US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

M

Michaelsinodef

Senior Member
Registered Member
Michaelsinodef said:
Nah, people really shouldn't be that trusting of what they say (remember the US hypersonic scientist hiring a hooker?).

Here is another perspective on US hypersonics:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Rough notes (auto translated):
Air Force:
ARRW: Cancelled, unable/problems with making the warhead.
HACM: Formerly HAWC (Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept), performance is poor (reaching 18,000 meters altitude, Mach 5.1), completely within traditional air defense interception capabilities, with performance similar to X51A over a decade ago, except for engine working time (240 seconds to 360 seconds). Therefore, the demand for HACM's performance over HAWC were increased by a lot, but expected service is first 2028, which may very likely be further delayed.

Army/Navy:
LHRW/CPS: Performance is "awkward" (different sizes and weights, desired by the Navy and Army), booster is difficult to develop (not successful in a single attempt yet), poor terminal guidance capabilities (not available in the first batch), research and development progress seems to be only around 30%, expected service quantity is also awkward, with 176 missiles costing one billion dollars each, and both Army and Navy vehicles/launchers are quite awkward.

And here is link to a very long podcast about this topic (much more in-depth/details) from the same person as above + TSTO as guest:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

TL: DR:
Progress is nowhere as smooth or good as US military and related says about their hypersonic programs, not to mention, it is likely that even the final products, are essentially gonna still be qualitatively worse than what China currently has in service lol (美军高超的上限在追赶中国高超的下限).

EDIT:
While I haven't gone in-depth into their sources, but I personally trust them both and that they use proper sources (they have shown/done it before).
Click to expand...
His response to the recent developments

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Basically making fun of people who believe in ARRW (like where is the confirmation of it not being cancelled any longer? Or when is it expected to enter service?), and that the recent development (talk) was basically the scientist at USAF asking for money lol (personally also think that is the case lol).
 
S

Soldier30

Senior Member
Registered Member
The US Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency DARPA showed tests of the RACER unmanned heavy transport platform. The RACER Heavy Platform autonomous robotic transport vehicle weighs 12 tons and expands the US autonomous vehicle series, which already includes the lightweight two-ton RACER RFV. The test was carried out in Texas, testing the drone's ability to follow a route on rough terrain. RACER RHP uses the Textron M5 base platform, used in US Army campaigns and designed for testing robotic vehicles.

 
C

CMP

Senior Member
Registered Member
Soldier30 said:
The US Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency DARPA showed tests of the RACER unmanned heavy transport platform. The RACER Heavy Platform autonomous robotic transport vehicle weighs 12 tons and expands the US autonomous vehicle series, which already includes the lightweight two-ton RACER RFV. The test was carried out in Texas, testing the drone's ability to follow a route on rough terrain. RACER RHP uses the Textron M5 base platform, used in US Army campaigns and designed for testing robotic vehicles.

Click to expand...
Give it more colored LED lights to make it look more advanced.
 
G

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
The T-38 Talons are way past their supposed lifetime. And the T-7A Red Hawk is taking forever to enter service.
The US lack of combat fighter pilots can be directly attributed to the lack of trainer aircraft.

Russia has similar issues only to a much worse degree. They still have no modern replacement for their propeller aircraft, or the light jet powered trainers. And only recently did Yak-130 production resume after a huge hiatus due to Ukrainian sanctions on Al-222 engine sales.
 
A

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
gelgoog said:
The T-38 Talons are way past their supposed lifetime. And the T-7A Red Hawk is taking forever to enter service.
The US lack of combat fighter pilots can be directly attributed to the lack of trainer aircraft.

Russia has similar issues only to a much worse degree. They still have no modern replacement for their propeller aircraft, or the light jet powered trainers. And only recently did Yak-130 production resume after a huge hiatus due to Ukrainian sanctions on Al-222 engine sales.
Click to expand...
It's incredible the amount of problems they had to make that T-7A working... I think it's sorted out but they need to pump so many of them to replace the T-38 that they will still have not enough numbers for quite a while.
 
G

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
Vaporware.

They should try introducing them into actual service in small numbers before making fantastic plans like that.

My problem with such autonomous aircraft is that in actual combat situations against near peer powers you can expect communications to be jammed. You can somewhat mitigate this with AI and making the drones more autonomous, but to make them completely autonomous you need to trust AI to press the kill button.

It is a bad idea any way you slice it.

I see no issue in using such aircraft for pre-programmed missions. Like delivering a bomb to a set of coordinates. But for missions which require advanced target identification, classification, and deciding what to target there should be a man in the loop to press the kill button.
 
Last edited:
S

SlothmanAllen

Junior Member
Registered Member
gelgoog said:
My problem with such autonomous aircraft is that in actual combat situations against near peer powers you can expect communications to be jammed. You can somewhat mitigate this with AI and making the drones more autonomous, but to make them completely autonomous you need to trust AI to press the kill button.

It is a bad idea any way you slice it.

I see no issue in using such aircraft for pre-programmed missions. Like delivering a bomb to a set of coordinates. But for missions which require advanced target identification, classification, and deciding what to target there should be a man in the loop to press the kill button.
Click to expand...

They also seem to be convinced that they are going to be cheap yet somehow keep up with modern fighter aircraft? I don't really know how they are going to work like envisioned while being cheap.

Anyway, I thought this picture of Northrop's Manta Ray underwater drone is really cool! I know it was announced as a extra-large unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV), but I really didn't realize how large that is!

2024-04%20-%20Manta%20Ray%20Update%20-%20Towed%20-%20DSC03296-full-res%20(photo%20from%20Northrop%20Grumman).jpg



2024-04%20-%20Manta%20Ray%20Update%20-%20Surface%20-%20DSC05179-full-res%20(photo%20from%20Northrop%20Grumman).jpg
 
G

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
In theory if you had the drones you wouldn't need to train as many combat pilots. That is the main advantage these systems are supposed to have. You might also save some weight on the aircraft by making it unmanned. But I don't think that is as much of an advantage as claimed. In theory you can also make the aircraft do high-g maneuvers which would kill a human pilot.

But if you believe stealth aficionados the future is beyond visual range combat with guided missiles. In which case the high-g maneuvers just won't be happening.

To be honest the main advantage to me for such systems seems to be in bombing missions and the like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top