US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

I don't think the video discussed the part where there are a number of available shooters and how the system decides which one will take the shot.

we're at SinoDefence so let me post what Xinhua had to say about that test carried out last week:
U.S. military launches three rockets near-simultaneously to test Aegis system
The U.S. military launched three suborbital rockets near-simultaneously Tuesday as part of a ballistic missile defense (BMD) test involving the Aegis weapon system.

  The U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) said in a statement that the rockets were acquired and tracked by sailors aboard two Aegis BMD destroyers while a third destroyer participated in associated operations.

  Using this data, the Aegis BMD ships then conducted simulated guided missile engagements with the Distributed Weighted Engagement Scheme (DWES) capability enabled to determine which ship is the preferred shooter, thereby reducing duplication of BMD engagements and missile expenditures while ensuring BMD threat coverage.

  Since no guided missiles were launched, the test did not include an attempted intercept, and the MDA noted that the test was "successfully completed."

  "This was the first flight test to assess the ability of the Aegis BMD 4.0 weapon system to simulate engagements of a raid consisting of three short-range, separating ballistic missile targets," the statement said. "This was also the first time Aegis BMD 4.0 ships used the DWES capability with live targets."

  The rockets were launched between 2:30 a.m. and 2:31 a.m. EDT ( 0730 GMT and 0731 GMT) from NASA's Wallops Flight Facility in the state of Virginia, the U.S. space agency said.

  Aegis BMD, managed by the MDA and the U.S. Navy, is the naval component of the U.S. ballistic missile defense system.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


so Brumby's assessment was pretty good :) (comparing the paragraph I put in boldface above and: https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/us-military-news-thread.t1547/page-369#post-329351
 

strehl

Junior Member
Registered Member
The more I look into this DWES subject the more I am beginning to think it is a component of CEC. Here is a link to a Johns Hopkins PDF which explains the system. It doesn't specifically say anything about DWES but you should ask whether it makes sense that DWES would be limited to Aegis BMD (SM3) or be generally available to SM2 and SM6 as well (ie, conventional air defense).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I will poke around the MDA website to see if there is any mention of DWES being specifically tied to BMD.
 

Brumby

Major
The more I look into this DWES subject the more I am beginning to think it is a component of CEC. Here is a link to a Johns Hopkins PDF which explains the system. It doesn't specifically say anything about DWES but you should ask whether it makes sense that DWES would be limited to Aegis BMD (SM3) or be generally available to SM2 and SM6 as well (ie, conventional air defense).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I will poke around the MDA website to see if there is any mention of DWES being specifically tied to BMD.

You are absolutely correct to take the view that DWES is a sub-set and part of the domain of CEC. Without CEC, DWES would not function. I might have unnecessarily created the confusion by poor description on my part in my earlier comments. My emphasis then was to differentiate and highlight a very specific test and milestone achieved in the test. In a live environment, it is critical to not only cooperatively engage (CEC) but also to determine which asset to optimally engage (DWES).

The system in its final form should not be limited to just ships. It would include THAAD and PAC's in my view.
 

strehl

Junior Member
Registered Member
how was it going? anything newer than
JOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 16, NUMBER 4 (1995)
from your link?

I looked through the MDA website but didn't find any mention of developing the DWES as a specific part of Aegis/BMD. MDA has spent money developing "battle management" labs which do realtime data fusion and Command/Control but these are in context of integrating worldwide sensors (satellites/ground radars/airborne sensors) and missile platforms (THAAD/Aegis/GMD etc). I think MDA is simply piggybacking on an inherent CEC/Aegis function.

I think it is interesting that the Army has Blue Force Tracking/JTRS and the Navy has CEC but the Air Force seems to be the odd man out (in terms of a standalone fusion network). If I took a wild guess I would say the Air Force tried for something too expensive and had to quit. Space based radar (cancelled) and TSAT (cancelled) would have made the Air Force omniscient and could have been a backbone to a worldwide fusion network.
 

strehl

Junior Member
Registered Member
By the way, a really nice PDF summary of Aegis program status is at the link. It is dated but still pertinent. The Block II missile development (with Japan as a major participant) is reaching hardware test stage.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Jeff Head

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


Three-DDG-51-Vessels-Reach-Upgrade-Milestones.jpg

Naval Today said:
The Navy’s DDG 51 modernization program has met two key milestones Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) announced Dec. 22.

The milestones involve the successful installation and testing of the new Aegis baseline 9 combat system on two DDG 51 destroyers, and a hull, mechanical and electrical (HM&E) modernization to a third.

USS Barry (DDG 52) and USS Benfold (DDG 65) successfully executed sea trials following extensive, Extended Selected Restricted Availabilities for combat systems modernizations. Barry completed her availability at Naval Station Norfolk and was the first ship to receive the Aegis baseline 9 installation on the East Coast. Benfold completed the baseline 9 modernization at Naval Station San Diego. The modernizations upgraded all major elements of the ships’ combat systems including radars, weapons, communications suite, sonar, electronic warfare, navigation, and computer capability.

Surface Combatant Modernization Program Manager Capt. Ted Zobel, said:

"By incorporating smarter technologies, we ensure ships are more efficient and able to meet their tasking for years to come."

During sea trials, the ships demonstrated improved warfighting capability that included the Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) embedded in the combat systems upgrade. The new software package, baseline 9C, includes an Aegis Weapon System (AWS) upgrade which introduces an enhanced SPY-1D radar with a multi-mission signal processor for anti-air warfare and ballistic missile defense in support of IAMD.

The AWS is complemented with the addition of cooperative engagement capability (CEC), anti-submarine warfare upgrades and improvements to the MK 45 five-inch gun. Ballistic Missile Defense version 5.0 was also included as a major addition to the combat systems upgrade.

The third ship, USS The Sullivans (DDG 68) conducted an availability to overhaul and modernize its HM&E systems at BAE Systems Ship Repair shipyard in Mayport, Florida. The ship received upgrades to enhance its structural integrity while replacing existing propulsion plant control systems with new machinery and damage control systems. This modernization improves the probability that this 17 year-old ship will meet its expected 35 year service life.

All three ships are expected to return to the fleet by early 2015.

This illustrates why the US Navy remains so potent. it continually modernizes its vessels, upgrading their sensors, weapons, software, etc.

All of these are Flight I Burke DDGs, commissioned in 1994, 1996, and 1997 respectfully. Even though 20 years old (or nearing) all are still world class destroyers, with up to date AEGIS systems and very capable systems.

The US built 62 of these vessels in three flights by 2012. Three more Flight IIAs are now under construction, another eight Flight IIAs have been awarded contracts, and there will be probably 24 Flight III Burkes which between 2017 and 2031 Contracts for three of those have already been awarded.

This will total 97 Burke destroyers built, but it is likely, because of a 2011 requirement calling for a total of 94 air defense capable destroyers and cruisers by 2025. that the number will be reached only sometime after 2025, and then maintained at 94 as Ticonderogas and older Burkes begin to retire.

The US Navy is either considering a Flight IV Burke, or a new, Future Surface Combatant (FSC) to begin replacing the Ticonderogas. Up to 24 of those vessels are planned as the Ticos retire.

In the end, you will see Flight III Burkes replacing retiring Burkes, and either Flight IV Burkes or the new FSC replacing Ticonderogas.

Remember...you heard it first here from the Headman... because the last part of it will be occurring near the end, or after, my own service life is over.
 
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

...

just something I noticed in this article:
Extended Selected Restricted Availabilities
as a non-native English speaker, I was at loss :) so I used google, found about ESRA
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

which appears to be something pretty normal ... anybody cares to comment?

(the whole sentence:
USS Barry (DDG 52) and USS Benfold (DDG 65) successfully executed sea trials following extensive, Extended Selected Restricted Availabilities for combat systems modernizations.
 
Last edited:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This illustrates why the US Navy remains so potent. it continually modernizes its vessels, upgrading their sensors, weapons, software, etc.

...
affected by cuts though ... the most recent from USNI News:
Navy Again Reduces Scope of Destroyer Modernization, 5 Ships Won’t Receive Any Ballistic Missile Defense Upgrades
Five Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers (DDG-51) will forgo a combat system upgrade that would allow the ships to fight ballistic missile threats as part of a reduction in modernization funding included in the Navy’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 budget that will save the service $500 million over the next five years, USNI News has learned.

Modernization periods for five Flight IIA Burkes — USS Howard (DDG-83); USS McCampbell (DDG-85); USS Mustin (DDG-89); USS Chafee (DDG-90); USS Bainbridge (DDG-96) — will not include the Baseline 9C Aegis Combat System series of processing power and software upgrades to bring an Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) capability to the destroyers, according to an unclassified version of the current modernization plan seen by USNI News.

nstead, the ships will undergo a much more modest upgrade that will focus on hull, mechanical and electrical (HM&E) systems repairs, leaving the ships — all commissioned between 2001 to 2004 — without any ballistic missile defense (BMD) capability.

Additionally — without the Baseline 9 upgrade — the ships will not be wired into the Navy’s emerging
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that would allow destroyers to download targeting information from assets outside of the range of their SPY-1D radars to attack air and BMD threats with the Raytheon Standard Missile 6 (SM-6).

The budget line item in FY 2016 budget reduces modernization funding by $63.1 million — about what it would cost to upgrade a ship to Baseline 9 — which precluded the Baseline 9 upgrade for Howard.
etc., source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

also contains this summary:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


9A:Upgrade for Ticonderoga-class cruisers that does not include BMD capabilities.

9C: Upgrades Arleigh Burke guided missile destroyers with the Lockheed Martin Multi-Mission Signal Processor that will allow the destroyers to switch between BMD and the air defense role.

9D: Is a variant of the 9C program for new construction ships, starting with the planned John Finn (DDG-113).

9E: Is the Baseline 9 variant for the Navy’s Aegis Ashore program.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Army engineers define future aviation fleet
March 2, 2015

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



Story Highlights
  • Industry proposals include the capability to carry a payload of 12 troops and four crew, hover out of ground effect at an ambient condition of 6,000 feet and 95 degrees Fahrenheit, and self-deploy 2,100 nautical miles at a speed of at least 230 knots.

  • size0.jpg


  • size0.jpg


  • size0.jpg





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

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, Md. (March 2, 2015) -- The U.S. Army science and technology community is charting the future of military vertical lift aviation that will enable warfighters to accomplish missions not possible today.

The Army, supported by NASA and the Navy, is combining its areas of technical expertise to accomplish the aggressive scientific and engineering goals necessary to develop a new fleet of joint aircraft, said Ned Chase, deputy program director of science and technology, or S&T, for the Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator/Future Vertical Lift, also known as JMR TD.

JMR TD has been established to address several of the capability gaps that cannot be satisfied by updating the current fleet.

"Let's figure out what we want this new aircraft to do, and let's go out and prove that we have the technologies available to meet those requirements. That's what we're doing with JMR TD," said Chase, with the Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center, or ARMDEC, on Fort Eustis, Virginia.

The Department of Defense is using JMR TD to design and integrate the technologies that will eventually feed into the Future Vertical Lift, or FVL, and replace the military's vertical lift fleet with a new family of aircraft.

LEVERAGING EXPERTISE FROM ACROSS ARMY S&T

The Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center, or AMRDEC, one of seven centers and laboratories that make up the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command, also known as RDECOM, is leading the S&T effort.

Chase and his team are working closely with fellow scientists and engineers within RDECOM to conceptualize research and design the many technologies that will be necessary for this future vertical lift capability.

AMRDEC will leverage its expertise in aviation; however, the team will rely upon its peer organizations for the complementary pieces. For example, RDECOM's Communications-Electronics Research, Development and Engineering Center at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, or APG, is the expert in areas such as communications systems, sensors and cameras, he said.

"The one thing that we've not done in quite a long time was demonstrate that we can build an aircraft from scratch that incorporates the individual technologies that we've been working on the past 25 years," Chase said. "We have the capacity across AMRDEC to populate the aircraft with the right components--engines, rotors, structures, flight controls.

"We want to put together a roadmap to develop the radios, weapons, sensors and survivability equipment by drawing from RDECOM in preparation for FVL. We take their products and integrate them onto the platform itself. FVL is going to reflect the aggregate of RDECOM investment."

Charles Catterall, AMRDEC lead systems engineer, has worked to develop an S&T integrated product team to build an investment strategy across RDECOM.

"We are engaging our sister organizations within RDECOM. What can the command do to support this program? What resources can be brought to bear to facilitate and support this Future Vertical Lift initiative with technologies? Given a clean sheet, could you bring additional capabilities to bear? We're looking across the command," Catterall said.

Catterall said JMR TD has two components--the air vehicle demonstration, or AVD, and mission systems architecture demonstration, or MSAD. Two contract teams--Sikorsky-Boeing and Bell Helicopter--are responsible for the design, analysis, fabrication, ground testing and ultimately, flight testing of the demonstrator aircraft.

The industry proposals for FVL include the capability to carry a payload of 12 troops and four crew, hover out of ground effect at an ambient condition of 6,000 feet and 95 degrees Fahrenheit, and self-deploy 2,100 nautical miles at a speed of at least 230 knots.

The MSAD portion will integrate technology concepts from across RDECOM, as well as the Department of Defense, into an open, efficient, effective and enduring architecture.

The MSAD initiative will develop a standard reference architecture that can be used as the basis for design and implementation of an avionics architecture. This will enable hardware and software reuse across multiple mission design series aircraft and multiple vendor implementations, Chase said.

The knowledge, standards, processes and tools necessary to design and implement such a mission systems architecture that is affordable will be used to inform the government's generation of requirements for the anticipated FVL program.

Chase said that a major challenge for DoD scientists and engineers is to develop their specific pieces of technologies - whether sensors, weapons, cameras or crew systems--and ensure they function correctly within a much more demanding future aviation environment than exists today.

"This future fleet will be faster and go farther. We're trying to ensure that the other [research centers] understand how the aviation environment and constraints change when we go from flying aircraft at 130 knots to 250 knots," Chase said. "The environment we're creating for weapons, sensors and radios is much different with FVL than the current fleet. FVL will operate in a different performance regime."

ARMY LEADS JOINT AVIATION PROGRAM

Developing a joint aircraft instead of a separate version for each service is expected to save time and money in technology development, training, maintenance and logistics, Chase said.

There are four classes of aircraft that have been identified for the fleet - light, medium, heavy and ultra.

"We want to develop technology applicable to each of the four basic aircraft of the FVL family, and then populate them with the mission equipment that is required to satisfy each of the service's missions," Chase said. "You're working from the same framework of requirements and technologies.

"You don't have to do individual technology developments for every single class of aircraft in the fleet. It's about efficiency of investments, costs and logistics."

Working with NASA and Navy scientists and engineers brings complementary expertise to the project, he said. Significantly different missions among the services require different skill sets among the aviation subject-matter experts.

"Because it is a joint requirement, it drives you to having a joint team. We have a mixed team to address a comprehensive requirement that neither the Army nor Navy S&T enterprise might be capable of solving entirely by itself," Chase said.

"The Army operates across land, and we have specific missions - air assaults, attack and reconnaissance. The Navy has a different challenge with operating on the ship, which drives the space that an aircraft can fit on and be maintained in. The Marines Corps has an expeditionary mindset where extended range is extremely important."

First flight testing is expected in summer 2017. The technologies to be integrated onto the platform should be at technology readiness level 6, or a prototype level, between 2022 and 2024.

While government agencies such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency build single-purpose aircraft, Chase emphasized that the goal of JMR TD is to develop a fleet that will achieve several stringent goals.

"We're in pursuit of several aggressive individual requirements that in the aggregate is something way beyond what we can do today," Chase said. "We have to be able to operate all over the world, in any kind of environment, across a speed spectrum that allows us to do our mission anywhere, anytime."

-----

This article appears in the March/April 2015 issue of Army Technology Magazine, which focuses on aviation research. The magazine is available as an electronic download, or print publication. The magazine is an authorized, unofficial publication published under Army Regulation 360-1, for all members of the Department of Defense and the general public.

RDECOM is a major subordinate command of the U.S. Army Materiel Command. AMC is the Army's premier provider of materiel readiness--technology, acquisition support, materiel development, logistics power projection and sustainment--to the total force, across the spectrum of joint military operations. If a Soldier shoots it, drives it, flies it, wears it, eats it or communicates with it, AMC provides it.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 
Top