APG-77 AESA Test

AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radars offer a number of improvements over previous-generation technologies. They are more sensitive. They have better operational “uptime” because moving parts are eliminated, and the failure of one module doesn’t take the entire radar off line or leave it useless. They are also far better at handling large numbers of targets. AESA radars can do many things at once by just dedicating groups of transmit/receive (T/R) modules to each task, instead of switching rapidly between targets to simulate multi-tasking. Among other abilities.

The challenge for AESA radars has been cost, specifically the cost of the thousands of individual T/R modules that make up an AESA array. In July 2008, Raytheon produced a release regarding a variant technology called AESLA, an Active Electronically Scanned Lens Array radar. Their approach was aimed at improving the cost of an AESA radar’s T/R modules, a move that could have industry-wide significance if successful.

To find out more, DID talked to Joe Smolko, Raytheon’s program manager for the AESLA effort….

• AESLA: The Imperative, and the Idea
• AESLA: Employment and Uses
• AESLA: Funding and Next Steps
• Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

AARGM Concept
(click to view full)

The AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) is a medium range, supersonic, air-launched tactical missile whose primary job is to attack and kill enemy radars. The Italian Air Force is expected to buy up to 250 of these successors to the AGM-88 High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM), and AARGM is also a US Navy major acquisition program with around 1,750 expected orders from the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. Now Germany looks set to join, too.

So, why is that such a big deal? Perhaps the story of how a Serbian unit using an antiquated SA-3 battery managed to survive the 1999 NATO air campaign – and eventually shot down an F-117 Nighthawk stealth plane – will help put things into perspective. DID recounts those events, explains the new weapon, and offers updates re: contracts and key milestones.

Te latest developments include successful tests, just ahead of a critical Milestone C production decision…

• Showdown Over Serbia: Demise of an F-117
• AGM-88E AARGM: Addressing the Gaps
• AARGM Contracts & Events
  
  Continue Reading… »

Naval AS90
(click to view full)

Medium caliber naval guns confront naval planners with a divergence of opinions: mount large caliber, slower-firing 5”/127mm guns used mostly for naval fire support, or smaller caliber 100-57mm guns with far more rapid rates of fire that can be used against smaller boats, UAVs, missiles et. al. as well? In recent years, a 3rd option has entered the scene: 155mm guns adapted from Army platforms. Key advantages include potential commonality of ammunition stocks, greater destructive power, and better leveraging of R&D into long range and specialized variants with some land/sea commonality. Hence projects like the American AGS system for its Zumwalt Class destroyers, and Germany’s aborted MONARC that would have mounted a turret from their PzH 2000 self-propelled howitzer on the new F125 expeditionary frigates.

AGS is rather large, however, which leaves the question of what to do with ships smaller than the DDG-1000 Zumwalt’s Graf Spee sized 14,500t. The Royal Navy has become the latest navy to jump into this fray, undertaking a relatively low cost research program that looks at the AS90 Braveheart howitzer’s potential for future warships, and for refits to the existing fleet.

They’ll have a number of significant challenges to overcome before they can declare success, but a recent release says the project is moving on to Phase 3 now…

Continue Reading… »

General Dynamics Team
Trimaran LCS Design
(click to enlarge)

The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is the U.S. Navy’s newest surface combatant class. Optimized for shallow seas and operations within 100 miles of shore, but deployable across the ocean, LCS ships are a centerpiece of the USA’s new focus on littoral warfare. They will help to counter growing “asymmetric” threats like coastal mines, quiet diesel submarines, global piracy, and terrorists on small fast attack boats. They will also perform intelligence gathering and scouting using helicopters and UAVs, offer some ground combat support capabilities, and share tactical information with other Navy aircraft, ships, submarines, and joint units. Swappable “mission modules,” UAV robot aircraft, and robotic UUV and USV vehicles will give these small ships the specialized capabilities they require for each of these roles – and the quick-replace adaptability they need to keep up.

At present, 2 teams are competing for the final LCS design. The General Dynamics team is offering a futuristic but practical high-speed trimaran based on Austal designs and experience. The Lockheed Martin team offers a high-speed semi-planing monohull based on Fincantieri designs that have set trans-Atlantic speed records. Team Lockheed’s efforts have run into serious trouble, including cancellation of the contract for their second ship. The General Dynamics/Austal team hit the same rocks soon afterward, in part because of the US Navy’s unusual proposal for future business arrangements.

DID places recent developments in context by explaining a bit more about the US Navy’s new surface combatant; detailing the teams, key time line events, and contract awards under the program to date; and providing additional resources and links to complete our in-depth coverage. New material appears in green type. The latest updates involve mission module integration, a report on program status and costs from the Congresional Budget Office, and an article by Naval Technology that looks at the LCS program’s issues to date…

• LCS = Standard Equipment + Mission Modules
• LCS: Budgets and Program Structure [updated]
• LCS: Designs & Teams
• LCS Controversies
• LCS: Contracts & Key Events [updated]
• LCS Ancillaries: Mission Module & Weapon Contracts & Key Events
• Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

JHMCS, adjusting
(click to view full)

The introduction of helmet mounted sights like the US-Israeli JHMCS and its F-35 successor the HMDS, Thales TopSight/TopOwl, Saab Cobra, et. al. have changed air combat. They’ve also changed the biodynamics of fighter cockpits, because they’re inevitably bulkier and heavier than the older helmets they replaced. During high-g fighter maneuvers – or worse, rocket-boosted ejections – that can become a problem. StrategyPage reports that the USAF has introduced a new neck muscle exercise machine in some air force gyms, in order to compensate.

Now Survival Innovations, Inc of Arden, NC received a contract for $6 million “to tailor development, integration and testing of a head and neck restraint system to provide improved head and neck injury protection within acceptable limits for the smaller anthropometric population range of fighter aircraft, thereby optimizing warfighter injury tolerance and protection during emergency escape.”

This is not necessarily about the development of a new ejection system, but rather about research that could benefit all aircraft ejection systems. At this time, all funds are already committed; Wright-Patterson AFB, OH is managing the contract (FA8650-08-C-6925).

SSN Akula Class
(click to view full)

According to GlobalSecurity.org, India’s ATV (advanced technology vessel) program to build a nuclear-powered submarine began in 1974, and became a serious effort in 1985. The Federation of American Scientists’ December 1996 document “The Indian Strategic Nuclear Submarine Project: An Open Literature Analysis” remains one of the best single open sources on India’s program. Unfortunately, it was compiled over a decade ago and has become rather dated.

Meanwhile, even if one omits the problem-plagued Type 091 Han Class nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSN) and old, updated-Romeo Type 035 Ming Class SSKs, China’s attack sub force is still projected at about 30 subs by 2010, including 4 Type 093 Shang Class SSN nuclear powered attack subs and 8 Kilo (Project 636) & Advanced Kilo Class (Project 877) diesel-electric SSKs. In contrast, India is likely to have just 10-16 Scorpene, Kilo, and Type 209 Class SSKs of its own by that time, plus any nuclear fast attack submarines in its service.

It now seems more and more likely that the Akula Class boat INS Chakra will be operational as a training vessel by 2009…

• The ATV Program: Background
• Events and Reports
• Additional Readings
  
  Continue Reading… »

F-35A AA-1
(click to view full)

The F-35 Lightning II is a major multinational program which is intended to produce an “affordably stealthy” multi-role strike fighter that will have three variants: the F-35A conventional version for the US Air Force et. al.; the F-35B Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing for the US Marines, British Royal Navy, et. al.; and the F-35C conventional carrier-launched version for the US Navy. The aircraft is named after Lockheed’s famous WW2 P-38 Lightning, and the Mach 2, stacked-engine English Electric (now BAE) Lightning jet. System development partners included The USA & Britain (Tier 1), Italy and the Netherlands (Tier 2), and Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Turkey (Tier 3). Now the challenge is agreeing on production phase membership and arrangements, to be followed by initial purchase commitments around 2008-2009.

This updated article has expanded to feature more detail regarding the $300 billion F-35 program, including other contracts as well as notable events. As a result of reader feedback, we’ll make the new material more visible by putting it in green type. Recent news includes over $1 billion released for the program, first flight of the F-35B, initial deliveries from foreign subcontractors, and a milestone for the GE/RR F136 engine…

• The F-35 Family of Aircraft (i.e. “Continue reading…”)
• F-35 Program: Production Timelines & Structure
• F-35 Program: Events & Developments FY 2007-08 [updated]
• F-35 Program: System Development & Production Contracts FY 2006-08 [updated]
• F-35 Program: Ancillary and Sub-contracts [updated]
• Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

Reaper, ready…
(click to view full)

The MQ-9 Reaper, once called “Predator B,” is somewhat similar to the Predator. Until you look at the tail. Or its size. Or its weapons. It’s called “Reaper” for a reason – while it packs the same surveillance gear, it’s much more of a hunter-killer design. The Reaper is 36 feet long, with a 66 foot wingspan. Its maximum gross takeoff weight is a whopping 10,500 pounds, carrying up to 4,000 pounds of fuel, 850 pounds of internal/ sensor payload, and another 3,000 pounds on its wings. Its 6 pylons can carry GPS-guided JDAM family bombs, Paveway laser-guided bombs, Sidewinder missiles for air-air self defense, and other MIL STD 1760 compatible weapons, in addition to the Hellfire anti-armor missiles carried by the Predator. When loaded up with laser-guided Hydra rockets, the Reaper becomes the equivalent of a close air support fighter with less situational awareness, lower speed, and less survivability if seen – but much, much longer on-station time. Some have called it the first fielded Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV).

That capability set makes the MQ-9 considerably more expensive than its MQ-1 Predator counterparts, whose price also benefits from volume production orders. Given these high-end capabilities, and high end expenses, one might not have expected the MQ-9 to enjoy export success that matches its famous cousin’s. Nevertheless, that’s what appears to be happening. MQ-9 operators currently include the USA and Britain, who have both used it in hunter-killer mode. If current contract requests are fulfilled, Italy and Germany will soon add MQ-9s to their forces as well.

Note that this is a new DID FOCUS article; it will shift to DII membership only after the first 2 days.

• The MQ-9 Reaper, and its Little Brothers
• Contracts & Key Events (SDD-2008)
• Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

B-52H: to 2030?
(click to view full)

The current US Air Force fleet, whose planes are more than 23 years old on average, is the oldest in USAF history. It won’t keep that title for very long. Many transport aircraft and aerial refueling tankers are more than 40 years old – and under current plans, some may be as many as 70-80 years old before they retire. Since the price for next-generation planes has risen faster than inflation, average aircraft age will climb even if the US military gets every plane it asks for in its future plans. Nor is the USA the only country facing this problem.

As this dynamic plays out and average age continues to rise, addressing the issues related to aging aircraft becomes more and more important in order to maintain acceptable force numbers, readiness levels, and aircraft maintainability; avoid squeezing out recapitalization budgets; handle personnel turnover that becomes more and more damaging; and keep maintenance costs in line, despite new technical problems are arising that will present unforeseen difficulties. Like F-15 fighters under flight restrictions due to structural fatigue concerns. Or grounded entirely.

The biggest contracts aren’t always the ones deserving of the most attention. Enter the USA’s Joint Council on Aging Aircraft (JCAA). Enter, too, DID’s Spotlight article. It seeks to place the situation and its effects in perspective, via comments, contracts, and a research trove of articles that tap the expertise and observations of outside parties and senior sources within the US military…

• The JCAA
• Contracts & Key Events [updated]
• Aging Aircraft: Some Additional Readings [updated]
  
  Continue Reading… »

JHL: QTR Concept
(click to view full)

In 2005, the US military and NASA announced the kickoff of the Army-led Joint Heavy Lift program, with the award of 5 contracts for the Concept Design and Analysis (CDA) of a Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) Joint Heavy Lift (JHL) rotorcraft. This is a futuristic aircraft that’s imagined as having the C-130 Hercules aircraft’s 20 ton cargo capacity, but with the ability to take off and land like a helicopter. No current US military helicopter platform even comes close to that vision, and so the competitors are deploying some radical and different technologies in their attempts to meet these goals. DID covers each of them below.

CH-53E Super Stallion

At the same time, the US Marine Corps’ vital medium-heavy lift CH-53E Super Sea Stallion helicopters are beginning to to wear out their airframes. Hence the HLR Heavy Lift Replacement (HLR) program, aimed at fielding new-build CH-53K aircraft beginning in 2013-2015. The US Air Force, meanwhile, has its AJACS program, which aims to produce a C-130 replacement beginning around 2020.

All 3 programs may face a rough ride ahead. Runaway cost growth on numerous US defense programs, operational demands, and a looming demographic crisis in social programs all work to create budget squeezes, and hence pressures for program consolidation. The USMC’s affordable CH-53X track upgrade was very nearly sidetracked via a merger with he R&D heavy, schedule-uncertain, JHL, and may not be in the clear yet. The USAF’s AJACS program to replace the C-130 Hercules with a modern 20+ ton transport is also facing scrutiny of this sort, and those pressures, too may increase. Conversely, it is also possible that the JHL program could find itself edged out by a pair of more conventional helicopter and aircraft solutions from the USMC and USAF. DID notes the technologies, the politics, and progress to date.

Recent news includes a report that shows just how far away the US military is from a viable competition and winning design…

• The JHL Program (i.e. “Continue reading…”)
• The Contenders
  • The Modernized Standbys [updated]
  • Sikorsky’s Compound Helicopter Option [updated]
  • The Tilt-Rotors [updated]
• Contracts and Key Developments [updated]
• Appendix A: ‘Borging’ HLR & the CH-53’s Future (Oct 2005)
• Appendix B: Additional Readings & Sources – JHL Program
• Appendix C: Additional Readings & Sources – HLR Program (CH-53X)
  
  Continue Reading… »