gdp's Comments

DoD Buzz : Air Force General Fired for A-10 'Treason' Comments

Sat, 11 Apr 2015 04:55:08 +0000

With all respect James, I am ABSOLUTELY certain that their are specific and relatively new Targeting and IR discrimination systems on the A-10 that are (hopefully) not general knowledge to our adversaries. This particularly applies to the JDAAM, as well as the upgraded LITENING and SNIPER targeting pods. With that said, the general "over-all" ground attack and CAS capabilities are obviously a know quantity. Nevertheless, Post's ridiculous threats to fellow USAF members in regards to talking to the media, were completely out of bounds, beyond the pale, and he has rightfully been terminated.

Defense Tech : Navy Missile Hits Subsonic Target Over Land

Wed, 20 Aug 2014 22:58:29 +0000

Raytheon and the Navy skipped the "4" and "5" designation. Well, they "skipped" it, in an operational sense. The SM-4 and SM-5 may have been in development at some point, but for whatever reason, the programs were terminated, and/or abandoned. When that happens, they do not recycle the model designation, but shift to an unused number, when a new requirement/project/mission is green-lighted.

Defense Tech : SpaceX to Build Private Spaceport in Texas

Wed, 6 Aug 2014 06:22:31 +0000

Where the hell are they gonna get the nukes...it's not like they have a warhead repository right in the heart of Texas....oh, wait -- Pantex. :) I kid, of course. The only time in American history when a few nukes were ostensibly under the direct control of the USAF, and not the Commander-in-chief and DOE, was shortly after WW2. And that "oversight" was corrected pretty damn quickly.

Defense Tech : Israel's Iron Dome Intercepts Rockets from Gaza

Tue, 8 Jul 2014 22:30:35 +0000

Bernard, that is ridiculous. There is NO FRIGGIN' way that an Iron Dome Tamir interceptor missile is anywhere near as cheap as a Qassam or Grad rocket. In fact, each Tamir interceptor is at least an order of magnitude greater in cost than a Grad, and almost two orders of magnitude greater than a Qassam. However, you are missing the entire point of Missile Defense, when you are relating it to a war of attrition. The Iron Dome system only engages incoming missiles that are calculated to hit populated areas and/or high value locations, installations, etc. Due to the stupendous inaccuracy of the Palestinian and Hamas missiles, that leaves a lot of targets which are determined to be non-threats, and fall below the criteria for engagement. Second, as soon as the terrorists' missiles are fired, their launch position is determined. That makes any enemy missile crew who do not close up shop and run away, soon after they have fired off a rocket or two...a dead missile crew. Furthermore, the relative VALUE of a missile defense system, and each interceptor is measured against the cost of casualties, lives lost, as well as damage to infrastructure and property. That is why, in the calculus of Ballistic Missile Defense, the cost of the ABM interceptor does not have to match the cost of the target it is engaging...nor do BMD systems presume to even try. EDIT: Sorry Curt, I inadvertently reiterated points you made in your reply. In my rush to reply to Bernard, I didn't read your post. Just checked back and saw your earlier comments. So, I agree with you :)

Defense Tech : F-35 Grounding Puts First International Flight at Risk

Tue, 8 Jul 2014 07:24:55 +0000

Hi Nadnerbus, While it is absolutely correct that some shipyards were Govt. owned and operated (PSNY still is), the "heart" and "guts" of the subs and ships were supplied by major Companies. Who do you think the prime contractors were for the nuclear reactors on the SSN and SSBN's? During their production at PSNY, Westinghouse designed the reactors: S2W, S3W, S4W, S5W = Westinghouse. The steam turbines were either Westinghouse or GE. The Polaris and Poseidon SLBMs were designed and built by Lockheed Martin. Major subsystems such as electric generators, environmental systems, sonar, torpedoes, etc. were all produced by various mechanical / defense contractors. So even given the examples of DOD/Navy owned shipyards, in general, the following dictum has and continues to apply: The Service (e.g. USN, USAF) defines the mission, and technical/performance requirements ==> Industry (contractors) builds and supports it.

Defense Tech : F-35 Grounding Puts First International Flight at Risk

Tue, 8 Jul 2014 01:37:02 +0000

Dfens, what you are advocating sounds an awful lot like the way things were done under communist Soviet Union. First, Lockheed Martin is a PUBLIC company, not a private company. There is a big difference. Perhaps you mean't to type "private industry"?? Second, you appear to be advocating that the USAF and USN establish their own "Design Bureau's". (**cough** Mikoyan-and-Gurevich Design Bureau **cough** Sukhoi Design Bureau). Interesting idea...but I will take a big PASS on that. Unless, of course, you wish our military to always be twenty plus years behind, rather than twenty plus years ahead of our adversaries. However, I completely agree that the current DOD Procurement policies and award-fee "Cost Plus" contracts need to be completely overhauled. We need to return to a fixed cost w/ incentives type of Contract/Award based system. Furthermore, the American public needs to force Congress into passing laws curtailing special interests and lobbyists, as well as imposing Term Limits. Half of the problem lies with dishonest and/or corrupt politicians and the cronyism that occurs when citizens legislators turn into career politicians. I guess what I am saying is I agree, in principle, that a lot needs to change in the relationship between the DOD and military contractors / Defense corporations. However, curtailing free enterprise, and implementing socialist-type structures is not the answer, and would only stifle innovation, quality, and de-emphasize individual and group motivation for excellence.

Defense Tech : DoD Completes Successful Missile-Defense Test

Mon, 23 Jun 2014 21:58:32 +0000

Hi Robbie, The United States National Missile Defense is not intended to defend against "mass attacks from a major nuclear power like China or Russia". It's purpose is to provided limited ballistic missile defense in order to counter (A) Attack by rogue nuclear states--e.g. NK, Iran (B) Nuclear blackmail or terrorism by such rogue nuclear states (C) Accidental or unauthorized launch of a (very) limited number of ICBMs by Russia or China. ***************************** "It is the policy of the United States to deploy, as soon as is technologically possible, an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate) with funding subject to the annual authorization of appropriations and the annual appropriation of funds for National Missile Defense." — National Missile Defense Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-38 signed by President Clinton) ********************************************

Defense Tech : Future Uncertain for Russian Rocket Engine

Sat, 21 Jun 2014 03:08:29 +0000

With all due respect, OriginalK...that is complete nonsense. The USAF awarded the first EELV contracts to Lockheed Martin and Boeing, for their Atlas V and Delta IV launch vehicles (respectively) back in 1998, BEFORE EITHER of these NEW launch vehicles had ever flown. While some might argue that the Atlas V consisted of a large percentage of proven legacy hardware, carried over from the Atlas 3, it was still an untested, new launch system. The Delta IV had no such "excuse", and was basically a clean F'n sheet of paper. Brand new engine, brand new common booster core, avionics, the whole shebang. So, guess what...the DOD put a military satellite onto the SECOND launch of the brand new Delta IV...less than 4 months after it's first demonstration launch. So please don't try to tell us that one set of "statistical reliability calculations" apply to LM and Boeing (now merged under ULA), yet a completely different set must apply to SpaceX...and that SpaceX has to have "40 or so successful launches with no failures under their belt", before they can earn USAF certification. Actually, not even the USAF is claiming that, thankfully. By the way, the Delta IV didn't even make it to 5 successful consecutive launches. The 4th Delta IV launch was a mission failure. http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-05b....

Defense Tech : LCS Fort Worth Completes Test as Congress Cools on Program

Fri, 2 May 2014 03:17:45 +0000

Breaking news headlines from Breaking Defense dot com: "Ready, Set, Go! Navy Gives Industry 21 Days For LCS Alternatives". Here is the direct link: http://breakingdefense.com/2014/04/ready-set-go-n... Looks as though the USN has a crash program underway to solicit RFIs (Request For Information) pertaining to LCS alternatives. The gist of the RFI involves a platform that is more in line with a frigate class, both in offensive and defensive capabilities. One possibility mentioned is the modification and "upgunning" the Coast Guard National Security Cutter (built by HII). While they will be entertaining proposals from HII and other usual suspects, the USN will be exploring existing solutions already in service with our allies. Sounds like the LCS goose may finally be cooked...we can only hope.

Defense Tech : Lawmakers Question Air Force's Use of Russian Rocket Engines

Fri, 4 Apr 2014 06:11:19 +0000

No worries, bart. All our strategic nukes use solid fuel main motors (e.g. first, second and third stages) --all made in the USA. The Minuteman III stage one is manufactured by ATK, with upgraded second and third stage motors being furnished under the Propulsion Replacement Program. The fourth stage Propulsion System Rocket Engine (PSRE -- post-boost, warhead bus) uses hypergolic bi-propellant liquid fuel for attitude and maneuvering corrections, and is manufactured by Aerojet. The Trident D-5 SLBM's first and second stages are manufactured by Thiokol (ATK), and the third stage is by UTC. The Post Boost Controls System (PBCS) is manufactured by Aerojet.

Defense Tech : Sensors Aid P-8 Crew in Airliner Search

Thu, 20 Mar 2014 22:45:21 +0000

Hello Hibeam, That doesn't take into account it's aerial refueling capability. Aerial refueling effectively doubles it's range, and allows approx. 22 hours flight time, which is limited by the engine oil consumption.

Defense Tech : Sensors Aid P-8 Crew in Airliner Search

Thu, 20 Mar 2014 22:26:57 +0000

Hello Robbie, Yes. It has a receptacle in the upper forward fuselage (just aft of the ****pit) to accept a flying boom type refueling system, as is used by the USAF.

Defense Tech : Pentagon to Redesign Missile 'Kill Vehicle'

Fri, 7 Mar 2014 18:33:26 +0000

Hi Kim, I think there may be some confusion on terminology, here. By definition, an object is ballistic (i.e. on a ballistic trajectory), if it's path through space is determined solely by the influence of gravity, neglecting all other forces -- especially a propulsive force. Alternatively, an object is not ballistic, and does not follow a ballistic trajectory if other forces (besides gravity) act upon it, including air resistance. In principle, a true ballistic trajectory can only occur in a vacuum. However, In actual practice, aerodynamic resistance is considered and accounted for, and an object is considered ballistic if it's motion follows a ballistic path, to a first order approximation. That is why a bullet or an artillery shell are considered "ballistic" objects. In the case of an ICBM, it has everything to do with if the missile is in powered flight, or if powered flight has ceased. Despite it's name, the only "ballistic" aspect of an ICBM occurs after rocket motor burn out and stage separation --i.e., the post-boost phase of the payload / warhead. Yes, a modern rocket flies a planned trajectory...but that trajectory is not ballistic, by definition, when it is under powered flight -- i.e. rocket stage(s) are operating and producing thrust. Cheers, John

Defense Tech : Pentagon to Redesign Missile 'Kill Vehicle'

Fri, 7 Mar 2014 02:33:14 +0000

Hi JohnnyRanger, You may be confusing "rocket-like" with "ballistic". In any case, your statement "rockets follow ballistic trajectories" is generally not the case. Any object which has external forces acting upon it, besides that of gravity, is neither "ballistic", nor follows a ballistic trajectory. This is especially the case with a rocket or missile under propulsion, and a warhead that is undergoing active maneuvering. Even a JDAAM gravity bomb does not follow a true ballistic trajectory, because it is using aerodynamic forces (actively controlled fins) to change it's course in a non-ballistic manner. Likewise, the Gemini and Apollo capsules did not follow a true ballistic trajectory, as their blunt body design and controlled AOA made them "lifting"/gliding reentry vehicles. Same applies to the Soyuz reentry vehicle. In fact, when a modern, manned reentry capsule undergoes a "ballistic" reentry from orbital velocities, something has gone wrong. See Soyuz TMA-1, TMA-10 and TMA-11 missions. You may be thinking of a traditional, non-maneuvering warhead from a "ballistic" missile. The rocket/missile itself is not "ballistic", when it is in boost phase and/or the rocket motors are firing. However, when the final stage cuts out, and the warhead no longer has forces acting upon it (except gravity), then at that instant it begins to follow a ballistic trajectory. In the case of an ABM with a kinetic hit-to-kill interceptor, essentially no part of the system is "ballistic", as every stage is under thrust...including the kill vehicle, which has a main motor as well as maneuvering jets providing continuous course corrections. Here, I am speaking of the operational aspects of the system. Obviously, the spent booster stages, after separation, have become "ballistic" objects.

Defense Tech : Pentagon Cuts Research Budget by $500 Million

Thu, 6 Mar 2014 19:59:33 +0000

Uh huh. Except...you did forget about "all that crap". Every single one of the capabilities and technologies I listed, have either been adopted (*cough* stolen), in active, catch-up development...or on the "wish list" by China. However, it seems as though your anti-American and/or anti-Government bias is unwilling to accept the fact that each and every example I listed represents a game-changing technology, and many represent a complete REVOLUTION in military offensive/defensive capabilities. Are these revolutionary capabilities cheap? Hell No. Are there major problems with graft, mis-management, profiteering and gross incompetence within DOD contracts and programs. Absolutely. However, "corporate welfare", as you call it, is not responsible for the ridiculous Federal deficit. The unfettered expansion of Social programs, the 2008 financial crisis AND the stupendously expensive prosecution of two wars, along with pipe-dream aspirations of nation building (and resulting infusion of capitol) is what has caused the current deficit situation. By comparison, the sum total of ALL costs associated with the military R&D and procurement of the capabilities I listed are a relative drop in the bucket.

Defense Tech : Pentagon Cuts Research Budget by $500 Million

Thu, 6 Mar 2014 03:22:39 +0000

Dfens: "Well, let's see, what great things has military R&D spending given us over the last few decades? Hmm, the only game changer I see is stealth..." Challenge Accepted! Okay, let's see, just looking back through the past few decades... -- AESA radar -- Unmanned ISR and strike drones, including upcoming broadband stealth UCLASS systems -- Precision attack munitions using multi-mode seekers (GPS, IR, etc.) -- Kinetic hit-to-kill ABM interceptors -- Advances in LO, reactor, and propulsion technology for nuclear submarines. -- Mk 41 VLS launch system for AEGIS destroyers and cruisers, suitable hot launch of an array of USN missiles including for SM -1,-2, -3, and -6 Standard, Sea Sparrow and Tomahawk families of missiles. Advanced Mk 57 VLS system for DDG-1000 Zumwalt class -- Advanced Solid-state, Fiber and Free-electron Lasers for Anti-Air, Anti-Ship and Anti-Missile capabilities, soon to be fielded and operational -- Electromagnetic Rail Gun technology -- Advanced mobile and portable detectors for identifying and discriminating Nuclear, Biological and Chemical warfare agents. -- Advanced mobile and portable detectors for conventional chemical explosives -- Successful proof-of-concept, development and test of a SCRAMJET hypersonic vehicle. -- SBIRS Space tracking and surveillance system ...JUST TO NAME A FEW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, ALL OF WHICH ARE "GAME CHANGERS"

Defense Tech : Tomahawk Re-routes Faster to Hit Moving Targets

Wed, 5 Mar 2014 04:43:54 +0000

Besides the stupendously OBVIOUS (hint: naval vessels!!)...how about mobile SAMs, mobile Ballistic missiles, mobile Radar and other A2AD systems. Are you for real, Oblatt?? Or do you just pretend at being a first class ignoramus?

Defense Tech : Next Generation Carrier Set for Testing

Fri, 21 Feb 2014 06:29:55 +0000

It only takes one of the CSG's escort of SSN's to send any Chinese sub straight to the bottom. Not to mention the CSG's destroyer squadron with formidable ASW capabilities. The aircraft carrier has always been the highest value naval target, and it's still the case today, due to it's lethality, and destabilizing threat to enemy naval (and ground) forces. The justification for the existence of the modern CVN super-carrier remains a delicate balance of risk/reward. Hopefully, the CSG's ASM and AA/AM/ABM technology is up to the task of defending against all threats. Of course, I do understand your point. There is that old adage that applies in this scenario: The enemy only has to get lucky once, we have to be lucky all the time.

Defense Tech : Navy Wants Its Tomahawks to Bust More Bunkers

Wed, 19 Feb 2014 06:52:06 +0000

Hi Brett. Yes, I agree. I mentioned a mobile ballistic missile system as being one possible target that would be of high enough value and importance to justify a Tomahawk. See the end of my previous reply post to Hunter. After more careful thought, I realize there are other important, mobile high value ground targets, such as mobile radar defense systems, SAMs, and other A2/AD systems. As to your last question...of course a target can be illuminated with RF. It is called radar. :) I tease, of course. However illuminating a target with radar makes it an active sensor, by definition. My comment(s) were focused on the passive seeker portion of the new EMS sensor. Again, which means that the mobile target must be actively emitting E/M radiation, in order for the passive mode aspect of the EMS sensor to locate and make initial lock-on. Then, the active mode starts painting the target for the final "end game" engagement. The new dual EMS sensor also has major implications for the Tomahawk being tasked in engaging enemy naval surface ships.

Defense Tech : Navy Wants Its Tomahawks to Bust More Bunkers

Sun, 16 Feb 2014 09:55:52 +0000

Hi Hunter. I appreciate the feedback. My confusion stemmed from focusing on the Tomahawk's "traditional" role as a precision strike weapon system for GROUND targets. I completely forgot about naval applications. In which case, I can definitely understand the application of an ESM seeker against surface vessels, which are actively emitting radar/microwave radiation. However, I am still at a bit of a loss in coming up with a scenario in which this new, passive ESM seeker on a Tomahawk would used against moving GROUND targets, which is what Raytheon is stating. I can't imagine the USN using a Tomahawk to go after a single truck, or even a tank, for that matter (assuming it is emitting). It just seems like incredible overkill, and poor use of a very expensive weapon system. Not to mention the size of the warhead. I realize that Tomahawks were used against high value, fixed ground targets in urban areas during the Iraq war as well as Libya. However, the potential for massive collateral damage, in going after a moving GROUND target (possibly in a densely populated urban environment), makes the stated purpose of this new seeker a bit "eyebrow-raising", IMHO. Again, what kind of moving ground target would be of such high value that it is worth engaging with a 1,000 lb warhead on a half million dollar missile? The only thing I can come up with, is a mobile ballistic missile launcher...in which case, yes, I can definitely see it's applicability. However, It just seems, to me, that the real purpose behind this new passive ESM seeker, is for engaging naval surface targets (i.e. ships).