A more likely scenario would be using drone and loitering munitions against targets near the front lines, and then Brimstone against a column of enemy reinforcements well behind the lines. And the launch platform would more likely be Typhoons or F-35s (if they get Brimstone). Brimstone can also be ground launched, as Ukraine is doing with them, but it limits the range.
Perpetual Defense Thread (Defense & non-commercial Space Nerds ITT)
- Thread starter PsionEdge
- Start date
Those are all long standing disagreements that would have kicked off into a full blow war before now if they were going to.
Jesus dude, I'm saying it's already a loitering drone, something we invented in the 90s. This isn't new...
Why would we need a B-21 to drop it? One single Eurofighter can carry 18 Brimstones if you load it down from 60km out.
See also the Harpy designed in 1989 and it's precursor design the South African Kentron ARD-10 which was in development since 1977....
Last edited:
Perhaps we're talking past one another. The Brimstone II has a stated range of 60+ km from fixed wing aircraft. A well-designed drone has much longer range, and loiter time, which makes it a great platform from which to launch them. Lower costs than a Eurofighter or comparable, with no crew requirement. I never proposed the B-21 (that was someone else), which is probably overkill for most mission profiles.
The airplane puts the munitions where you know the enemy to be. Ground launch puts the loitering munitions where your troops are. These are different use cases with different expected outcomes.
No it doesn't loitering drones have shit tastic range and are slower than fuck. If you're happy with your warhead taking hours to get to a location, yeah I'm sure the enemy are going to be happy to wait around for you to get your assets in place
And yes, we are talking past each other. Civilians keep on talking about loitering drones as if they're the next biggest and greatest thing to be invented in the last 2 years. THEY'VE BEEN AROUND SINCE THE LATE 70'S EARLY 90'S IS MY POINT. So ty to imagine what capabilities are being developed right now for massive scale peer warfare. Not the shit we dumped on the Ukrainians as hand me downs from our end of life inventory.
Which type of drone? The MQ-9, used heavily in Afghanistan, has a stated range of 6,000nmi and and endurance of over 40 hours. Cruising speed is listed as 240mph/390kmh. That turboprop won't get you blistering speeds, but does give endurance in spades. One of its primary delivery weapons was the Hellfire.
Want faster? There's also the MQ-20. Lockheed has the RQ-170, which has a planform similar to the B-2/B-21.
You certainly know more that I do, but it's clear more of this type of activity will be moving to uncrewed platforms. Capability has been proven, and will no doubt evolve from the learnings of this conflict and other contemporary events. How necessary is high speed when your air support is already nearby and aloft?
Want faster? There's also the MQ-20. Lockheed has the RQ-170, which has a planform similar to the B-2/B-21.
You certainly know more that I do, but it's clear more of this type of activity will be moving to uncrewed platforms. Capability has been proven, and will no doubt evolve from the learnings of this conflict and other contemporary events. How necessary is high speed when your air support is already nearby and aloft?
While we are talking about drones and loitering munitions, maybe it would be better to stop Norinco from buying a Brazilian missile company. Seems like an Australian company have to go to Europe to get some funding, because Aussie government has given them cold shoulder.
From their website the interesting product is their flexible MLRS, one system for launching 70 mm, 5 inch, 300 mm, and 450 mm. Also they produce SAM, and cruise missiles, which can also be launched from their MLRS.
From their website the interesting product is their flexible MLRS, one system for launching 70 mm, 5 inch, 300 mm, and 450 mm. Also they produce SAM, and cruise missiles, which can also be launched from their MLRS.
Capability has been proven since the 1970's mate. It's old tech. Why would I need to concern myself with loitering munitions? Tell me their benefit to the NATO way of fighting? Show me where that capability is what I want.
Why do I want a loitering drone to protect my troops when I can send in an F-35 (90's tech) that is invisible to enemy sensors with an F-22 (80's tech) providing top cover in case anything does get too close with an LO/LPI data link and other sensors to provide me real time targeting for a ripple fire off from an M270 (80's Tech again) or HIMARS (Another 80's) shooting PrSM's (Modernish tech we only got this capability again recently because of everyone ditching the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty) flying in at Mach 3 from 500km away? Which is roughly going to be under 10 minutes before those missiles kill the entire Command and Control of that entire army which I spotted with the KH-11's in space (1970s tech). If I really want to make sure then I can also toss in an SSGN (00's tech) or two to to fire off upto 154 TLAM's (70's tech) from each sub to slowly (500km/h give or take) fuck up their day in a really messsed up way.
It isn't clear that we are moving to uncrewed platforms at all. First of all you've not considered IHL and how man in the middle loops are a legal requirement for this, which means reducing latency is actually key in combat operations which is why there were significant problems with the way key information was or was not relayed in a timely manner to Reaper pilots. Which means you cannot actually have a guy sitting in nevada remote piloting this shit especially if you have to worry about EMCON and a contested Electromagnetic spectrum domain.
Believing that you can predict the future based on a false understanding of the present without any actual knowledge of the past and current developments in place is not going to work out well here. Current capabilities as currently shown by the Ukraine war is... not current capabilities. It hasn't been for decades.
People are again learning all the wrong lessons from GWOT and now Ukraine... The first in being that a COIN war where we constrained ourselves to a giant degree and the second conflict is again one where neither side is fielding anything even remotely comparable to anything current.
Last edited:
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/6DVIEQ2O4NB6LPC6UHBQ7ELRIY.jpg)
Citing missile mismatch, Lockheed snarls at HIMARS challenge in Europe
"If Germany was to opt for PULS, they could not gain access to our missiles,” a Lockheed Martin exec said, referring to a competing system from Elbit.
Drama, drama. Apparently, PULS is seen as leading vs HIMARS for European sales going forward. This is, in part, due to Elbit-KNDS promising that their systems can totally use GMLRS and PrSM (which everyone wants). Rheinmetall (who wants to build HIMARS in Europe) and Lockheed (who makes HIMARS, GMLRS, and PrSM), are saying "NUH-UH!" to anyone who will listen.
The silent "...without paying us for an integration contract" part hasn't been said out loud yet.
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/SKNDFUFELNCVZMI6USEII24TZQ.jpg)
Congress wants to restore nukes on conventional B-52 bombers
With Russia suspending participation in New START and the arms control treaty's future in doubt, Congress wants to restore nuclear weapons to some B-52s.
In the "colossal waste of time and money" department, parts of Congress want to refit B-52s for nuclear weapons. This process will be expensive and time consuming, and wouldn't be completed before B-21 enters service. Yes, that B-21, designed to... take over the nuclear bombing role.
ahahahaha Rheinmetall can keep on saying it, but until the magic words happen we all know what Lockheed are going to do.Citing missile mismatch, Lockheed snarls at HIMARS challenge in Europe
"If Germany was to opt for PULS, they could not gain access to our missiles,” a Lockheed Martin exec said, referring to a competing system from Elbit.www.defensenews.com
Drama, drama. Apparently, PULS is seen as leading vs HIMARS for European sales going forward. This is, in part, due to Elbit-KNDS promising that their systems can totally use GMLRS and PrSM (which everyone wants). Rheinmetall (who wants to build HIMARS in Europe) and Lockheed (who makes HIMARS, GMLRS, and PrSM), are saying "NUH-UH!" to anyone who will listen.
The silent "...without paying us for an integration contract" part hasn't been said out loud yet.
While I know the terms are hazy and heavily overlapping, using "UAV" rather than "drone" to describe large, reusable fixed wing assets would perhaps make your meaning more clear in a thread like this.
If there's only one thing McNamara got right, it was his decision to move nuclear weapons off the B-52 and other crewed platforms, since by his time, ICBMs and SLBMs had proven their worth. Are they interested in reliving Palomares?Congress wants to restore nukes on conventional B-52 bombers
With Russia suspending participation in New START and the arms control treaty's future in doubt, Congress wants to restore nuclear weapons to some B-52s.www.defensenews.com
In the "colossal waste of time and money" department, parts of Congress want to refit B-52s for nuclear weapons. This process will be expensive and time consuming, and wouldn't be completed before B-21 enters service. Yes, that B-21, designed to... take over the nuclear bombing role.
NATO hates to fight in static wars, that means we're stuck in one spot, like in GWOT which sucks.
Why the fuck would we want to be in such a position? We hunt down the enemy commanders and then mop the body after we've killed the brain.
Make your opfor deaf, dumb, blind and mute. Then shoot them in the head, then we mop up what's left. An OpFor without any leadership will either surrender or be lambs to the slaughter, their choice. Why fight in static lines and positions which lets your enemy know exactly where you are?
Why the fuck would we want to be in such a position? We hunt down the enemy commanders and then mop the body after we've killed the brain.
Make your opfor deaf, dumb, blind and mute. Then shoot them in the head, then we mop up what's left. An OpFor without any leadership will either surrender or be lambs to the slaughter, their choice. Why fight in static lines and positions which lets your enemy know exactly where you are?
The gravity bombs of McNamara's era aren't the preferred weapon of the modern bomber-based nuclear component. They do still exist, but it's all about the ALCMs now. When you can launch that nuke from several thousand miles away from the target, on a non-ballistic trajectory, from any side of the enemy's airspace, you aren't thinking in terms of Dr Strangelove bomb rides anymore. In the 21st century, there is no reason for strategic bomber crews to be in danger.
It's been suggested that refitting those B-52s to handle the upcoming LRSO would take that load off of B-21, in turn freeing it up for more conventional strike capacity. Which is fair.
Realistically, I think the fictional distinction between nuclear and conventional cruise missiles has outlived its usefulness. It certainly doesn't look like the Russians ever did it more than lip service.
Well it's cos New START is deader than the A-10.
cough cough I wonder who that someone was about the suggestion of the B-52's handling LRSO...
Are they gonna start putting encryption on these things just for rent-seeking? Like how inject printers can be locked to the company's ink cartridges? That's not going to go over well with buyers, and you can't count on governments being similar to unsophisticated printer-buyers.Citing missile mismatch, Lockheed snarls at HIMARS challenge in Europe
"If Germany was to opt for PULS, they could not gain access to our missiles,” a Lockheed Martin exec said, referring to a competing system from Elbit.
Drama, drama. Apparently, PULS is seen as leading vs HIMARS for European sales going forward. This is, in part, due to Elbit-KNDS promising that their systems can totally use GMLRS and PrSM (which everyone wants). Rheinmetall (who wants to build HIMARS in Europe) and Lockheed (who makes HIMARS, GMLRS, and PrSM), are saying "NUH-UH!" to anyone who will listen.
The silent "...without paying us for an integration contract" part hasn't been said out loud yet.
How hard can it be to integrate support for GMLRS? Fundamentally, it gets a GPS target. I'm sure it's not quite that simple, as it must also communicate things like self-test results, error codes, etc., but wouldn't Lockheed still have to go out of their way to make that hard to integrate?
I would also think that selling a shit-ton of missiles would be more important to profitability than however many launchers one could sell. Let anyone integrate the launchers to anything, and sell a ton more missiles. Or is the problem that everyone has big missile inventories, and the profit now is new ways to launch them?
It's called Anti-Tamper and it's a requirement for export missiles. Try to reverse engineer the missile interface and you're looking at a boat anchor. That's a GOVERNMENT requirement.
Boeing.
I swear my 5 month old Beagle puppy running around with a crayon in her mouth could write a better contract than that
company's subcontract people. I know a couple of good Boeing engineers, but I really don't understand how they stand to work for such a miserable excuse of a company.
Shit wrong thread, I guess sorta relevant.
I swear my 5 month old Beagle puppy running around with a crayon in her mouth could write a better contract than that
company's subcontract people. I know a couple of good Boeing engineers, but I really don't understand how they stand to work for such a miserable excuse of a company.Shit wrong thread, I guess sorta relevant.
Last edited:
No company with a consumable wants anyone to use it in someone else's device, whether that's missiles or printers. There's just way too many variables you can't control and the customer will always blame you even though they are the ones doing something unsupported. When it's explosive munitions that could end up killing people, I can understand why they would 100% shut that down.
Come on… in military circles, one’s ammunition is forever being fired from, dropped from or launched from someone else’s platform. Don’t pretend there is some new hazard Lockheed has suddenly discovered.
Yeah, that's just silly.
Standards like MIL-STD-1760D/E and STANAG-3910 precisely exist so weapons platforms can be fitted with ordinance from many different manufacturers, only that in case of those standards the platforms happen to be flying instead of dirt-bound.
There's absolutely no reason for why this would be impossible -- instead of requiring integration work -- beyond Lockheed not wanting the competition.
Last edited:
While theoretically true, having a complex hardware/software (which is what these modern munitions are) that has to interact with more complex hardware/software in the launcher is the exact same extremely difficult IT task that's tripped up most corporations for the past 30 years. I know I would be very wary if any of the software integrations I have worked on could not just fail but explode when things go wrong. It's a whole different thing than just making bullets or bombs that conform to the correct dimensions and functionality to be compatible like in the old days.
Your understanding of what gets fired from, dropped from or launched from weapons platforms is about 75 years out of date.
I’ll answer it this way: what did he bring up that represents a weapons system post-dating the 1950s? All he mentioned was his completely unrelated software experience, bullets and bombs.
While at the same time acting like no one has ever allowed their rocket to be launched from a platform they didn’t design, so of course why should Lockheed. How does that show any understanding of how weapons systems have worked since at least the 1950s?Theoretically true, my ass. This type of stores interoperability exists in the here and now. Has been for a long time.
An Eurofighter Typhoon can deploy guided air/air and air/dirt munitions manufactured by Lockheed Martin (Paveway), Raytheon (Paveway, AIM-120, AIM-9, AGM-65, AGM-88), postmerger-MBDA (Taurus, Meteor), ex-BAe-now-also-MBDA (Storm Shadow/SCALP, Brimstone, ASRAAM), Boeing (JDAM-equipped bombs), Saab/Bofors (RBS15), Diehl&"Friends" (IRIS-T), and this is only the stores capability that is currently operationally used. There's also a number of other stores compability that wasn't brought to ready state.
Both the Typhoon (and the F-35, and the F-16, and the F-15, and borderline-obsolescent platforms like Tornado) and the munitions it can deploy are many times more complex and capable than HIMARS or M31 missiles. And the potential consequences of a Taurus or Storm Shadow being loaded with the wrong coordinates due to a software integration error are quite in excess of that happening to a M31 pod.
If you insist on a dirtbound example, almost all current 155mm NATO platforms can fire all relevant GPS-targeted 155mm smart shells (M892, M1156, ...), no matter if the gun system is from Rheinmetal or Nexter and the shell guidance kit is from Alliant or ex-BAe.
Heck, even for unguided shells the type of accuracy a modern 155mm platform can exhibit with unguided shells -- which is considerably in excess of what ex-Soviet/Russian tube arty can do -- requires systems that are standardized across manufacturers in more than two dozen (!!) STANAG agreements, from how your meteorological sensor suite talks to your ballistics kernel, to in which format the aerodynamic properties of your shell are loaded into it.
As a matter of fact the system complexity and standardization work required to achieve this level of accuracy-with-interoperability in a pure ballistic system is considerably in excess of what you need for GPS-guided munitions.
Never mind how the comparison to software integrations is a bit spurious in itself. HTML is, after all, a thing that works. Frankly, a good half of the difficulties in integrating various software products happen because the software manufacturer wants vendor lock-in, and so you have to hack their software in order to integrate it... What was that about Lockheed not wanting competition?
IIIIIIIIIIIISH... An aeronautical engineer buddy says this is A LOT more complex an issue then they'd like.
Aircraft weapons integration is one of the more difficult cases because of how much modeling and validation has to be done to verify the integration across a range of flight envelopes. You can’t just stick an arbitrarily shaped object onto a pylon. You need to model and test the aerodynamic effects. You need to test weapon release under a variety of conditions. Both on how it effects the plane and how the plane effects the missile/pylon.
Software is also a common hurdle, some things in software should be easy but they are often not.
Now with the Elbit PULS thing and lockheed saying "yeah you're not gonna get any of the MLRS rockets". That is mostly IP and LM not wanting to aid their competitors, not really a technical issue. LM doing that may be a dick move to an extent but you can hardly blame them commerically. Why give a competitor access to one of your biggest and best selling points? LM may revisit the issue if EuroPULS wins, but certainly not while GMARS is still on the table.
Admitedly from a NATO POV it would be easier if LM just didnt mind.
Explanation about the missiles thing from a very trustworthy and senior aerospace engineer:
Last edited:
I'm almost wondering if something along the lines of FRAND should be implemented when it comes to integration to keep shit like this from becoming a problem.
and the 155mm shell thing is... EHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH kinnnnnnnnnnnda... SORTA... but isssssh it depends... ome can use "standard" 155 (what even is that, we all use different shells lol) but some can use other stuff too and a few systems really cannot use the "standard" or some of the spicier shells...
Some Japanese shells are apparently unsafe to fire despite nominally being STANAG
We've got STANAG but... well ummm yeah
There are quite a few European shell designs that are supposed to be ballistically matched to US M107, but the actual production projectiles aren’t ballistically matched. The main issue is that shells and propellant charges that are supposed to be identical aren’t in reality, likely due to manufacturing tolerances
oh and also comms, theoretically all of our comms should be cross compatible again because of MIL-STD fuck you whatever right? Yeah, no, I've never had that shit work across national militaries ever or in some cases across different units in the same branch...
Some Japanese shells are apparently unsafe to fire despite nominally being STANAG
We've got STANAG but... well ummm yeah
There are quite a few European shell designs that are supposed to be ballistically matched to US M107, but the actual production projectiles aren’t ballistically matched. The main issue is that shells and propellant charges that are supposed to be identical aren’t in reality, likely due to manufacturing tolerances
oh and also comms, theoretically all of our comms should be cross compatible again because of MIL-STD fuck you whatever right? Yeah, no, I've never had that shit work across national militaries ever or in some cases across different units in the same branch...
Last edited:
IIRC their domestic equivalent to the Silver Bullet APFSDS (M829 of some flavor) is way over charged compared to NATO equivalents too.
1 MBT vs 1 IFV wasn't the ratio.
The choice is 1 MBT vs 3 IFV (based on public numbers for (new) Abrams vs Bradley cost)
Of course; I never claimed this type of interoperability would be easy. There are also mundane concerns like "will it fit?" for things like internal weapons bays on planes like the F-22 and F-35 and long missiles like the Meteor.
But "this type of interoperability exists, but is much more complex than we'd like to" is very different to the claim "this thing doesn't exist yet, it would be very hard to build and I doubt it could be done at all at an acceptable quality" I replied to. And while I can understand LM trying it on commercially for obvious reasons that doesn't mean I have to entertain obvious hoghwash as anything but such.
I'm going to repeat this - unless you are an authorized user, and have the appropriate key - it's not going to work for any system that is designed with Anti-Tamper. This has shit to do with IP, but with the US not wanting anyone to reverse engineer the software in the missiles.
They sell THAADs and Patriots to Saudia Arabia, and it works fine with the organic launchers, but the second they try to reverse engineer the interface - it's nothing but a hunk of metal and electronics. Try to extract the key from the launchers - you end up with a nice truck with big old tubes on the back that won't launch.
Not everything has AT designed in, generally the more sophisticated systems. How the AT works - is very, very closely guarded. Generally AT programs have a classifed name that you're required to forget the second you're read off - granted, this means you'll never forget it. The AT systems are classified higher than the weapon system itself.
As for modern systems not having complicated interfaces - bullshit. Missile Defense systems are, in general, more complicated than straight attack systems because there are shit ton of constraints on your flight path.
They sell THAADs and Patriots to Saudia Arabia, and it works fine with the organic launchers, but the second they try to reverse engineer the interface - it's nothing but a hunk of metal and electronics. Try to extract the key from the launchers - you end up with a nice truck with big old tubes on the back that won't launch.
Not everything has AT designed in, generally the more sophisticated systems. How the AT works - is very, very closely guarded. Generally AT programs have a classifed name that you're required to forget the second you're read off - granted, this means you'll never forget it. The AT systems are classified higher than the weapon system itself.
As for modern systems not having complicated interfaces - bullshit. Missile Defense systems are, in general, more complicated than straight attack systems because there are shit ton of constraints on your flight path.
IP rights, usually in a MIC contract, IP rights belong to the government (they're paying for development after all) and they can simply hand the designs to another contractor. It doesn't happen often, but does happen. Capabilities developed internally by a company on IRAD, generally do come with IP restrictions, and in general - they save the government some money (usually not a lot to be honest, but still - the government did not pay for the development of that capability).
If the HIMARS launcher to missile interface was developed with Lockheed's IP, then they have the right to withhold. If it was funded by the US Gov, then it's the government's decision as that IP belongs to the government.
I mean Raytheon fought like hell to not allow Lockheed to develop PAC-3 MSE missiles as the Patriot and PAC-2s are their baby. Army said too bad.
If the HIMARS launcher to missile interface was developed with Lockheed's IP, then they have the right to withhold. If it was funded by the US Gov, then it's the government's decision as that IP belongs to the government.
I mean Raytheon fought like hell to not allow Lockheed to develop PAC-3 MSE missiles as the Patriot and PAC-2s are their baby. Army said too bad.
Dude the entire thing of Elbits claim is based on the fact that the design of the armature means it can fit the MFOM (M270 Family Of Missiles) pods, that's it. They measured the pods and added leeway so it could fit all the pods.Of course; I never claimed this type of interoperability would be easy. There are also mundane concerns like "will it fit?" for things like internal weapons bays on planes like the F-22 and F-35 and long missiles like the Meteor.
But "this type of interoperability exists, but is much more complex than we'd like to" is very different to the claim "this thing doesn't exist yet, it would be very hard to build and I doubt it could be done at all at an acceptable quality" I replied to. And while I can understand LM trying it on commercially for obvious reasons that doesn't mean I have to entertain obvious hoghwash as anything but such.
Have fun convincing LM to tell Congress to waiver ITAR so you can tech transfer to an Israeli company so they can sell their launchers instead of yours to the Euros.
Have they proven that claim yet as far as I know they haven't. If the PULS shows it can fire GMLRS for example then we got two big fucking problems.
1. Elbit KNDS reverse engineered TS clearance and ITAR restricted tech or
2. Someone at LM leaked TS clearance and ITAR restricted tech to the Israelis or the Dutch.
3. The German Government would have shown to have violated their end-user license with the US Gov in letting this kinda tech get leaked/reverse engineered.
At this point all the fun laws start moving.
Last edited: