The submarines were designed to operate in the shallow waters of the Baltic Sea and are therefore also optimised for operation in Singapore waters, which have similar depth profiles. Working closely with the Defence Science & Technology Agency (DSTA), the RSN adapted the Archer-class submarines to suit local operating conditions and also upgraded them to include advanced combat and sensor systems.

The Archer-class submarines are equipped with an Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) system, which enables the submarines to have longer submerged endurance and lower noise signature. This enhances the submarines' stealth capability. The advanced sonar system allows the submarines to detect contacts at a further distance, while the torpedo system has a better target acquisition capability, which allows the submarines to engage contacts at a further range.

The crew of the Archer-class submarines has undergone two key phases of training with the RSwN. The first is the Key Personnel Training Phase, where they mastered individual vocational skills. This was followed by the Team Training Phase, where they operated as a composite crew (comprising RSwN submariners) to do mission-oriented training. To further hone their skills, submarine rescue exercises, comprising both sea training and simulator sessions, were also conducted for the crew.

RSS Archer will be undergoing sea trials following its launch and is expected to return to Singapore in 2010.

Length	60.5 metres
Beam	6.1 metres
Height	11.8 metres
Draught	5.6 metres
Displacement	1,400 tonnes (surfaced); 1,500 tonnes (submerged)
Speed	8 knots (surfaced); >15 knots (submerged)
Armament	9 Torpedo Tubes
Systems	Active and Passive Sonars Command and Weapon Control System Radar and Electronic Warfare Surveillance Measures Integrated Navigation System Air Independent Propulsion System
Complement	28 Crew

Archer-Class Submarines, RSN is a post from: DefenceTalk | Defense & Military News - Forums - Pictures - Weapons

Through its capabilities for defending critical nodes, military assets, and seats of government, missile defense enhances non-proliferation activities. In other words, missile defenses can provide a permanent presence in a region and discourage adversaries from believing they can use ballistic missiles to coerce or intimidate the U.S. or its allies. In times of crisis, we can surge mobile missile defense capabilities (Aegis BMD, for example) into a region to enhance deterrence and, if a missile is launched, improve protection of critical assets and limit damage over a wide area. The ultimate goal of missile defense is to convince countries that ballistic missiles are not militarily useful or a worthy investment and place doubt in the minds of potential aggressors that a ballistic missile attack against the United States or its allies can succeed.

Missile defense technology being developed, tested and deployed by the United States is designed to counter ballistic missiles of all ranges—short, medium, intermediate and long. Since ballistic missiles have different ranges, speeds, size and performance characteristics, the Ballistic Missile Defense System is an integrated, ‘layered” architecture that provides multiple opportunities to destroy missiles and their warheads before they can reach their targets.

The system’s architecture includes:

• networked sensors and ground- and sea-based radars for target detection and tracking
• ground- and sea-based interceptor missiles for destroying a ballistic missile using either the force of a direct collision, called “hit to kill” technology, or an explosive blast fragmentation warhead
• a command and control, battle management, and communications network providing the warfighter with the needed links among the sensors and interceptor missiles

Missile defense elements are operated by United States military personnel from U.S. Strategic Command, U.S. Northern Command, U.S. Pacific Command, U.S. Forces Japan, U.S. European Command and others. The United States has missile defense cooperative programs with a number of allies, including United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Israel, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Czech Republic, Poland, Italy and many others. The Missile Defense Agency also actively participates in NATO activities to maximize opportunities to develop an integrated NATO ballistic missile defense capability.

Ballistic missiles follow a three-phased trajectory path: boost phase, midcourse phase, and terminal phase.
Boost Phase

The boost phase defenses can defeat ballistic missiles of all ranges including Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), but it is the most difficult phase in which to engage a missile, because the intercept “window” is only from one to five minutes. Although the missile is easiest to detect and track in the boost phase because its exhaust is bright and hot, missile defense interceptors and sensors must be in close proximity to the missile launch. Early detection in the boost phase allows for a rapid response and 09-FS-0001 01/2009 intercept early in its flight. Because the enemy missile is far away from its target and countermeasures have yet to be deployed, boost is the most desirable phase in which to engage. Currently, the Airborne Laser and the Kinetic Energy Interceptor technologies are in development to provide a defense in the boost phase. Both programs have critical development milestones in FY 2009 to prove technical feasibility.

Midcourse Phase

The midcourse phase begins when the enemy missile’s booster burns out and it begins coasting in space towards its target. This phase can last as long as 20 minutes, allowing several opportunities to destroy the incoming ballistic missile outside the earth’s atmosphere. Any debris remaining after the intercept will burn up as it enters the atmosphere. The Ground-based Midcourse Defense element is now deployed in Alaska and California to defend the U.S. homeland against a limited attack from countries like North Korea and Iran and is also being developed for deployment in Europe to defend against an attack from Iran. This system can only defend against intermediate and long-range ballistic missiles. The Aegis sea-based missile defense element utilizes existing Aegis cruisers and destroyers armed with interceptor missiles designed to defend against short- to medium-range ballistic missiles. A network of advanced sensors, radars and command, control and communication components provide target detection, tracking and discrimination of countermeasures to assist the interceptor missile in placing itself in the path of the hostile missile, destroying with hit-to-kill technology. These sensors and radars include transportable X-band radars capable of going to wherever they are needed, as well as advanced radars aboard Aegis cruisers and destroyers capable of operating in the world’s oceans. We have also built the largest X-band radar in the world, the Sea-based X-band, which is mounted on a floating platform allowing it to traverse the world’s oceans. This radar provides precise tracking of target missiles of all ranges and discriminates between actual missiles and countermeasures that could be deployed with a hostile missile.

Terminal Phase

The terminal phase is very short and begins once the missile reenters the atmosphere. It is the last opportunity to make an intercept before the warhead reaches its target. Intercepting a warhead during this phase is difficult and the least desirable of the three because there is little margin for error and the intercept will occur close to the intended target. Terminal phase interceptor elements include the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) now undergoing advanced flight testing, the Aegis BMD nearterm Sea-Based Terminal Defense capability using the SM-2 Block IV missile, and the U.S. Army’s PATRIOT Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) now deployed worldwide. These mobile systems defend against short- to medium-range missiles.

Fielded Capabilities

From its establishment in early 2002 through the end of 2009, the Missile Defense Agency is fielding a Ballistic Missile Defense System consisting of:

• 28 Ground-Based Interceptors
• 21 Aegis warships capable of long-range surveillance and tracking and missile intercepts
• Standard Missile-3 interceptors for Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense warships
• An upgraded Cobra Dane radar in the Aleutian Islands
• Three upgraded early warning radars (Beale Air Force Base, California, Fylingdales, U.K., and Thule, Greenland)
• Four transportable X-band radars, with one currently deployed to Japan
• A sea-based X-band radar now operating in the Pacific Ocean to support flight testing and actual defensive operations

Testing

Testing must account for the ever-changing ballistic missile threat and the latest technological developments. Ground and flight tests provide data needed for highly advanced modeling and simulation activities that allow us to measure and predict the performance of all missile defense technologies. Successful flight tests in particular give the warfighter greater confidence in the system’s capabilities. Since 2001, the Missile Defense Agency has conducted 47 hit-to-kill flight tests resulting in 37 intercepts.

The Ballistic Missile Defense System is a post from: DefenceTalk | Defense & Military News - Forums - Pictures - Weapons

Design Features

The helicopter features a state-of-the-art ballistic tolerant composite high efficiency fully articulated five-blade main rotor and a four-bladed tail rotor granting smooth riding together with high speed and low vibration and noise signature. The roomy unobstructed cabin, capable of hosting up to 18 troops, has large sliding doors allowing easy and quick access and egress for troops and the loading of bulky equipment.

With a fully digitised avionics with open architecture and fully integrated mission equipment, a modern glass cockpit and a 4-axis auto-pilot reducing pilot workload and helping the crew concentrate on the mission, the TUHP 149 is specifically designed for the modern battlefield with redundant critical systems.

The helicopter is characterised by a rugged construction incorporating crashworthy features, armoured pilot seats, crashworthy troop seats, and self sealing fuel tanks to maximise survivability.

Easy ground handling and taxiing as well as operation from unprepared terrain is made possible by the heavy-duty nose-wheel high energy absorbing, semi-retractable landing gear for higher speed.

Two 2,000 sph GE CT7-2E1 turboshafts engines with FADEC deliver high performance in hot and high conditions with outstanding one engine inoperative capabilities.

The TUHP 149 is endowed with the latest all weather day-night operational capabilities, dedicated avionics and a NVG-compatible cockpit while icing protection will be available as an option.

The TUHP 149, by its open architecture design, would be fitted with role kit equipment and systems according to customer demand to fulfil the existing as well as prospective new roles undertaken by the final operator.

The TUHP 149 features low signatures (acoustic, IR and radar) and an advanced integrated self-protection suite. Advanced sensors, communication and data sharing systems provide the crew with high situational awareness and enable the TUHP 149 to perform the mission in the today and tomorrow network-centric environments.

Role Capabilities

The aircraft can be configured to carry a variety of multiply combined stores, comprising external auxiliary tanks and weapon systems, on external pylons including rocket launchers, air-to-surface and machine-guns. Pintle-mounted machine-guns can be fitted on fixed frame windows or in relation to the doors. Structural provisions for the installation of external cargo hook, heavy duty rescue hoist and all the other mission dependent equipments are provided.

The TUHP 149, thanks to the modular concept design for rapid role re-configuration, is perfectly suited to perform an impressive number of duties such as troop transport, battlefield and logistic operations, fire support, SAR and combat SAR, special forces operations, reconnaissance, surveillance, CASEVAC, command control & communication, external load lifting as well as VIP military transport.

The TUHP 149 has been conceived to ease support services and reduce cost of ownership optimizing aircraft effectiveness and minimizing maintenance requirements within the whole helicopter life-cycle and dedicated support and training services package can be provided on a cost effective through life support basis. A full “Level D” flight simulator is also envisaged.

Feature	Specifications
Weight	Max Take-Off: 8.1 ton (17,858 lb) Useful load (typical): > 3 ton (> 6,600 lb)
Engine	2 x GE CT7-2E1 rated at 1,492 kW (2,000 SHP)
Cabin Volumn	Cabin: 11 mq3 (389 ft3), Cargo bay: 3 mq 3 (106 ft3)
Crew	Pilots: 2, Passengers: 18
Performance(at MTOW - ISA)	Cruise speed: 278 km/h (150 kts), Hovering IGE (ISA +35): > 1830 m (> 6000 ft)
External Dimensions	Length (rotors turning): 17.84 m (58 ft 6 in), Overall height: 5.1 m (16 ft 5 in) Main rotor diameter: 14.6 m (47 ft 11 in)

Turkish Utility Helicopter Programme TUHP 149 is a post from: DefenceTalk | Defense & Military News - Forums - Pictures - Weapons

Overview

• The SBX is a unique combination of an advanced X-band radar mounted on a mobile, ocean-going, semi-submersible platform that provides the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) with an extremely powerful and capable radar that can be positioned to cover any region of the globe.
• The vessel is based on a fifth-generation semi-submersible oil drilling platform. It is twin-hulled, self-propelled, and stable in high winds and turbulent sea conditions.
• Its ocean-spanning mobility allows the radar to be repositioned as needed to support the various BMDS test scenarios. Operationally, it provides an advanced radar capability to obtain missile tracking information while an incoming threat missile is in flight, discriminates between the hostile missile warhead and any decoys, and provides that data to interceptor missiles so that they can successfully intercept and destroy the threat missile before it can reach its target.

Details

• The SBX is 240 feet wide and 390 feet long. It towers more than 280 feet from its keel to the top of the radar dome and displaces nearly 50,000 tons.
• Larger than a football field, the main deck houses living quarters, workspaces, storage, power generation, bridge, and control rooms while providing the floor space and infrastructure necessary to support the radar antenna array, command control and communications suites, and an In-flight Interceptor Communication System Data Terminal which provides missile tracking and target discrimination data to interceptor missiles.

Development

• Construction of the vessel and integration of the payloads were completed in two Texas shipyards and extensive sea-trials were conducted in the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean.
• The SBX can be redeployed as needed to support both testing and defensive operations for the Ballistic Missile Defense System.

Sea-Based X-Band Radar is a post from: DefenceTalk | Defense & Military News - Forums - Pictures - Weapons

With a maximum takeoff gross weight of 114,000 pounds, the FB-111A was 75.5 feet long, 17 feet high, and had a wing span of 34 feet with the wings fully swept or 70 feet with the wings forward. The bomber version had a 3.5 foot extension on each wingtip for range improvement, additional avionics equipment, new engines, and a reinforced landing gear and fuselage to accommodate a heavier gross weight. The FB-111A was a two-engine jet bomber with afterburner. The engines ware integral to the fuselage. The variable geometry wings were attached high on the fuselage and can be swept back from 16 to 72.5. The crew consists of a pilot and a navigator sitting side by side in a cockpit that is designed as an emergency escape module.

The initial flight of FB-111A took the sky in July 1967 with the first production aircraft delivered in August 1968. The F-111 had cost overrun problems and bad publicity; so only 76 were built. It was later labeled as an interim bomber to provide a better, low-level penetration capability until a B-52 replacement was built.

Although the range of the FB-111A is better than the fighter version, it is still only a medium-range bomber that requires both additional tanker support and preferential basing. Due to its small size, there is little space for modification, thereby limiting adaptability and flexibility. For example, it is impossible to expand its ECM capability to counter new threats or to enhance its offensive avionics by adding new technology electronics. There are, however, some advantages to the FB-111A over previous medium-range bombers. Its design is optimized for performance both at high and low altitude. It has a smaller RCS with a terrain following capability, making it a very effective low altitude penetrator. It also has an improved survivability due to its ability to get airborne quickly and away from its ground alert location. The two engines of the FB-111A can be started quickly, and it has a shorter takeoff roll than its predecessors. Further, the payload is not as limited as the B-58 since the FB-111A can carry up to 24 conventional bombs. However, this requires external carriage which restricts the wing sweep and degrades the range. The nuclear payload is two internal SRAM/gravity bombs and up to four external pylon-mounted weapons.

The cost overruns, bad publicity and range limitation stacked poorly in comparison to the B-52 and the new B-1 on the drawing board resulted in the FB-111 program being scaled back. The FB-111 however could adapt to different roles because mission flexibility was designed in, but its very size limited its range, modification space available, and payload. To overcome some of these drawbacks, SAC initiated several studies to stretch the FB-111A to improve its capabilities, but none resulted in a modification program. The modified design would have lengthened the existing FB-111A so as to increase fuel load capacity, space available for electronics, and internal and external weapons payload. The more powerful F-101 engine would have replaced the existing engines. It was estimated that the FB-111' s range would have been increased by about 1,200 nm by this modification and that the aircraft's total payload would have been increased to 15 nuclear weapons.

Interest for the aircraft developed again in 1980 with the Long Range Combat Aircraft (LRCA) studies. FBl-111A and F-111D aircraft were examined for conversion to an FB-11lB/C version. Again, the fuselage was to be lengthened to allow fuel, payload, electronics, and engine thrust enhancement. This proposal was dropped when the Air Force chose a modified B-l for the LRCA over the FB-111B/C design. But it should be pointed out that even with these improvements, the FB-111 could not match the range or payload of the long-range B-52 or the B-1.

The Australian government ordered 24 F-111C aircraft in 1963 to replace the RAAF's English Electric Canberra. The British government ordered 50 F-111K aircraft in 1967. The F-111K was based on the F-111A, modified for British equipment and weapons. This included weapons bay changes, compatibility with the Martel anti-shipping missile, and the addition of a retractable refueling probe and the use of FB-111A landing gear for a higher gross take off weight. Prototypes of both the strike and TF-111K trainer aircraft were started and were in the final stages of build when the order was cancelled just over a year later. Updated estimates of performance indicated that range and speed at altitude would be worse than expected and fall short of the specification. Cost increase together with devaluation of the pound meant that the cost would be around £3 million each and this was the reason cited for cancellation.

In a nutshell, The F-111 was in service with the USAF from 1967 through 1998. It entered active service with the Royal Australian Air Force in 1973 and is currently scheduled to remain with the RAAF until 2010.

Crew	2 (pilot and weapons system operator)
Length	73 ft 6 in (22.4 m)
Wingspan	Spread: 63 ft (19.2 m), Swept: 32 ft (9.75 m)
Height	17.13 ft (5.22 m)
Wing area	Spread: 657.4 ft² (61.07 m²), Swept: 525 ft² (48.77 m²)
Airfoil	NACA 64-210.68 root, NACA 64-209.80 tip
Empty weight	47,200 lb (21,400 kg)
Loaded weight	82,800 lb (37,600 kg)
Max takeoff weight	100,000 lb (45,300 kg)
Powerplant	2× Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-100 turbofans - Dry thrust: 17,900 lbf (79.6 kN) each, Thrust with afterburner: 25,100 lbf (112 kN) each
Zero-lift drag coefficient	0.0186
Drag area	9.36 ft² (0.87 m²)
Aspect ratio	spread: 7.56, swept: 1.95
Performance
Maximum speed	Mach 2.5 (1,650 mph, 2,655 km/h)
Combat radius	1,330 mi (1,160 nmi, 2,140 km)
Ferry range	4,200 mi (3,700 nmi, 6,760 km)
Service ceiling	66,000 ft (20,100 m)
Rate of climb	25,890 ft/min (131.5 m/s)
Wing loading	Spread: 126.0 lb/ft² (615.2 kg/m²), Swept: 158 lb/ft² (771 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight	0.61
Lift-to-drag ratio	15.8
Armament
Guns	1× M61 Vulcan 20 mm (0.787 in) gatling cannon (seldom fitted)
Hardpoints	9 in total (8× under-wing, 1× under-fuselage between engines)
Armament capacity	31,500 lb (14,300 kg) ordnance mounted externally on hardpoints and internally in fuselage weapons bay

FB-111 Strategic Bomber is a post from: DefenceTalk | Defense & Military News - Forums - Pictures - Weapons

The XB-70A program came out from the Boeing Aircraft Corporation's MX-2145 Project after Boeing along with the Band Corporation conducted studies relating to the type of weapon system required to deliver high-yield special weapons. The study included intercontinental bombers, delivering both gravity bombs and pilot-less parasite bombers; manned bombers, air-refueled by tankers to attend their ranges and cover round-trip intercontinental distances; manned aircraft and drone bomber combinations; and unmanned bombers. During the study, the Air Force requested to further include possible trade-off information on weight for speed, weight for range and speed for range. Boeing managed to present the requested information on 22 January 1954, pointing out the possibilities of a bomber aircraft powered by chemically augmented nuclear power plants. It was B-70.

In May 1946, the Army Air Forces signed a treaty with the Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation, conferring on the highly classified

B-70 Valkyrie is a post from: DefenceTalk | Defense & Military News - Forums - Pictures - Weapons

The aircraft was designed for all weathers at speeds above Mach one.

The crew of the aircraft was designed to seat at a pressurized compartment, cooled with refrigeration at Mach speeds. The features of the aircraft included boundary-layer diverter, windshield defogging, detachable aerial refueling probe, single-point ground refueling, integral fuel tanks, rotary bomb bay door serving as weapon carrier combination, tip ailerons and short cord spars, dive brakes, liquid oxygen system, variable horizontal tail and two deceleration chutes. 

The design immediately ran into serious difficulties over the inertial guidance bombing and navigation system, which, had the bomber been approved for production, would have pushed deployment back to at least 1963.

None of the XB-68 prototypes were built after recognizing the fact that the medium tactical bomber design was still years away. 

XB-68 is a post from: DefenceTalk | Defense & Military News - Forums - Pictures - Weapons

B-66 Destroyer & A3D Skywarrior is a post from: DefenceTalk | Defense & Military News - Forums - Pictures - Weapons

XB-59 is a post from: DefenceTalk | Defense & Military News - Forums - Pictures - Weapons

Existing B-36s were swept-wing, all-jet aircrafts. Earlier, a letter issued by the Air Force supplemented the basic B-36 contract and authorized Convair to convert two B-36Fs into prototype B-36Gs, entirely outfitted with turbojets but capable of accommodating turboprop engines.

The proposed B-36G however had very little in common with the B-36F, forcing the Air Force to determined that the B-60 level would be assigned to the aircraft, because of the striking change in physical appearance and upgrading in performance over that of the conventional B-36 aircraft. 

In August 1951, confusion about the configuration of the B-60 prototypes obliged the manufacturer to recommend that at first only two stripped aircrafts will be developed. Accepting responsibility for the error, the manufacturer also proposed that the second YB-60 later be completed as a full tactical model. This meant that separate specifications would have to be developed for each prototype aircraft. The Air Force agreed to this proposal. 

The B-60 prototype differed significantly from the B-36 by featuring swept-back wings and swept-back tail surfaces, a new needle-nose radome, a new type of support power system, and 8 Pratt & Whitney J57-P-3 jet engines, fit in pairs inside pods suspended below and forward of the leading edge of the wings. Another special feature of the YB-60 was that its extended tail, which enabled the aircraft to remain in a level position for a considerable period of time during takeoff, with a gross weight of 280,000 pounds, after only 4,000 feet of ground roll.

Convair was able to use the J57-P-3 Boeing designed nacelles and engine pods, which seemed to be a distinct advantage over other aircrafts of the time. This was particularly true, since the J57 engine was itself the product of an intensive effort to develop a high-thrust turbojet with low fuel consumption. In 1952, production of the aircraft started but the engines were in short supply. The prototype's eighth J57-P-3 engine finally arrived at the Convair's Fort Worth plant in April 1952. 

On 18 April 1952, B-60 first flew from the Convair's Fort Worth plant. The 66 minute flight was hampered by bad weather, but two subsequent flights proved successful. The B-60 displayed excellent handling characteristics. Convair test-flew the first YB-60 for 66 hours, accumulated in 20 flights; the Air Force, some 15 hours, in 4 flights. This encouraging start however, did not prevail in the long run. Flight testing of the aircraft ended on 20 January in the following year as the second YB-60, although 93 percent complete, was not flown at all. This was due to worrisome test results and a number of deficiencies including engine surge, control system buffet, rudder flutter, and problems with the electrical engine-control system.

The US Air Force canceled the B-60 program as it could not compete with similar aircrafts of the same time. The project's sole purpose was to be a B-36 successor. The YB-52 demonstrated better performance and greater improvement potential than the YB-60. The YB-52's first flight on 15 April 1952; 3 days ahead of the YB-60's; was an impressive success and generated great enthusiasm. The Convair prototype's stability was unsatisfactory because of the high aerodynamic forces acting upon the control surfaces and the low aileron effectiveness of the plane.

The B-60 program was canceled in 1952, and testing of the stripped prototype ended in January 1953. Convair even though tried to convince the Air Force, that the YB-60s should be used as experimental test-beds for turbo propeller engines. Budget constrains and the YB-60's several unsafe characteristics forced the Air Force to turn down Convair's tempting proposal.

The cost of the two B-60 prototypes was set at $14,366,022. This figure, included Convair's fee, the contract termination cost, and the amount spent on the necessary minimum of spare parts.

The Air Force destroyed the two YB-60s in June 1954.

B-60 is a post from: DefenceTalk | Defense & Military News - Forums - Pictures - Weapons