Proposed American weapon systems

File: Next Generation Bomber tease.jpg (59KB, 1200x630px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1200x630px

>>33028857

That should be " nation's future combat effectiveness".

something dealing with EW and/or cyber security/crypto etc. I don't actually know of any programs but its the paradigm shit we are heading towards. That drone being stolen is embarrassing. And that was just a shot across the bow. I can't imagine Chinese or Russian capabilities being fully utilized.

Maybe some redundancy for our satellite based technologies are important as well. IMO this is what the x37 is being tested for. A quick way to put those assets into space and maneuver while up there and come back down when not needed.

File: x37b.jpg (34KB, 562x309px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 562x309px

>>33028982
forgot my pic

File: 1487243020975.png (87KB, 274x278px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 274x278px

>>33028857

This sounds too specific to just be casual curiosity. Are you trying to trick us into doing your homework for you or something?

File: X37B.jpg (226KB, 1792x1206px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1792x1206px

>>33028992
I've heard similar rumors about the X37B being an on-demand satellite. I'd imagine they have payloads for comms, surveillance, GPS or all 3. An important asset knowing that a large scale conflict with a neer-peer would almost certainly attacks on our satellite network.

File: F22 refuel Iraq Syria 2014.jpg (112KB, 1362x2048px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1362x2048px

>>33029019
Sorry, I'm a little stoned and slightly autistic. Just a healthy curiosity about the continued development of power projection. I should have been a military historian.

File: afx_lockheed_boeing_gd_01.jpg (34KB, 550x312px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 550x312px

>>33028857
There's also the F/A-XX, which is supposed to be the replacement for the Super Hornet. Depending on what threats are around by the time it should be entering service (2030s), it might be more of a multirole fleet defense interceptor.

>>33029099
>F/A-XX

Thanks for the reminder. :)

>>33029037
That sounds about right. Supposedly the big thing that makes the X-37 so special is that it uses atmospheric drag to provide some of the delta-V necessary for maneuvering. So instead of wasting all that fuel on a simple plane shift, it descends to the upper atmosphere, maneuvers aerodynamically, and then boosts itself back into orbit.

That'd make it a lot more efficient and a lot less predictable.

File: 20150701_XR-5A_photo1.jpg (54KB, 300x312px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 300x312px

>>33029037
It's also used to test critical space hardware before it gets put on other satellites. Pic related is an ion engine that is currently aboard the X-37 in orbit right now. It's an upgraded version of the ion engine used on strategic military communications satellites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Extremely_High_Frequency) so the changes made to its design being able to be flight tested and then recovered for examination is important.

>>33028857

None of these are a modern self propelled gun.
So none.

File: Arkbird.jpg (107KB, 812x1000px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 812x1000px

>>33029221
that actually sounds like a small version of Ace combat's ark bird lol

>>33029221
wrong and physically impossible with fuel load

t. aerospace engineer

>>33029882
playing ksp doesn't make you an aerospace engineer

but you're still right

I gotta hear more about this B52I shit, seems pretty neat.
although I'm assuming they're gonna break the aesthetic of the giant deathplane so I don't know how to feel

>>33029926
useless because no stealth

>>33029948

If you're shooting nuclear cruise missiles you don't need stealth so much. The B-52 still has a role to play in the nuclear triad until there are enough stealth bombers around to truly replace it.

>>33029882
Surely you can explain, then. Granted, my expertise is in aero rather than space, but my astromechanics professor discussed the concept as something he had grad students working on years ago.

>t. aerospace engineer.

>>33030002
>If you're shooting nuclear cruise missiles you don't need stealth so much
yeah, you do. you're gonna be a big, big target even if you've already fired plus your location would be used for calculating where the missiles may be going.
plus, if they see your giant-ass radar sig while flying to target, guess who's shot down and useless?

File: bob3.jpg (212KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1200x800px

>>33028857
>B52I (Re-engine, Avionics, Arsenal Ship)

Low priority, and the arsenal plane might be an F-15 or B-1.

>M1A3 (APS, Lightened, Computer)

Doesn't exist, and the M1A2 is being tested with an APS this year.

>X47B derived drone tanker

High priority for naval aviation, expect it within 5 years. And its called the MQ-25 Stingray.

>Tico Replacement

Low priority given how long the Tico's will still be in service.

>F22B (HMD, DAS/EOTS)

Waste of money that could be spent on more F-35A's.

>B21 Raider

Very high priority, also super sekret.

>>33030177
Thanks Anon.

I agree that there is little chance of the F22 being put back into production (F22B) but I think there is a good chance we'll see the existing fleet given improved inter-operability with F35 and improved sensors.

Stealth A10

>>33028857
>Which of the following proposed American weapon systems is most crucial to the nation's combat effectiveness?
Future Combat System. Maaan, I can't wait 2014 to see how all that billions of investments will work out.

>>33028982
>drone being stolen

Never happened famalalm. Just another case of kebab takeing credit for something they had nothing to do with.

>>33034021
The battle net stayed.

>>33033839
A meme to surpass Metal Gear

File: B52 - ocean.jpg (958KB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

958KB, 2560x1600px

>>33029926
The idea is to take the existing fleet of B52's and replace the current 8 engine set up with 4 modern high efficiency engines. This would reduce maintenance requirements and improve fuel efficiency. The BUFF would also receive modern avionics and flight control systems. The refurbished aircraft would be armed with long range stand-off weapons which would allow it to stay far away from the heart of an opponent's Integrated Air Defense System.

>>33035702
>put new engines on old as fuck useless planes

how about NO? lol

What they need is to build new flying wing bombers, that can also be made into cargo/passenger/civilian planes

>>33028857
>B-52
>B-21
>Tico replacement
Where is Ohio replacement.

>>33033839
Ah A-20. Loved HAWX and Endwar.

>>33035756
Cancelled because its pointless

>>33029320
M109 with L52 gun and autoloader firing HVP, done. Also L52 M777ER and Caesar-type truck-borne self-propelled howitzer mounting same gun on FMTV in common with HIMARS for the marines.

>>33035768
>F-22B
>B-52 re-engine
>Ohio replacement pointless
Speechless.

File: USS Michigan SSGN-727 - Ohio Class.jpg (568KB, 6174x2794px) Image search: [Google]

568KB, 6174x2794px

>>33035756
I excluded the Ohio replacement because, while it will be a crucial part of the nuclear triad for the next 50+ years, it will likely never be used in combat or for tactical power projection. As such, its not that interesting to me.

File: F22 yellow.jpg (1MB, 1904x1439px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1904x1439px

>>33035831
You don't think the existing fleet of F22s will ever be upgraded? I've been reading rumors to that effect for several years.

File: 1421699115138.jpg (623KB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [Google]

623KB, 2250x1500px

>>33035702
The current plan is to replace the 8 engines with 8 modern engines of the same size so minimal modifications are necessary.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/us-air-force-glides-toward-b-52-engine-replacement-plan

>>33035844
Just FYI the Ohio replacement is the Columbia class.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia-class_submarine

>>33035865
There is a difference between upgrades and things that require new production aircraft.

>>33035865
I do but aside from HMD an actual F-22 upgrade in works or completion will be secondary to getting F-35A online in the short term unless strong wills are in place. You can propose the details anytime like now.
>>33035844
Well you have to say that.

>>33036114
>>33036082
Yeah I don't understand by their respective meaning of F-22B.

File: 1449100913348.webm (266KB, 400x220px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 400x220px

>>33036082
Why does it look like theres just grey cloth draped over the b-52?

>>33036244
I've seen too many beheading videos to be able to watch this peacefully. The toothbrush didn't help me feel relieved at all.

>>33036244
Deformation from load. The newest B-52s were built in the 1960s. Not one of them is less than 50 years old.

>>33035702
I could see this upgrade also being a function shift.

Use it to stand off and spam the hell out of the enemy IADS, attriting their systems and providing a splendidly cluttered environment for the stealth planes to do sneaky shit.

>>33036082
Money shouldn't be spent on upgrading old planes when they need to be replaced

File: F22 Japan.jpg (1008KB, 2700x1797px) Image search: [Google]

1008KB, 2700x1797px

I apologize for my confusing use of the term F22B. By that I didn't mean to imply a new production run of F22s, but instead incremental improvements using technology from the F35. Maybe F22A2 would be more appropriate?

File: F22 quiet.jpg (157KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1024x768px

>>33036493
Or F22A1

Virginia class replacement. Using lessons learned from Columbia class development (E-Drive, etc.).

Columbia class should be changed to an SSGN fleet, rather than SSBN

>>33029882
Surely you can explain then?
It should only take a hundred or so m/s to deorbit to the very upper atmosphere, upon reaching the absolute thinnest atmo body deflection can create a maneuvering surface no need for fuel for that, the only fuel issue is raising the orbit after the manuever

>>33036858
Interesting fact: at one point, instead of SSGNs, there was a plan to convert the first Ohios into submarine oilers.

>>33028857
The B-21 makes me REEEEE.

>Have one of the few coherent naming schemes in the entire US military
>Every bomber is B-(n+1)
>Only one reset for the B-1 Lancer
>Throw all that away for B-21 because "twentee furst century"

>>33037517
It should really be called the B-2.1.

>>33036943
because atmospheric drag pulls you out of orbit, you can't fucking maneuver

>>33037561
Skipping off the atmospheric surface is a time-honored trick for semiballistic trajectories tho

>>33037526
Or, if they aren't morons, it should be called the B-3.

I hereby summon Dragon029, in defence mode.

>>33037639
And you are burning velocity while doing it
You aren't going back into orbit after doing that

File: momentum.png (911KB, 640x1440px) Image search: [Google]

911KB, 640x1440px

>>33029221

File: 1274532485435.jpg (117KB, 540x464px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 540x464px

>>33037647
>if they aren't morons
>military brass

>>33028857
Ohio replacement. Got to keep the real deterrent active.

>>33038169
nuclear subs are totally unnecessary as a deterrent
Would be far cheaper to build surface ships with ballistic missiles
Along with ICBM silo's on deserted islands

File: drone-swarm-1200x800.jpg (351KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 1200x800px

Drone swarm inbound.

>>33038243
I spy with my little eye someone who does not understand why Submarines are important.

>>33037517
Or it could be the ones in between were taken by dead projects that have yet to be made public.

>F-13
>F-19

File: 1456676662021.jpg (26KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x375px

>>33029221
Do you genuinely believe that?

>>33035865
Upgrades will be minor, likely HMD and weapons integration.

>>33037517
I'm pretty sure it's got some stupid thing to do with there being 21 B-2s produced

>>33028857

I'd say tactical nuclear systems (which there is apparently some push for at the Pentagon), because I don't trust the Russians as far as I can throw them. Would also help against the Chinese.

>>33038243

Jesus.

>>33036527
whats going on in this picture? sound recording?

>>33037677

He's presently deployed in on the F-18 thread.

>>33040030
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefield_Anechoic_Facility

>>33029221

>it uses atmospheric drag to provide some of the delta-V necessary for maneuvering
This must be imported /sci/ bait.

>>33040014
tactical nukes are pretty much a meme, because it's sort of a paradox
>deploy nuke
>want X area to not exist anymore
>in doing that, destroy Y area with potential friendlies/civies/other shit
>oops, we fucked up
>scale back yield
>make X not exist and protect most of Y
>while spending gorillions doing it
>at that point, it's just easier to use conventional weapons
now, I will concede that they may have an extremely limited and rare usefulness, but generally speaking, they're not worth the time.
I'd like to see improvement in ABMs and the number of ABM locations increase first.

>>33040026
>>33038329
A nuke will sink a sub just as easily as a surface ship, or a land silo

The only way to do detterence is NUMBERS
Which means not putting everything in 6+ billion dollar submersible baskets

>>33040475
You seem to be implying that submarines are as easy to find as surface ships or stationary silos.

>>33040475
not who you're replying to and who's rekting you but also sub allow for a short time of flight and a quick strike. First nukes to fly come from subs and airstrikes, but from subs even before that. ICBM are never first to fire b/c they give away the element of surprise. they fire after the sub launched weapons hit their retaliatory strike capabilities. Its also why the who intermediate range treaty is a big deal which is old new but being blown up again b/c "hur dur its trumps fault" even though it happened under niggers administration. The shorter time of flight gives the receiving end very little time to react.

Fuck off and go back to highschool and when you grow up you can come back and talk to me you fucking retarded nigger.

>>33040744
ICBM's are like a pendulum, it doesn't matter what range you fire them at, they always take the same amount of time to reach the target
because its an arc

>>33037832
>>33039968
>>33040085
Alright faggots, here we go -

The kind of maneuvering that I was talking about was inclination changes, which are notoriously fuel intensive compared to raising or lowering altitude.

Traditional inclination changes involve burning normal to the orbit, which burns a lot of fuel for fairly small inclination changes:
>del-V = 2*orbital velocity*sin(delta-inclination/2)

Whereas an upper-atmospheric maneuver would be -
>delta-V to drop perigee into the far upper atmosphere
>maneuver aerodynamically to point the craft the direction you want to go
>delta-V to pop back into orbit

Granted, the talk of the X-37 doing this is nothing but hearsay, but the idea of using atmospheric maneuvering for inclination changes in LEO is a valid one.

>>33041510
>Granted, the talk of the X-37 doing this is nothing but hearsay, but the idea of using atmospheric maneuvering for inclination changes in LEO is a valid one.

I'd be stunned if the math worked out that you save fuel adjusting your orbital inclination by moving through the atmosphere at Mach 20+ after accounting for atmospheric drag losses.

>all these anons talking about the X37
>want to follow it cause I fucking love space
>can't read the math worth a shit
it hurts

>>33041418

wut

>>33041677

Solid fuel motors have a fixed burn time. One you light them, you can't turn them off. If you want an ICBM to hit something closer to the launch site, you need to fire it at a higher angle trajectory so the end of the parabolic arc is on target.

>>33041633
This.

The change in velocity from orbit to atmosphere would be pretty severe.

>>33041706

You could accomplish the same thing by lowering the arch trajectory. Am I missing something?

>>33041633
I'd really want to run the numbers too, but I'd rather not pull numbers out of my ass to justify anything.

But remember, the upper atmosphere is very, very thin. The maneuvers probably wouldn't even be taking place below the Von Karman line, and odds are any descent wouldn't even bring you close - drag is already enough of an issue to make orbits unsustainable in the long term below 300km.

So if your orbit is only around 350km (like the ISS), you wouldn't need too much of a delta-V change on either end of the maneuver. The question is only how efficiently you could do the aerodynamic maneuver.

And like the other anon said, it probably isn't even worth the effort for small inclination changes.

If I had the time to figure out STK I'd try to see if I could demonstrate it, but I don't think I could get that running before this thread gets archived.

>>33041729
They have a fixed burn time. A ballistic missile is designed to work exactly one way: releasing the warhead from the vehicle bus at the end of the third stage onto its target. They aren't designed to deploy in the atmosphere at low altitude and before the completion of the missile's burns.

>>33038363
>>F-19

Dead project. Right.

>>33035865
Why do the tires look like they're going flat in that pic?

File: 1486594773240.gif (2MB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x500px

>>33029882
>wrong and physically impossible
I HEAD THIS SAME LINE ALL THE FUCKING TIME FROM ENGINEERS.

The tell me something is impossible, as I fucking do that very thing.
Literally, every time the MEs watch me make or fix a F35 part; they start to explain why what I've doing is impossible.

Engineers are some of the stupidest people I've encountered on the shop floor.

Everything is theoretical and not practical.

>>33028857
In my opinion, its the next gen GPS satellites, OCX, is the single most crucial system for the nation's combat effectiveness. The Ohio Replacement is also a big deal not on your list.

C-5 replacement top priority

>>33045784
>implying he works on the F35
Sure thing boy.

>>33044710
It could be that the F22 is in a cold weather environment which reduces air pressures. The aircraft could also be fully loaded with weapons and fuel, putting additional downward pressure on the tires.

>>33038363
19 dead classified bomber projects since the Spirit? I doubt that.

>>33049331
It doesn't have to be 19, skipping a number here and there has precedent.

>>33039994
>>33037517
>>33038363

21 B-2's produced
and 1 destroyed
So the next flying wing stealth bomber is the B-21

Makes sense to me