Next generation space flight takes orbit

I made a previous post on the topic about how dangerous the retiring Space Shuttle is to those who fly the craft. In that same post I mention about the military's potential future workhorse, the X-37, an unmanned orbiter that is launched by a traditional rocket and lands through gliding back in the Earth's atmosphere touching down on a runway just like the space shuttle. If I am correct, this is the idea behind the original Space Shuttle back in the 1970's before NASA's bureaucracy took over and made it the expensive, dangerous, manned orbiter. Good ideas are generally recycled in history, and this is another example.

The Associated Press reports that the X-37 recently took a flight starting in April 2010,

The U.S. Air Force's secrecy-shrouded X-37B unmanned spaceplane returned to Earth early Friday after more than seven months in orbit on a classified mission, officials said.

The winged craft autonomously landed at Vandenberg Air Force Base on the California coast 130 miles northwest of Los Angeles, base spokesman Jeremy Eggers said.

"It's very exciting," Eggers said of the 1:16 a.m. PST landing.

The X-37B was launched by an Atlas 5 rocket from Cape Canaveral, Fla., on April 22, 2010, with a maximum mission duration of 270 days.

That is what makes this technology advantageous over the shuttle and traditional rockets. It is launched cheaply (like a rocket), but has the capability of the shuttle in flexibility while in orbit. No need to worry about anyone getting injured or killed during operation either. The X-37 excels in the fact it can remain in orbit for long periods of time. This is a capability neither the rocket or shuttle possess.

Research and development of the system has not been cheap or quick,

The voyage culminated the project's long and expensive journey from NASA to the Pentagon's research and development arm and then on to the secretive Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on the X-37 program, but the current total hasn't been released.

Compare the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the X-37 to the $500 million per Space Shuttle launch, it justifies the capital spent. To be fair, anything hi-tech, new and revolutionary like this craft will be expensive to get from idea to final, successful product. Personally, this is a concept many business and government leaders are missing by not funding significant research and development in our society today.

Firearms failure

Today is Memorial Day, a day to remember those who gave everything for our country. This post covers a topic that upsets me quickly. Our standard issue rifle in the military is the M4, a shorten version of the M16A2. It uses the standard NATO 5.56x45 mm ammunition or .223 Remington. This rifle is controversial for several reasons.

1. The lack of kill force from the smaller .22 bullet is a problem if the bullet travels at subsonic velocities.
2. Smaller mechanical components often fail to move causing the rifle to jam during combat in dirty conditions
3. Direct-impingement gas operation causes premature aging of the rifle's mechanical components due to excessive heat and fouling from direct exposure to the barrel.

When the initial M16s were given to soldiers in Vietnam, the weapons were a disaster. The inherent flaws mentioned above made the initial design useless to a soldier as they constantly jammed in the hot, humid jungles. After significant redesign (and change in powder), the rifle then became somewhat useful. Fast forward to the 1980's and beyond with the newer updated versions of the M16XX, the A2, A3 and A4. The newer incarnations limited the issues listed above through engineering improvements, but still it is a flawed design in nature. No other current assault rifle uses the direct-impingement system. It is a failed design and should be replaced with a short stroke or long stroke gas operating system. The internal moving parts also should have greater clearances preventing the rifle from jamming due to contamination.

The longer 20 inch barrel makes the NATO 5.56x45 mm ammo useful on the battlefield, but to what degree is still a topic of hot debate. Other countries use this round for their troops, thus it has validity as a reliable munition. Decreasing the barrel to 14.5 inches as in the M4, the velocity decreases to the point it is ineffective. This article reveals the inadequacies of the M4 in our current Afghanistan conflict. The Army even admits at long range,

But a U.S. Army study found that the 5.56 mm bullets fired from M-4s don't retain enough velocity at distances greater than 1,000 feet (300 meters) to kill an adversary. In hilly regions of Afghanistan, NATO and insurgent forces are often 2,000 to 2,500 feet (600-800 meters) apart.

At the end of the article, the expert's opinion rings true,

Martin Fackler, a ballistics expert, also defended the 5.56 mm round, blaming the M-4s inadequate performance on its short barrel, which makes it easier for soldiers to scramble out of modern armored vehicles.

"Unfortunately weapon engineers shortened the M-16's barrel to irrational lengths," Fackler said. "It was meant for a 20-inch barrel. What they've done by cutting the barrel to 14.5 inches is that they've lost a lot of velocity."

When a soldier's rifle fails, he is defenseless. Not only does he become an easy target, others in his company are easier targets for the enemy. This is a serious problem.

There is an easy, intermediate solution. Immediately replace the issued M4 with the M16A4 and it would not cause a large ordinance supply problem. It seems politics rule the day and our soldiers are paying with their lives. Since the M16 was not replaced years ago, it demonstrates who dominates our modern military, the military industrial complex.

Fighting Israeli's

Ever since its inception in 1948, Israel has been at a state of war or constantly on the verge of war with their Arab neighbors. Actual major conflicts since independence include the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the Six-day War, the Yom Kippur War and a pair of conflicts with Lebanon. Currently, all of Israel's neighbors are hostile and terrorists such as Hezbollah within the occupied territories would love to wipe Israel off the map. It is no wonder that Israel spends over 7 % of its GDP being ranked 6th highest in the world on military expenditures in this category.

This tank system dubbed the "Trophy" seems to be the latest in the Israeli military's arsenal. It is an active defense system to knock down anti-tank missiles or rockets. It uses a radar system and shoots quickly at incoming targets.

The tiny Trophy system, lodged behind small rectangular plates on both sides of the tank, uses radar to detect the incoming projectiles and fires a small charge to intercept them, said Gil.

After firing, the system quickly reloads. The entire process is automated, holds fire if the rocket is going to miss the tank, and causes such a small explosion that the chances of unintentionally hurting friendly soldiers through collateral damage is only 1 percent, the company says.

I am curious what the small "charge" is they are referring to. The only 1 % collateral damage would make this quite a unit if the claim is true. The article has capabilities for the system at quite a high standard.

Developers say the Trophy can stop any anti-tank rocket in the formidable Hezbollah arsenal, which struck dozens of Israeli tanks and killed at least 19 Israeli tank crewmen during their month long war.

"We can cope with any threat in our neighborhood, and more," said Gil, the Trophy's program manager at Rafael. Citing security considerations, the company would not permit publication of his last name.

I am guessing the date weapons of Isreal's neighbors would not stand a chance against this unit. Modern weapons most likely would defeat the Trophy. Looking through the article, one key factor appears as with all nifty high tech weapons, cost.

Israeli analyst Yiftah Shapir said it is premature to tell whether the Trophy can make a major difference, however. He said the army must cope with the high costs of the system and determine exactly how it will be used.

"When everyone knows that it works properly, it will change the battlefield," he said.

Israeli media have said the cost is about $200,000 per tank. Rafael refused to divulge the price of the system, saying only that it's a "small fraction" of the cost of a tank.

This might prevent deployment of the weapon. Israel is price sensitive to unproven, expensive weapons due to the country's small size. We shall see Trophy's outcome over the next couple of years.

Stealth operations

This post is about the long awaited Russian military aircraft technology response, Sukhoi T-50, to the US F-22 Raptor. For those who do not keep up with fighter aircraft, the F-22 is America's top of the line fighter aircraft being referred to as the only operational 5th generation fighter currently in existence. The other US 5th generation fighter is the F-35 Lightning II planned for delivery later this year. In a nutshell, these aircraft have all of the latest developments in avionics, materials, engines, and electronics integrated into an advanced system. Once distinction of the next generation aircraft is stealth technology or the ability to evade most radars. 5th generation aircraft have a significant advantage during combat over older 4th generation and earlier fighters.

The Sukhoi T-50 is a product of the once proud Russian military industrial complex under the Soviets that easily kept up with the Western bloc countries until communism fell in 1991. Now, the Russian arms producers are just a remnant of their former greatness. It partially explains why it took so long to produce the initial prototype. It appears as if the plane has a long way to go before actually combat readiness.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin hailed the flight as a "big step forward," but admitted that "a lot remains to be done in terms of engines and armament."

Reading further into the article, it appears the new technology is NOT a significant change from the prior generation of aircraft.

The NPO Saturn company said in a statement that the jet has new engines, but military analysts suggested that they were a slightly modernized version of the Soviet-era engine powering the Su-27 family of fighters.

"It's a humbug," said independent military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer. "It's just a prototype lacking new engines and a new radar. It takes new materials to build a fifth-generation fighter, and Russia lacks them."

It appears as if this new plane is an upgrade for the Russian military and not really a true 5th generation fighter. In the end, I think Russia may have it right in improving upon their tried and true technology into better weapons. In contrast, the US spent tens of billions of dollars to build a complete new weapon without a defined military need or combat role.

Next generation shark

This posting is on a new type of ship the navy is working on. Yahoo News puts forth this article on the race for a highly anticipated, next generation warship. The ships in competition are a monohull ship versus a trimaran (three hull ship). The sailing ships that are used in the big money races like the America's Cup use trimarans as top-of-the-line designs. The three hulls have low water friction with added stability from balance and are typically advantageous to the single hull design. Neither design in this sense is new.

What is new are nontraditional propulsion systems in the two rivals.

Both versions of the Littoral Combat Ship use powerful diesel engines, as well as gas turbines for extra speed. They use steerable waterjets instead of propellers and rudders and have shallower drafts than conventional warships, letting them zoom close to shore.

Driving close to shore is going to be easy for this new generation ship. This will have the multiple advantages of going up rivers, docking in many inaccessible places and going close to shore chasing the world's unpleasant variety. Pirates, yarrrrrrrh!

The other neat thing is this boat goes automobile highway speeds.

Independence, a 418-foot warship built in Alabama, boasts a top speed in excess of 45 knots, or about 52 mph, and sustained 44 knots for four hours during builder trials that wrapped up this month off the Gulf Coast. The 378-foot Freedom, a ship built in Wisconsin by a competing defense contractor, has put up similar numbers.

Whoever wins the contract will make a mint due to the navy's rush.