Jura The idiot
General
bro you don't want me to come back to the F-35 Thread ... or you do?
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
SouthernSky
Junior Member
Brumby
Major
Navy Expanding NIFC-CA To Include Anti-Surface Weapons, F-35 Sensors
Navy engineers are working to bring new aircraft sensors and new weapons into (NIFC-CA) architecture, with near-term goals of bringing in the F-35’s radio frequency (RF) sensor and the anti-surface variant of the Standard Missile-6.
In a January test, the Navy proved that the new SM-6 Block I anti-surface missile worked, but it also proved that NIFC-CA – which, as its name implies, was engineered to go after fast-moving air threats – could be adjusted to counter surface threats too.
Whereas a normal NIFC-CA anti-air engagement might use an E-2D Advanced Hawkeye as the sensor that finds a target and then use the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) as the link to bring targeting data to the ship that ultimately fires a weapon, the anti-surface technology demonstration required some modifications. A different sensor was needed to identify surface targets, and that sensor could not use CEC, meaning the whole engagement relied instead on Link-16, Anant Patel, major program manager for future combat systems in the Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems, told USNI News in an interview this month.
Patel did not name the sensor used in the demonstration, but the Navy’s P-8A Poseidon, which is equipped with Link-16, or eventually the unmanned MQ-4C Triton would be ideally suited for the job. Patel said NIFC-CA is sensor-agnostic, as long as the sensor meets quality of service standards. But finding weapons that can hit large but slow-moving targets has its challenges.
“When things go slower, it’s easier” to track them, he said.
“But it has its own complexity also. Some of our weapons are not designed to look for slow targets, so we have to do some analysis and make sure we capture that. Also, if you look at SM-6, it’s more an anti-air weapon, so the capability’s designed to counter fast-moving targets, and then to go against this slow-moving target we had to make sure we can meet that requirement.”
Some minor modifications were made to the Aegis Combat System Baseline 9 to accept the data from the new sensor, but Patel said the culmination of this work – a test in January at the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii – was a successful hit against a surface target, the decommissioned frigate Reuben James (FFG-57). This success is an early step in fielding a bigger .
An image from a PEO IWS PowerPoint presentation.
Another challenge in bringing new weapons into NIFC-CA is that now Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) and PEO IWS will have to coordinate with Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) and its PEO for Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons – NAVSEA owns NIFC-CA and SM-6 but NAVAIR owns the rest of the anti-surface weapons in the inventory.
Patel said NAVSEA and NAVAIR have been in talks for about two months on how to work together.
“From our perspective, they just have the aircraft but we have the entire combat systems, Aegis and SSDS (Ship Self-Defense System), so how do we integrate all that into overall Navy?” he said.
“And then you look at what threat sets you’re going after, they have different requirements and we have separate requirements, so basically understanding each other, what are the requirements, what the capabilities are, where are we today, what are our plans for the future, and then how do we consolidate?”
Essentially, NAVAIR has its own kill chain for employing anti-surface weapons and NAVSEA has its own kill chain for employing anti-air weapons, and the two are trying to merge into a single kill web that shares common sensors, links and weapons.
Patel said that by this fall the two organizations should have a path forward for how to collaborate in engineering, testing and fielding this kill web idea. As new weapons are developed in the future, it should be easier to design them with this collaborative kill web in mind.
Patel said the Navy is also expanding NIFC-CA by introducing more sensors, specifically the F-35. NIFC-CA today primarily relies on the E-2D, which are limited in number. The F-35 will be fielded in great numbers by countries around the world, so the Navy is eager to prove out the NIFC-CA/F-35 combo.
The Navy will conduct a live-fire test in September at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, where an F-35 will detect an over-the-horizon threat with its RF sensor and send data back to the USS Desert Ship (LLS-1) land-based ship simulator, which will then launch an SM-6 to intercept the threat.
“It’s no different than E-2D,” Patel said – except that the sensor will be new to NIFC-CA, as will the Mid Air Data Link (MADL) that was developed for F-35s to communicate with one another. The test will assess the Navy’s ability to take unrelated technologies and successfully close the fire control loop.
Patel added that the F-35 brings significant capability to the fleet, but his office is only funded to look at the RF sensor for now. Many of its other sensors could be integrated into NIFC-CA if additional funds were appropriated.
bro you don't want me to come back to the F-35 Thread ... or you do?
Of course I do! I want your in-put, sense of sardonic humor on every thread, all the time, I like to argue with you when I'm right, keeps me sharp. On the Naval stuff and WWII, no doubt you are the man! besides you and I are real brothers, and we agree on far more than we disagree, most particularly the threat vectors for Europe.
Jura The idiot
General
... is in
Air Force Digs Its Heels In On Bomber Cost Secrecy
Zool
Junior Member
News on B-21 Program Costs. My take is that the current unit cost projections are extremely high and the Air Force is worried about a repeat of JSF like panic and intrusive oversight (or cuts), rather than security leaks based on dollar amounts:
Edit - Now seeing that the same was posted earlier in a link! Oh well, now you don't have to leave the comfort of SDF to get this particular news
Edit - Now seeing that the same was posted earlier in a link! Oh well, now you don't have to leave the comfort of SDF to get this particular news
Brumby
Major
If I understand the proposed project costing correctly, the $550 million unit cost is only for the airframe. The classified portion is the cost of the family of systems that would be incorporated into the plane. Such systems would probably be the sensors, avionics and CNI as the core capabilities for spectrum domination. I agree that it is probably possible to determine the capabilities of the plane if such an amount is known.
Brumby
Major
Navy Cites Breakthrough Acoustic Submarine Technology
New quieting technologies could help US submarine operate in or near enemy territory without being detected; this will enable US subs to detect and destroy enemy submarines, ships and incoming weapons at much farther distances.
Navy leaders say the service is making progress developing new acoustics, sensors and quieting technologies to ensure the U.S. retains its technological edge in the undersea domain – as countries like China and Russia continue rapid military modernization and construction of new submarines.
The innovations, many details of which are secret and not available, include quieting technologies for the engine room to make the submarine harder to detect, a new large vertical array and additional coating materials for the hull, Navy officials explained.
“We are talking about changes in sensors and changes in the capabilities aboard the ship that we think could be very dramatic in terms of improving our ability to compete in our acoustic spectrum,” Rear Adm. Charles Richard, Director of Undersea Warfare, told Scout Warrior in a special interview.
Richard told Scout Warrior that the impetus for the Navy effort, called “acoustic superiority,” is specifically grounded in the emerging reality that the U.S. undersea margin of technological superiority is rapidly diminishing in light of Russian and Chinse advances.
The idea with “acoustic superiority,” is therefore to engineer a circumstance wherein U.S. submarines can operate undetected in or near enemy waters or coastline, conduct reconnaissance or attack missions and sense any movement or enemy activities at farther ranges than adversaries can.
Acoustic sensor technology works by using underwater submarine sensors to detect sound “pings” in order to determine the contours, speed and range of an enemy ship, submarine or approaching weapon. Much like radar analyzes the return electromagnetic signal bounced off an object, acoustics works by using “sound” in a similar fashion. Most of the undersea acoustic technology is “passive,” meaning it is engineered to receive pings and “listen” without sending out a signal which might reveal their undersea presence or location to an enemy, Richard explained.
Testing of these innovations is now underway on board an experimental prototype version of a Virginia-Class attack submarine called the USS South Dakota.
Described as a technology insertion, the improvements will eventually be integrated on board both Virginia-Class submarines and the now-in -development next-generation nuclear-armed boats called the Ohio Replacement Program.
“The testing going on with the acoustic superiority program is more on the sensor side of the house. We see ourselves on the cusp of a fourth generation of undersea communications,” Richard added.
The concept with a fourth generation of undersea technology is based upon a “domain” perspective as opposed to a platform approach – looking at and assessing advancements in the electro-magnetic and acoustic underwater technologies, Richard explained.
“In this fourth generation, acoustic stealth will always be required - get into a hostile environment. If I am noisy, I am not going to live very long. We are constantly pushing the boundary of how to minimize our own signature - while having a better ability to detect an adversary signature,” Richard told Scout Warrior.
Richard articulated the first two generations as the advent of the first operational submarine fleets during WWII and the subsequent advent of undersea nuclear weapons during the Cold War.
“WWII was our first time to field a fleet scale capability that was effective in a war. It actually helped us win,” he said.
The new “acoustic superiority” effort is immersed in performing tactical assessments as well as due diligence from an academic standpoint to make sure the service looks at all the threat vectors – whether that be hydrodynamics, acoustics, lasers, among others.
The emerging technologies, however, are heavily focused upon sensitive, passive acoustic sensors able to detect movement and objects of potential adversary boats and ships at much further ranges and with a higher-degree of fidelity. While high-frequency, fast two-way communication is currently difficult to sustain from the undersea domain, submarines are able to use a Very Low Frequency radio to communicate while at various depths beneath the surface.
“Low frequency radio signals allow for slower communication. Water is opaque and it is also opaque to radio energy. We have the ability to use certain radio frequencies that do penetrate in the water but they tend to limit you in data rate and receive only. It’s very reliable and it well understood. Ballistic missile submarines are in constant communication,” Richard added.
The South Dakota is slated deliver in the next few years, Navy officials said.
Study: US Undersea Technological Dominance in Jeopardy
Senior Navy officials have explained that the innovations contained in the USS South Dakota do, at least in part, help address an issue raised by a report by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
The report, titled “The Emerging Era in Undersea Warfare,” says the technological margin of difference separating the U.S from potential rivals is expected to get much smaller. This is requiring the U.S. to re-think the role of manned submarines and prioritize innovation in the realm of undersea warfare, the study says.
“America’s superiority in undersea warfare results from decades of research and development, operations, and training. It is, however, far from assured. U.S. submarines are the world’s quietest, but new detection techniques are emerging that don’t rely on the noise a submarine makes, and may make traditional manned submarine operations far more risky in the future. America’s competitors are likely pursuing these technologies even while expanding their own undersea forces,” writes the report’s author Bryan Clark.
In the report, Clark details some increasingly available technologies expected to change the equation regarding U.S. undersea technological supremacy. They include increased use of lower frequency active sonar and non-acoustic methods of detecting submarine wakes at short ranges. In particular, Clark cites a technique of bouncing laser light or light-emitting-diodes off of a submarine hull to detect its presence.
“The physics behind most of these alternative techniques has been known for decades, but was not exploited because computer processors were too slow to run the detailed models needed to see small changes in the environment caused by a quiet submarine. Today, ‘big dat’” processing enables advanced navies to run sophisticated oceanographic models in real time to exploit these detection techniques,” Clark writes.
Chinese Submarine Threat
When asked about the pace of Chinese undersea military construction and modernization, Richard explained that the Navy is focused on sustaining the research and development, or R&D, sufficient to ensure the U.S. retains its technological superiority.
Richard added that the submarine fleet, and strategic nuclear deterrence in particular, is all the more pressing and significant now that China has operational nuclear-armed JL-2 missiles able to hit part of the United States.
A recent Congressional report states that Chinese modernization plans call for a sharp increase in attack submarines and nuclear-armed submarines or SSBNs. Chinese SSBNs are now able to patrol with nuclear-armed JL-2 missiles able to strike targets more than 4,500 nautical miles.
The Chinese are currently working on a new, modernized SSBN platform as well as a long-range missile, the JL-3, Congressional information says.