Year: 2009

MEADS CDR Set for 2010

No Comments
Click for full size


Note 4 Separable Canisters


Defense Pamphlet Pr0n

Over a decade ago, I did some very preliminary work with the Medium-Extended Air Defense System (MEADS). Nothing major, just taking PAC-3 munition boxes and slapping them together in a way that the “4 pack” could be made separable.

At the time, I figured that nothing would come of it, because it was a joint program with significant foreign involvement, which looking at history, seems to be the kiss of death for weapons’ systems.

There just ain’t enough pork in a joint venture for either the Pentagon or Congress.

Well, it appears that I may (emphasis on the may) have been wrong, because there is a scheduled Critical Design Review scheduled for next year.

Then again, I may have been right:

Brig. Gen. Genaro Dellarocco, the U.S. Army’s program executive officer for missiles and space, says the service is frustrated that Washington is paying 58% of the cost of the program, but only has equal say with Germany and Italy on management matters. Germany contributes 25% of the funding with Italy handling the remaining 17%.

Paul Schneider, former deputy secretary at the Homeland Security Dept., conducted a review of the program and possible alternate management structures. Options included increasing U.S. control over the program, but industry sources suggest that option was discarded.

It does look like the transmit-and-receive modules for the radar (German) is on track, as the PAC-3 MSE (Missile Segment Enhancement, basically a bigger and longer range dual pulse motor) will be the interceptor, for now at least.

Army Looking for Compact Weapon for Tankers Etc.

No Comments

It appears that the US Army is looking for a subcompact personal weapon system for people like tankers and truck drivers.

Seeing as how this is a niche weapon, there are basically two cartridges taht make sense, 5.56 NATO, and 9mm parabellum (used in the Baretta pistol).

I would recommend the former, because if you are carrying more than a 50-100 or so, you have less weight, and even out of a short barrel, you have longer range.

I think that a Bullpup makes sense, because you start getting to absurdly short barrel lengths for the weapon (<10 in).

So, you have existing weapons like the MTAR-21 Tavor, the AUG carbine, etc,

If you want to go to a different round, then something like the FN P90, with its 5.7x 28mm cartridge (as compared to the 5.56x45mm NATO) makes more sense than a 9mm round.

Note that all the Bullpups have integral optical sites, which for someone with little experience shooting a personal in a combat situation is a real advantage.

Additionally one of the arguments against a Bullpup, that slinging a grenade launcher under the barrel become problematic, is not an issue here.

If the army is serious, they would buy something off the shelf, but I expect that there will be instead some sort of new weapon developed, so that some General can get a cushy job on retirement.

LCS-2 Breaks 50 MPH

No Comments

Say what you will about the LCS, and I agree with a lot of them, over priced, behind schedule, under-armed for their displacement, and under-crewed, but when you stomp the throttle, they go like a scorched cat:

The Navy’s need for speed is being answered by a pair of warships that have reached freeway speeds during testing at sea.

Independence, a 418-foot warship built in Alabama, boasts a top speed in excess of 45 knots, or about 52 mph, and sustained 44 knots for four hours during builder trials that wrapped up this month off the Gulf Coast. The 378-foot Freedom, a ship built in Wisconsin by a competing defense contractor, has put up similar numbers.

I have no clue as to their endurance when going this fast, but my guess is that they would need to refuel if they wanted to cross the Pacific at this speed.

Video from an builder’s trials after break:


Ready, Fire, Aim

No Comments

The USAF is looking at how new technologies might provide a diction for the service’s future:

The study will look 20 years ahead, with an eye toward implementing near-term investment decisions aimed at producing relevant military systems. “We are not talking about pie in the sky,” Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said last month.

The problem ain’t technology, it’s the contracting, and cost control. At the rate things are going, all of the USAF’s budget will go to just buying one aircraft somewhere around 2075.

After all, the F-22 already costs almost ½ as much as the first nuclear aircraft carrier, the Enterprise.

Their future is bleak until costs come under control, which is true of most of the military, but the US Air Force appears to be in the worst position regarding this.

Denmark Defers Fighter Choice

No Comments

Denmark is now deferring by a decision at least a year on its choice for a new fighter to replace its F16 fleet.

The decision will be some point in 2010, at the earliest.

Technicality, it is a competition between the F-35, F/A-18 E/F, and the Gripen, but until now, it has generally been assumed that the JSF had the inside track.

I think that any delay in orders will work against the JSF, as it is patently clear that the cost of the aircraft will continue to escalate, making selection of the F-35 that much more difficult.

Also, it appears that they are talking about downsizing their fighter fleet from 48 to somewhere in the 25-35 range.

Here is the original article and the Google translation.

Obyekt 279 Soviet Tank Photos

No Comments

I was looking at Pravda article about Libyan arms purchases, and and came across a photo gallery for the Soviet obyekt 279 heavy tank, which they mischaracterized as the T-10.

It comes in at about 60 metric tons in the late 1950s, which makes it a very heavy tank for its day, as does the 130mm rifled gun it sported, along with twin treads on either side to improve mobility.

Interesting, but by the time it hit test, the ATGM had largely eclipsed the heavy tank, which was replaced by the by the MBT, the T-54s on the WarPac side, and M-60, Leopard I, and the AMX-30, which were all at least 10 tonnes lighter, and the Centurion/Chieftain which was at least 10t lighter.


Video after break:

Well, Here’s a Shocker

No Comments

It appears that Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), the favorite rent-a-crowd for corporate interests, like Microsoft, Tobacco, and Jack Abramhoff, has now weighed in against the GE/Rolls F136 alternate engine for the JSF:

The group is lambasting congressional funding for a second F-35 Joint Strike Fighter engine, made by General Electric and Rolls-Royce.

In the process, the nonprofit watchdog organization is spending as much as an estimated $2 million on advertising that includes posters in D.C. Metro trains, paper and digital ads in Capitol Hill publications and billboards in several districts across the country.

But wait, there’s more:

CAGW refuses to disclose the campaign’s expenses, but it appears to represent a sizable chunk of its total budget.

In 2008, CAGW’s total revenue, which includes the nonprofit and its lobbying arm, the Council of Citizens Against Government Waste, was $5,158,515.

…

Pratt & Whitney spokeswoman Erin Dick said that her company “is not paying for the CAGW ads.” When asked whether Pratt & Whitney donated to CAGW, Dick said that the company does not disclose the public interest groups it supports.

CAGW and Pratt & Whitney share the same ad agency, Sullivan Higdon & Sink, based in Wichita, Kan., according to a Bloomberg report in August.

That same month, Pratt & Whitney said that it was erroneously [“erroniously”, Ha!] named the paid sponsor of a video made by the agency on behalf of CAGW. Since then, the paid sponsor reference has been changed, and the advertising group said that CAGW and Pratt & Whitney are separate customers, according to Bloomberg.

….

A 2006 Finance Committee report, published by the minority Democratic staff but backed by the Republican chairman at the time, tracked how convicted ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff enlisted tax-exempt groups on behalf of his clients. The report documented how Abramoff got CAGW, among other groups, to publish articles and news releases on behalf of his clients, and then directed tens of thousands of dollars to the taxpayer groups.

(emphasis mine)

Seriously, why anyone takes CAGW seriously is completely beyond me.

Son of FCS Infantry Combat Vehicle to Be Unveiled

No Comments

And it looks a lot like the old FCS-ICV, coming in a bit heavier, 30+ tons, with a greater reliance on armor than the FCS, where the concept, as laughable as it now seems in the days of the IED, was that the network was the armor.

So the army has gone old school:

The major departure from the FCS vehicle design in the new vehicle effort will be “integral survivability,” said Mark Signorelli, BAE vice president for new combat vehicles. The FCS vehicles were supposed to rely on situational awareness provided by electronic sensors and speed to survive on the battlefield and were not heavily armored for close combat.

The Army now says networking and sensor technology can improve a vehicle’s survivability, but real survivability must be inherent in the vehicle, he said. In other words, the vehicle must be able to take and survive a hit. MRAP-like survivability doesn’t get you combat survivability, which means the ability to survive kinetic hits from auto– and larger cannon, Signorelli said. For that you need heavy armor.

As for weapons systems, to fit both a turret bustle, such as that on BAE’s Bradley fighting vehicle, and a squad into a vehicle, would require a very large vehicle. That may push industry into going with an unmanned turret, Signorelli said. The most likely weapon is an auto-cannon and coaxial machine gun, and probably anti-armor missiles.

It appears that the vehicle will, “be required to have the mobility of a Bradley, the sustainability of a Stryker and the lethality of a Bradley,” which makes one wonder, why not just upgrade the Bradley?

There are unmanned turrets that would allow a Bradley to carry a full 9 man squad by freeing up interior space, such as the CTA International 40mm telescoped round auto-cannon.

As to getting the sustainability to that of the Stryker, I’m not sure that this would be possible on a tracked vehicle, tracks require more maintenance than wheels, and at over 30 tons, I see mobility issues with a wheeled vehicle.

An all new vehicle might be cheaper and more fuel efficient than an upgraded Bradley, but it will undoubtedly also be more expensive than a new-build Bradley, and much more expensive than an refurbished Bradley.

It just does not make sense to develop a new vehicle.

Boeing Needs to Fix Its Fix on 787

No Comments

Basically, it looks as if it will be delayed even further:

While the installation of the 787 wing fix continues, Boeing engineers have returned to the drawing board to redesign part of the reinforcement, FlightBlogger has learned.

As a result, company and industry sources say the 2009 first flight target could be in jeopardy as engineers work to redesign the fix for four remaining wing stringers.

(emphasis mine)

Ben Sandilands makes a number of trenchant observations, but I think that he misses the bigger picture, which is, as I stated in my last post, that Boeing has given itself a cost cut driven lobotomy.

They cut the engineers and technicians because the finance guys thought they could, but they couldn’t.

It’s like when Boeing got their engineers (SPEEA) to strike a few years back, and they were surprised when the FAA said that they would not allow the suits to certify construction and deliver the aircraft.

Delay for Boeing, Airbus Next Gen 100 Seaters

No Comments

We now have reports that both Airbus and Boeing are looking at engine upgrades to the A320 and B-737 so as to delay the introduction of new models.

When you look at where things right now, with Boeing having outsourced its knowledge to the point that the 787 and 747-8, and Airbus still behind schedule on A380 deliveries and up to its hips in getting the A350 into development,* it is far from surprising that they putting off new development.

Airbus is in a better situation here, since the 737 has had clearance with its engines ever since it went to high bypass ratio turbofans with the -300, and because Boeing seems to be incapable of finding its ass with both hands.

Boeing went all outsource everything starting in the late 1990s, while Airbus didn’t, and as a result, they seem to be lacking basic skill-sets to actually get a plane into service.

Part of this is the difference between the two cultures: In America a skilled work force is seen as a cost, rather than an asset, as it is in Europe, and part of it is European politics, which makes it much more difficult for EADS to ship jobs from Hamburg or Toulouse.

*As well as the clusterf$#@ that is the A400M military transport, but that is technically a separate division, so it’s in the footnotes.

Neat Tech That Won’t Be Going Into Aviatiion

No Comments

Dyson, the company that uses a centrifugal separator in its vacuum cleaner, has another piece of neat tech, a Bladeless fan that works on the Coanda effect.

It’s a really interesting concept, if you don’t mind spending $299.99 for a 10″ freaking table top fan.

In any case, Bill Sweetman notes that this technology might have application for a VTOL aircraft, though, as he notes this concept is very close to the ejector lift concept that has failed abysmally when it has been tried.

For quieting a fan, it might work, for generating lots of thrust for VTOL, I’d wait for more tests.

Honduran Talks Still Up In Air

No Comments

2 days ago, Ousted Honduran President ManuelZelaya was saying that the talks had broken down, but now he is saying that an agreement is imminent.

I think that there has likely been some movement on the part of the forces behind the Coup who currently hold power, and that the denial of entry visas into the United States for current Honduran office holders was a part of this change of heart.

It would have been nice if the US had gotten tough on the coup from day 1 though.