130s.

In 2021, Selfridge ANGB, Mich., will lose 21 A-10s and gain 8 KC-135s, while the unit at *Gowen Field, Idaho, will lose 21 A-10s and gain 20 F-15Cs.

The operational A-10 unit at Davis-Monthan AFB, Ariz., will lose 25 Warthogs in Fiscal 2019 and will gain 21 F-16s the same year. The training units assigned to the base will be disbanded in Fiscal 2020 and 2021, losing a total of 58 A-10s, according to the plan.

The Air Force will replace the units assigned to the Guard and Reserve, but there are currently no plans to replace Active Duty A-10 units. However, there is still time to come up with follow-on missions for the Active Duty if necessary, said Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes, the deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements.
Active Duty A-10s are stationed at Davis-Monthan; Nellis AFB, Nev.; Moody AFB, Ga.; Eglin AFB, Fla.; and Osan AB, South Korea.
The Air Force will increase the number of legacy tankers in the reserve component even as it divests the KC-10 Extender in an effort to maintain the requirement of 479 refueling aircraft while it waits for the KC-46A to become operational, according to a new force structure plan released with the Fiscal 2017 budget proposal.

Two bases in the reserve component will transfer to the service's aging KC-135 tanker and a base expecting to receive the KC-46A will lose its Stratotankers.

The Air National Guard unit at Selfridge ANGB, Mich., will receive eight KC-135s in 2021 as it retires 21 A-10s,
and the Reserve unit at Niagara Falls AFRS, N.Y., will retire eight C-130s and gain eight KC-135s in Fiscal 2017.
Seymour Johnson AFB, N.C., will lose four of its KC-135 tankers in 2017 and 12 in 2020, while it gains 12 KC-46s in 2020.

The Air Force's force structure plans call for retiring 59 KC-10 Extenders, but it does not detail how the tankers will leave the service. The Air Force's KC-10 fleet is stationed at Travis AFB, Calif., and JB McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, N.J.

USAF.png
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
@SamuraiBlue

If small airborne railguns become prevalent and effective against missiles, the original conclusion holds.

The US has a vast stock of missiles which will become far less effective, whilst China has a much smaller stock of equivalent missiles. And if missiles become near obsolete, then combat will occur more often WITHIN visual range in the form of dogfights. That favours the Chinese because non-stealth aircraft are better at dogfighting in general.

Please read the Thomson Reuters report again. It states that China is no2 in terms of number of materials science citations by other scientists - which they say indicates the quality or usefulness of that work.

@Brumby

Whilst you do not accept the reasons why China will likely continue to grow fast and develop in the hi-tech realm, let me ask you this.

Does everyone in the world deserve a chance of a middle-class existence where they are safe and no longer have to worry about abject poverty?

I do, therefore I hope that every country becomes a prosperous middle-class nation, and gets through the middle-income trap by moving up the technology value chain.

It's a more optimistic and brighter and happier view of the world, whereas I see your view as being bitter and much darker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top