US Military Technology Investments to Combat Climate Change

kbd512 · 2019-03-17 15:08:38

As promised, I'm starting a new thread to use to indicate what technology solutions I think the US military should pursue to help combat climate change. Although some here will argue against spending any money on our military, I believe the potential payoffs to both our military and the world in general are enormous. All of our most advanced technology typically starts with military requirements, so this is a natural avenue of approach to advancement of the state of the art, as it pertains to power generation technologies. The military has a much higher risk tolerance in development programs than any civil industry because the military's mandate is to determine the best way to fight wars while protecting the lives of their members and the American citizenry. As such, they will experiment with any new technology to further those objectives, even in the absence of an immediately definable payoff. It's often hard to say what the results of a research and development effort will be prior to conducting the experimentation.

The US military is quite fond of gas turbine engines, to the point that we use AGT-1500's in our M1 tanks, most of our surface ships use LM-2500's, and virtually all military aircraft are gas turbine powered. There are good reasons for that, mostly related to reliability and longevity, but modern fuel cells are no slouch in the reliability and longevity department and require less maintenance than gas turbines since they have far fewer moving parts. Unfortunately, the fuel efficiency of gas turbines, which also provide superb power density, is relatively poor at power settings below maximum output. Even GE90 turbofans are only about 36% efficient at cruise, yet all gas turbine powered military aircraft, vehicles, and ships use gas turbines providing lower efficiencies. As such, I believe there are a number of technology investments in turboelectric generators and solid oxide fuel cells that have already demonstrated greatly reduced fuel consumption in labs or field trials.

The US military consumes around 4.5 billion gallons of various fuels per year, mostly kerosene (JP5 or JP8 and DFM). As much fuel as our military uses, individual airline services consume around 18 billion gallons of Jet-A per year, with figures in the tens of billions of gallons per year. The electric utility industry dwarfs both, but increasingly relies upon technology from the aerospace industry as electric power generation uses aero-derivative gas turbine engine cores. Aviation fuel consumption only represents approximately 3% of the world's CO2 emissions from liquid hydrocarbon fuels consumption, but I think we can put a significant dent in consumption using turboelectric generators with supersonic inlets and fuel cells that consume the same fuels already in use.

Apart from direct tax savings on fuels supplied to our military, these technologies would also have direct applications for civil aviation, cargo ships, cargo trucks, construction equipment, and commercial electric power generation. The potential exists to cut CO2 emissions by about 75% of what they presently are, with equivalent reliability and longevity in operation. Though clearly a partial solution, a 75% emissions reduction solution is still far better than what we presently have. Most of the infrastructure built around the liquid hydrocarbon fuels industry can continue to be used until science can deliver greatly improved batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines.

Part of this topic will focus on energy solutions, but there will also be discussion of specific systems and how those systems can be upgraded or replaced to reduce fuel and resource consumption. The military's fuel consumption was and is largely driven by the requirement to carry and deliver heavy but inaccurate weapon systems originally designed between the 1950's and 1970's. In the past ten years or so, weapon system accuracy has drastically improved as sensor fusion and improved computerized guidance systems have materialized. Rapid urbanization of the locales that our military is likely to find itself fighting created a requirement for judicious use of force, since targets are increasingly likely to be interspersed amongst the local civil populace and our own military forces. As such, there's little to no benefit, and often a strong disincentive, to using heavier and more powerful weapon systems.

kbd512 · 2019-03-17 19:20:26

As part of the specific proposals presented here, I will elaborate on what I believe to be the most productive uses of available fuel cell and turboelectric generator technology. The military typically starts with stationary power generation technology. If the technology proves reliable in that application, then it will be applied to ground vehicles and ships. If power density requirements are met, then a variant of the same technology may be applied to aviation.

Our ground forces already use a variety of batteries, fuel cells, and flexible roll-up solar panels to provide power to ground troops in overseas military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Expanded use of those technologies is inevitable at this point. The portable gas and diesel generators that were previously used are too noisy, require routine maintenance in the abrasive dusty environments they're subjected to that is often not possible in such austere environments, and consume fuel at rates that necessitate frequent resupply missions by dangerous helicopter or land convoys that invite attack from opposing forces. If our military had to fight a well-equipped modern military, the thermal signatures of portable generators are easily acquired by sensors on reconnaissance drones, attack aircraft, and handheld thermal imagers. Even the low-cost thermal imagers that big game hunters use at night can acquire such generators at distances of a mile or more.

The fuel of choice for portable fuel cells is methanol. It's as easy to store as other liquid fuels like gasoline / diesel / kerosene, less volatile than gasoline, burns slower than gasoline, water (without foaming agents) can be used to extinguish a methanol fire, and methanol exposure is no more toxic than gasoline exposure is. Most of our 2 billion gallon per year supply comes from sugar cane grown in Brazil, which I believe produces around 5 billion gallons per year. Although methanol's volumetric energy density is only around 4.6kWh/L, approximately half that of biodiesel, that still greatly exceeds Lithium-ion batteries. Typical methanol fuel cell efficiencies range between 50% and 60%, or at least twice as efficient as small internal combustion engines used in portable generators.

PP-50-Flex - Portable Flex-Fuel Power System

UltraCell LLC - Products

UltraCell even has a fuel cell variant that's intended to be buried in a fox hole. They call it "the mole". Since overhead protection is generally a good idea if you're on the receiving end of incoming fire from mortars, artillery, or air strikes, this is another unique fuel cell application suitable for military use. The alternative is carrying lots of batteries or burning lots of gas or diesel in portable generators. It's not CO2 free, but it's half of the CO2 for the same electrical power output. Since all fuels must be transported to the battlefield, which typically means burning more gas in a gas turbine powered helicopter or diesel powered convoy, with all the attendant vulnerability to attack that that entails, this is a force multiplier. Our troops can stay in the field with adequate electrical power for their radios, sensors, and crew served weapon systems for longer periods of time before resupply is required.

Since methanol fuel cell technologies have seen years of use in portable power applications, I think the next logical step is to introduce them to portable generators for forward operating base electrical power. This would mean scaling up existing technology from a few kilowatts of power to tens of kilowatts of power. We're already aware of how well DMFC's (Direct Methanol Fuel Cells) work in the field, so I see few downsides to using fuel cells instead of gas or diesel in portable military generators. Some of these fuel cells can also consume Methane, Propane, Gasoline, and/or Diesel, dependent upon what's locally available. However, most require removal of Sulfur and other contaminants. That said, all of the fuels consumed by our military should be properly filtered to ensure that they're free of contaminants.

SpaceNut · 2019-03-17 20:53:19

The use of solar cells with rechargeable batteries leave less of a foot print for the enemy to find after our troops have gone through a specific area. I believe clothing with the flexible cell would be possible, tents could have them, back pack gear are just a few places to place them on.

Make your fuel as you go sounds like a plan but thats another level of power not in small portable solar cells.

kbd512 · 2019-03-17 23:37:57

As far as military ground vehicles are concerned, the implementation of fuel cells for power could save a lot of lives lost due to fuel resupply convoys. In Afghanistan and Iraq, virtually all fuel is supplied by truck convoy. The forward operating bases typically receive fuel bladders from transport helicopters like the CH-46 and UH-60. Both delivery methods are vulnerable to ground fire. As roads or trails are generally required for the trucks to drive on, roadside bombs / IED's (Improvised Explosive Devices), RPG's (Rocket-Propelled Grenades), and mortars (man portable artillery) can wreak havoc on these resupply convoys. The entire convoy need not be stopped to prevent travel or escape from the ambush. The first and last vehicle in the convoy are often attacked first to create artificial road blocks. After that happens, the rest of the vehicles in the convoy are trapped. Insurgents armed with RPG's and mortars can then fire upon the trapped vehicles at will. Many young American men and women have lost their lives defending these convoys from insurgent and terrorist attacks. It should go without saying that increasing vehicle fuel efficiency would reduce the number of fuel resupply convoys, thus the number of opportunities for attacks to cut off vital fuel supplies.

There is a fuel cell technology that our military has spent quite a bit of time and effort to develop. DOE, DARPA, ARPA-E, US Army, US Navy, and even NASA have contributed to its development. A variant of this technology is slated to go to Mars aboard the Mars 2020 rover, and is known as MOXIE. This technology is known as SOFC (Solid Oxide Fuel Cell). This type of fuel cell is resistant to most chemical contaminants and the US Army has even devised a means to contend with Sulfur and Sulfur compounds present in the fuel source. Historically, Delphi has worked closely with these government agencies to develop SOFC's. A decade later, there are several companies who offer products and actively work on various government SOFC development programs.

This article is 11 years old now, but illustrates how compelling the technology was when development had just begun:

High-Energy Portable Fuel Cell Power Sources

A lot of the SOFC technology is experimental and remains classified as a result, so there's not a lot of information floating around about how far the state of the art has advanced. However, what little information is available seems to indicate that it's one of the few technologies that NASA and their contractors believe would be suitable for eventual use in aviation applications.

In the realm of civil fuel cell applications, there are also PEM (Proton Exchange Membrane) technologies that show great promise for automotive applications.

The gravimetric (3kW/kg) and volumetric (3.5kW/L) power density of PEMFC's are very close to SOFC's from a decade ago, yet operate at much lower temperatures, so I've included this here to give everyone a sense for just how small these things are:

Intelligent Energy introduces new high performance 100kW automotive fuel cell architecture

Intelligent Energy - Evaporatively Cooled Technology

Intelligent Energy's 100kWe fuel cell is just over 1 cubic foot in volume and weighs just over 33kg / 73 pounds. To give someone an idea of what that means to a military vehicle, let's consider the case of the M109A7 Paladin Self-Propelled Gun (155mm howitzer). A variant of the same engine is also in use in the M2/M3 Bradley armored fighting vehicles and the new BAE AMPV, which would be the prospective M2 Bradley replacement.

BigMackTrucks.com - Cummins V903 Celebrates 50 Years in Service

M2A4 and M109A7

Engine

Cummins Turbo Diesel: VTA-903T; peak output: 675hp (503kW); peak torque 1,206ft-lbs; 1,271kg (2,802lbs); volume: 54.95 ft^3

Transmission

General Dynamics Land Systems HMPT-500-4EC; torque output: 15,150Nm (11,174ft-lbs); weight: 875kg (1,929lbs); volume: 22.2ft^3

Intelligent Energy and Magnax Motors Replacement

Generator

6 IEC PEM Fuel Cells; peak output 600kWe; weight: 200kg; volume: 6ft^3

Motors

6 Magnax AXF225 Electric Motors; peak output: 680kW; peak torque 1,106ft-lbs; weigh 84kg; volume: 6ft^3???

Gearbox

No idea, but we should look into magnetic gearboxes since the bubbas at Texas A&M are testing the concept with helicopters.

A bearingless coaxial magnetic gearbox

kbd512 · 2019-03-18 02:47:14

SpaceNut,

Flexible roll-up solar panels are already in use in applications where the power provided is sufficient. There's a limit to the size of the panel you can roll up and stuff in your pack. A composite tube to wrap the panels around might help. I think they just roll them up like a newspaper and put a rubber band or piece of tape around them. Anyway, the visual signature and area required to lay out enough panels for sufficient power becomes impractical as the troop concentration increases and the power requirements of the weapon systems electronics increases. For company level operations, they typically use the command units from the Javelin missiles to pull double duty as thermal imagers to find people hiding in terrain. A special variant of the Javelin, now the FGM-148F, with a different warhead was field tested for attacking fixed or slow moving targets like heavy machine gun and mortar firing positions or snipers. There are typically several satcom radios and laptops to power at that level of force concentration as well.

If you're on top of a mountain or earthen structure / mud hut, as these guys typically are, ground space is at a premium. That said, it's common to see those panels, and even heavy commercial hard panels, atop the command bunker / hole in the ground. Camouflage netting can be placed overhead, and frequently is, but that also partially blocks the Sun. At some point, more concentrated power is required. That's why the methanol fuel cells were created. The snorkel fuel cell variant should indicate that they're intended to be employed within bunkers.

The amount of electronic gear now in use is considerable:

satcom (PRC-117's)
other types of radios (PRC-160's and others)
laptops (no idea what they use now, but probably still Panasonic Toughbooks)
tablets (can't recall who makes it)
personal / squad radio (PRC-148's / PRC-152's / PRC-159's / PRC-163's)
personal night vision scopes (PVS14's and PVS15's are the most common)
FGM-148 CLU's (something that turned out to be useful for lots of other things besides guiding missiles into tanks)
super secret squirrel electronic warfare gear to intercept and jam communications
various electro-optical and thermal observation devices
search lights, helmet lights, handheld flashlights, weapon lights, laser target designators, IR strobes / beacons
various types of small drones
... And an animatronic partridge in a pear tree

Seriously, though, if you think the power requirements are bad now, then just wait until we start issuing rail guns.

kbd512 · 2019-03-21 13:32:06

I’ve decided to introduce some aircraft concepts that could drastically reduce fuel consumption and maintenance costs while greatly increasing the number of hours that our pilots get to fly as a function of reduced fuel costs. These aircraft concepts are what I call the “Mini Falcon” and the “Mini Hog”. The Mini Falcon is intended as a replacement for our aging F-15’s, F-16’s, F/A-18’s. The Mini Hog is intended as a replacement for our aging A-10’s and AH-64’s. All types to be replaced rendered good service, but they’re costly and thirsty Cold War era relics.

Later on, I intend to present an airborne aircraft carrier concept. StratoLaunch will serve as the testbed airframe to determine the feasibility of launching, recovering, and refueling miniature fighters to reduce the requirement for expensive, vulnerable, and fuel-consumptive of aircraft carrier battle groups. The LM-2500’s that power the Arleigh Burke class destroyers and Ticonderoga class cruisers consume approximately 1,000 gallons of DFM per hour of operation. There are ways to reduce those fuel burn rates through speed reduction and shut down of one or more of the gas turbines, but only to a point. Most aircraft carrier battle groups have three destroyers, three cruisers, and two fleet replenishment oilers. In combat against a peer-level adversary, the oilers would require additional escorts. The Nimitz and Ford class aircraft carriers each carry approximately 3.5 million gallons of JP-8 for the aircraft carrier’s air wing. In combat, the aircraft carrier’s fuel stores would be consumed in a matter of few days at most. The newest oilers store a maximum of 7.56 million gallons of JP-8. That places an artificial limit on the number of sorties that can be generated per day.

Investigation of a Micro-Fighter / Airborne Aircraft Carrier Concept - Tactical Combat Aircraft Programs - The Boeing Aerospace Company - Sept 1973

The first fighter concept displayed on Page 10 of the report from “529372.pdf” is basically a miniature F-16 if LERX’s are included in the wing root. The Mini Falcon, as the name implies, is a miniature F-16. It’s based upon Boeing’s VITAC (Variable Incidence and Translating Aerodynamic Center) micro fighter concept. The US Air Force and Boeing studied the feasibility of launching miniature fighters from Boeing 747’s and Lockheed C-5’s in the 1970’s. I think modern avionics, materials, and engines have finally caught up to where they’d need to be to make the concept viable. For now, we’re just taking the cost and training benefits into consideration. These modern fighters will use Williams International FJ-44-4M turbofans instead of GE F404 turbofans and airframes made from carbon fiber composites instead of Aluminum. The YJ101 / GE100 engine referenced in the document link above became the GE F404 that eventually powered the F/A-18 Hornet.

Mini Falcon Air Superiority Fighter

Crew
1 pilot

Aircrew Survival and Airframe Protection Features
Martin-Baker Mk18 ejection seat
Windscreen and canopy resistant to .30 AP small arms fire and small shell fragments
Boron and Aluminum ceramic composites around the front and sides of the cockpit; rear protected by the internal gun’s ammunition tray, fuel, and the engine
Self-sealing fuel tanks and fuel cut-off valves
All mechanical flight controls with pneumatic assist
Compressed air actuated nose and main gear

Engines
1 x Williams International FJ-44-4M afterburning turbofan
3,790lbs of dry static thrust
6,290lbs of wet static thrust

Armament
Guns: 1 internal Orbital ATK 30mm M230 60” barrel chain gun; double-ended link-less feed system with 200 rounds of LW30 PROX programmable proximity fused ammunition
External Stores: 2 fuselage mounted pylons; maximum capacity of 375lbs each
Air-to-Air Missiles: 2 x AIM-9X Sidewinder; 4 x AIM-92 Stinger
Air-to-Ground Missiles: 4 x AGM-114 Hellfire; 8 x AGM-176 Griffin
Rockets: 2 x 7 shot LAU-68 launchers; Hydra 70 or APKWS II
Bombs: 2 x GBU-39 SDB I or GBU-53 SDB II; 2 x Mk81 Snakeye
Fuel: 2 x 50 gallon external fuel tanks for ferry flights

The Mini Hog is a cross-over between the A-10 and the X-Wing, essentially a biplane, that provides true redundancy for all flight-critical components. Whereas the X-Wing has a very long nose and four wing-mounted engines, this airframe has a snub nose and elevated cockpit for better visibility, much like the A-10, but 4 wings like the X-Wing or a bi-plane without wing braces, 2 fuselage-mounted turbofan engines, like the A-10, and 4 grid fins that provide pitch and roll control in conjunction with the wings. It’s intended to maximize the utility of the newer generation of weapon systems and to be extremely economical to fly.

Mini Hog Attack Fighter

Crew
1 pilot

Aircrew Survival and Airframe Protection Features
Martin-Baker Mk18 ejection seat
BAE’s ADAPTIV temperature-matching technology to shield the cockpit and sides of the engine pods from thermal imagers
ALON windscreen to providing protection from threats up to .50 AP and 23mm shell fragments
Canopy resistant to .30 AP small arms fire and small shell fragments
Boron and Aluminum ceramic composite bathtub
Self-sealing fuel tanks and fuel cut-off valves
All mechanical flight controls with pneumatic assist
Compressed air actuated nose gear
Fixed wingtip mounted main gear
All armament, fuel, and armored cockpit are just forward of the center of lift; as fuel, cannon ammunition, or external stores are expended, less of a pitching moment to contend with

Engines
2 x Williams International FJ-44-4M
3,790lbs of thrust (each)

Armament
Guns: 2 x internal Orbital ATK 30mm M230 60” barrel chain guns; double-ended link-less feed systems with 600 rounds of M789 HEDP or LW30 HEI-T per gun
External Stores: 4 x ventral fuselage mounted pylons; maximum capacity of 750lbs each
Air-to-Air Missiles: 8 x AIM-9X Sidewinder; 8 x AIM-92 Stinger
Air-to-Ground Missiles: 4 x AGM-65 Maverick; 12 x AGM-114 Hellfire; 16 x AGM-176 Griffin
Rockets: 4 x 19 shot LAU-61 launchers; Hydra 70 or APKWS II
Bombs: 8 x GBU-39 SDB I or GBU-53 SDB II; 8 x Mk81 Snakeye tail retarded bombs; 4 x Mk20 Rockeye II cluster munitions
Fuel: 4 x 100 gallon external fuel tanks for ferry flights

Concept Notes:
Although turboprop powered aircraft would be more efficient at low altitudes and airspeeds, that idea has been roundly criticized by those inside and outside of the fighter pilot community. Everyone seems to want fast jets. As such, both aircraft concepts presented are efficient and effective 4th generation fighters that capture the essence of the F-16, A-10, and AH-64 aircraft using modernized technology to negate the need to carry heavy external stores great distances. For their size, both are heavily armed and highly maneuverable. The Mini Falcon and Mini Hog can easily fly circles around their larger legacy counterparts and the AH-64 may as well be a pre-WWII fighter by way of comparison. The F-16 replacement is a supersonic capable aircraft that flies at high subsonic speed, just like the F-16. The A-10 replacement flies at high subsonic speeds with extended duration loiter capability at altitude. The Mini Hog combines the survivability features of ye olde A-10 with a more appropriate armament mix of guns, rockets, missiles, and bombs that’s far more suitable for prototypical missions where having tons of ordnance onboard does little except slow the A-10 to turboprop speeds. Similarly, the Mini Falcon carries a large caliber cannon and IR-guided missiles that are nearly impossible for comparatively sluggish legacy aircraft to out-turn. In contrast, the Mini Falcon is so much lighter and smaller than existing fighters that it can actually turn inside the minimum turning radius of most modern IR-guided weapons. That’s just a simple physics formula. For the same reason, any Cessna 172 made can turn inside the minimum turning radius of a F-16, despite the F-16's extreme agility for a fighter of its size.

The specifics of the airframes have been purposefully left out. I’m open to feedback on refinements or improvements that could be made. The general idea, however, is that the existing 4th Gen airframes are consuming way too much fuel to continue in service as glorified gas-guzzling bomb trucks that typically release one or two weapons per sortie. The “everything plus the kitchen sink” fighter / attack / bomber concepts embodied by the F-15 / F-16 / F/A-18 / A-10 / AH-64 / B-1 / B-52 are on their way out. We need modernized low-cost (by virtue of modern avionics / engines / materials), effective (purpose-built), and high tech (features defined in software, rather than hardware) airframes that we can mass manufacture on assembly lines. Incidentally, customers using the new Aero L-39NG (single FJ-44-4M), despite its heavy metal airframe and dual seat configuration, are seeing actual operating costs of just $2,500/pfh. That’s more than the $1,000/pfh of the AT-6 Texan II or Super Tucano, but F-16’s can cost anywhere from $15,000/pfh to $30,000/pfh. Even the comparatively low cost A-10 costs more than $17,000/pfh. The lower fuel costs and simplified maintenance would indicate that an entire squadron of 12 Mini Falcons could be operated for the same cost per flight hour as a single F-16. I would estimate that 3 Mini Hogs could be operated for the same cost as a single Warthog. Put another way, even if 1/3rd of your jets are down for maintenance after each flight, you still have plenty of jets available to fly the next mission. This is something we don’t have currently because the fuel and maintenance costs are eating up the operational budget.

Engine Notes:
Although there is not presently an afterburning variant of the FJ-44, development of an afterburner is well within the realm of possibility. A new exhaust nozzle design and spray bar for fuel injection would have to be developed, but it would not be akin to a completely new engine, even though it would have to be re-certified as such. The fan and core would remain unchanged. As small turbofan engines go, the FJ-44 is extremely fuel efficient, with a .456 sfc at cruise power settings. Williams International has a lengthy history of development of small fuel-efficient turbofan engines for US military cruise missiles (AGM-86 ALCM / AGM-129 ACM / BGM-109 Tomahawk / AGM-158 JASSM), drones (Boeing X-36 / Boeing X-50 / Lockheed Martin Polecat / Lockheed Martin DarkStar), military trainer aircraft (Aero L-39NG / Alenia Aermacchi M-345), and small business jets (Beechcraft Premier I / Cessna CitationJet CJ4 / Pilatus PC-24).

Armament Notes:
GAU-8’s PGU-14B depleted Uranium penetrator ammunition is widely acknowledged as being unable to penetrate the top armor of modern MBT’s, so it’s no longer suitable for that purpose. However, that was the primary reason for equipping the A-10 with the GAU-8. PGU-14B can penetrate ~60mm of armor at 1,000m, but any GBU-39 or GBU-53 would take the turret off the tank. As range increases, gun projectile penetration drops like a rock. The PGU-13B was intended for attacking thin skinned vehicles, enemy troops, and heavy weapons emplacements, but penetration is far less important than explosively-driven fragments to disable or destroy those targets by tearing them apart. The M789 HEDP shell can penetrate up to 25mmm of armor using a shaped charge, which is sufficient to disable or destroy any thin-skinned vehicles and penetrate the top armor of most APC’s. It produces secondary fragmentation effects, but LW30 HEI-T packs a lot more explosive inside, to within 10 grams or so (can’t recall now) of the PGU-13B’s charge weight.

Northrop Grumman Corporation - M230 30mm Bushmaster Chain Gun

Northrop Grumman Corporation - M230LF 30mm Bushmaster Chain Gun

Development of a LW 30mm M230 Percussion Prime Chain Gun

Orbital ATK’s M230 30mm chain gun / automatic cannon comes with 2 barrel options, a 42” short barrel (32lbs) and a 60” long barrel (45lbs).
After protracted developmental problems with certain components, the M230 is now one of the most reliable electrically operated automatic cannons in service.
The long barrel variant increases the muzzle velocity of the traditional projectiles, M789 HEDP for example, from 805m/s to 850m/s.
LW30 PROX has a muzzle velocity (1,010m/s) equal to that of the improved PGU-13 rounds (1,013m/s) developed by General Dynamics for the GAU-8 and is suitable for use against other aircraft.
There are 2 feed options, linked-feed and link-less feed.
The link-less feed system comes with single-ended (empty cartridge casing ejected after firing) and double-ended (empty cartridge casing returned to the magazine).
A plethora of mounting options including aircraft fixed or turret systems, ground vehicle crewed or remotely operated turret systems, and tripods for infantry use from fixed fighting positions.
Firing rates range between single-shot and 750rpm.
Recoil is greatly attenuated by a high-efficiency muzzle brake, nominally 45ft-lbs/sec at 600rpm.
Ammunition handling is superb, in that the gun never touches the projectile fuses or primers.
Firing mechanisms include electrical and percussion primers.
US Army, US Marine Corps, and US Navy all presently use the M230 in one variant or another. IIRC, there may even be a variant that US Air Force uses.
In Afghanistan, AH-64’s routinely carry the “Robby Tank”, wherein part of its normal 1,200 rounds magazine capacity was traded off to increase range / loiter time, limiting available magazine capacity to 300 rounds.

M230 link-less feed, short barrel: 120 lbs
M230 link-less feed, long barrel: 133 lbs
M230LF linked-feed, long barrel: 160 lbs

LW30 HEI-T is 349g/ctg Northrop Grumman Corporation - LW30 HEI-T
LW30 PROX is 350g/ctg Northrop Grumman Corporation - LW30 PROX
M789 HEDP is 339g/ctg Northrop Grumman Corporation - LW30 M789 HEDP

GBU-39 (SDB I) and GBU-53 (SDB II) fuse multiple guidance system derivatives from missiles like Hellfire with wings and aerodynamic bodies to create glide bombs that can fly up to 45 miles when launched against moving targets. GBU-39 and GBU-53 were designed to penetrate multiple feet of steel reinforced concrete, have been tested that way, and used in combat. GBU-39’s and GBU-53’s were created to provide F-22’s and F-35’s with weapons to attack moving vehicles and to destroy bunkers or aircraft in hardened aircraft shelters. SDB II is a tri-modal guidance variant of SDB I that’s somewhat lighter and significantly more accurate. There are various lightweight ejector racks from Harris and Marvin Engineering, some as light as 2 pounds for carrying single SDB’s or Hellfire missiles, such as those used on the Predator drones and from US Navy aircraft like the Super Hornet.

There’s been lots of talk about ceasing use of unguided munitions entirely due to fratricide incidents and missing the target entirely. Similarly, there’s talk of relegating JDAM’s and other extremely powerful guided munitions to specific launching platforms like the F-15E’s / A-10C’s / B-1’s / B-52’s, and using the newer and lighter munitions on the F-16’s / F/A-18’s / F-22’s / F-35’s, drones, helicopter or C-130 gunships, ground vehicles, small ships, etc. The 1,000 and 2,000 pound JDAM’s are generally used to attack fixed and heavily fortified targets and the 500 pound JDAM’s, which have also been deemed too powerful for the intended use, are used for attacking mobile targets. Ou recent wars have taught us that release of extremely powerful munitions like JDAM or iron bombs like Mk82’s and Mk84’s is inadvisable if there are friendly troops or civilians in the area, which has become increasingly common.

Small Diameter Bomb Increment II (SDB II) As of FY19 President’s Budget - Defense Acquisition Management Information Retrieval (DAMIR)

Air Command and Staff College - Air University - Miniature Munitions: Is the US Military Prepared to Support Major Combat Operations?

Edit: Somehow forgot to label the Mini Hog properly.

Last edited by kbd512 (2019-03-21 17:46:34)

kbd512 · 2019-03-21 16:48:54

Additional Mini Falcon Notes:

The original Boeing VITAC concept from the early 1970's had a 10,280lbs gross weight, but was to use the much heavier and thirstier GE404 turbofan (2,282lbs) and Aluminum construction with 2,500lbs of fuel onboard. I expect that the updated VITAC / Mini Falcon concept will have equal or better range.

As I envisioned it, the Mini Falcon is basically a 6,500lbs gross weight fighter with an operating empty weight of 3,500lbs, including the gun and Mk18 ejection seat. That leaves room for around 2,000lbs of fuel, 750lbs of external stores, and a 250lbs for the pilot. In comparison to the now bloated F-16 design, fuel fraction of empty weight, thrust-to-weight ratio, and wing loading are significantly improved. Given the same basic aerodynamic design, I expect significant performance improvements in terms of maneuverability and energy recovery. No matter what modern fighter the Mini Falcon flies against, if its adversary becomes involved in a turning engagement, then they're basically signing their own death warrant. Incidentally, this is what the F-16 was originally meant to be- a supremely nimble and reasonably fast little jet with a pair of Sidewinders and an internal cannon.

To get an idea for just how small this thing will be, take a look at the ViperJet MkII.

Viper Aircraft ViperJet

Now imagine something even smaller than that. It should be noted that the F-16 is unofficially known as the "Viper" within the community. If I had to guess, not knowing a thing about the Viper Aircraft company, the name of their jet is a F-16 reference.

Edited post to include units on the VITAC concept gross weight.

Edit #2: I should note how Vipers (F-16's) are actually used in Afghanistan. A US Air Force JTAC is embedded with the infantry on the ground. A platoon leader tells the JTAC to get on the radio and the message goes something like this: "I need this target of such and such type at such and such grid coordinates destroyed immediately." Contrary to popular belief, cursing or swearing, yelling, and informal chit chat are all frowned upon. After the air base confirms that they've provided the target's coordinates and not their own coordinates, one or sometimes two F-16's or A-10's are scrambled from the nearest air base, typically the Alert 5, and those fighters fly at best possible speed to the target. Aircraft so-equipped will light the burner and go supersonic if it's a real emergency. As the fighters arrive, they'll establish communication with the ground unit, re-confirm the grid coordinates of the target and make a pass over the target to visually identify it, release a single weapon such as a JDAM or SDB, and then fly home to refuel and rearm. If multiple weapons are required, then multiple aircraft are typically sent.

A single full-sized F-16 or A-10 could obviously carry multiple weapons, as they often do, but that's just not how it's done for most close air support tasking. Apart from planned strikes or search and destroy missions, multiple weapons are rarely employed by a single aircraft. There are a variety of reasons for doing that. In short, bombing runs conducted by single aircraft from different directions presents a very fleeting opportunity for the enemy to engage those aircraft and having as many pilots gain experience by actually making bombing runs as is feasible is very desirable from the standpoint of training newer pilots. The second aircraft is often sent anyway as backup, just in case something goes wrong with the first. There are all manner of technical problems that may arise, no matter how simple the mission. If the jets were significantly more economical to operate, that's not a major problem. A pair of Mini Falcons would burn about half as much fuel as the internal fuel carried by a full-sized F-16 to conduct that same type of mission.

Last edited by kbd512 (2019-03-21 17:43:36)

kbd512 · 2019-03-25 15:46:05

SpaceNut,

I would've thought that people who dislike excessive military spending and fuel consumption would be ecstatic about the possibility of our military burning about 1/3rd of the fuel that they consume in an average year to execute the same missions. This is an entirely achievable goal with just a touch of technology modification, rather than advancement through protracted development. Some up-front spending is obviously required, but that's the case with a transition to any new technology set. These new jets and fuel cell vehicles can drastically reduce the fuel consumption required for both combat operations and training. In 70% of practical combat applications, carrying two small bombs or guided missiles is more than enough to completely obliterate the target. The goal here is to eliminate the target of the strike and nothing but the target of the strike. We already have the weapons to do this, so now we just need more mission-appropriate launching platforms.

The Mini Falcon would have performance that would make a Viper driver's eyes water and the A-10 replacement would easily kill anything it was assigned to kill, but with greater speed, mission radius, and a lot less fuel consumption. Weight counts for a lot on fighters and more is rarely better. For what a single F-35 costs, we could purchase an entire squadron of these things.

I like the idea of a 70/30 mix of economic but capable 4th generation small, nimble, high performance machines for general combat operations and 5th generation whiz-bang machines for the 1st and 2nd days of the war. It's fine to have supremely capable machines to fight with, but once the benefits of that added technology have been exploited, there are diminishing returns in all other aspects of combat operations sustainment. We can improve our recruitment and retention numbers by allowing younger fighter pilots to do what they love- namely, flying high performance aircraft. As they become seasoned aviators with sufficient time and experience in high performance machines, they can then apply their experience to supremely sophisticated technological terrors like the F-22 / F-35 / B-1 / B-2.

There are also some other programs that I would cut, both to reduce the number of personnel required to support our military and to negate needless fuel consumption from our thirsty Cold War era relics. The synergistic effects of reduced operational costs, inventory management simplification from the reduction of programs of record, and greater operational budgets for adequate training would greatly assist in maintaining an affordable but highly effective military force structure than can effectively deter any potential aggressors.

kbd512 · 2019-03-27 20:07:27

Updates:

It looks like the pneumatic technology I had in mind for the flight controls won't meet the design criteria, so we're back to hydraulics.

kbd512 · 2019-04-27 16:21:12

Light tactical wheeled vehicles such as the following demonstrator project are about the right size for scouting and counter-insurgency operations, provided the Army doesn't attempt to weigh down each and every vehicle with absolutely every offensive and defensive weapon system known to man:

Army Goes Green with FED Alpha

By using Solid Oxide Fuel Cells, a CNT composite chassis, CNT ceramic composite armor, and ALON windows, the 15,000 pound FED Alpha vehicle would weigh in at 10,000 pounds or less. That puts the vehicle within the realm of air transportability for V-22's, CH-53K's, C-130's.

This concept from General Dynamics is about right:

General Dynamics to provide Army with military vehicles and vetronics for ground mobility

General Dynamics wins SOCOM competition to build Ground Mobility Vehicle GMV 1.1

The insistence on using wheels vs tracks limits the maximum weight that can be supported with adequate mobility over rough or soft terrain, but within limitations a vehicle can be engineered to work reasonably well. The Stryker is flat out too heavy, being substantially larger (outside the limits of C-130 transportability with the weaponry and add-on armor mounted) and heavier (less mobile) than the M113's it was intended to replace.

The M230 30mm chain gun is a marked improvement over the M2 heavy machine guns and Mk19 automatic grenade launchers, providing accurate fire at ranges beyond what either of those other two weapon systems are capable of providing. The Mk19 has the useful feature of providing indirect area fire. The M2 is every bit as heavy as the Mk19, yet confers none of the advantages of the Mk19 or the M230. The GD Mk47 lightweight automatic grenade launcher depicted in the second link to the GD / SOCOM Flyer vehicle is somewhat lighter than the Mk19 and comes with a thermal sight for all weather observation and fire control computer to assist with target engagement.

Up-Armored Flyer Vehicle Convoy - Lead Vehicle armed with M230LF 30mm chain gun; Rear Vehicle armed with GAU-19B .50 caliber gatling gun

There is no circumstance in which stuffing more soldiers inside anything less than well-armored than a MBT-based APC like the Israeli Namer (based upon the Merkava MBT) will ever result in fewer casualties if an anti-tank weapon is employed against the vehicle. Therefore, it makes far more sense to have lots (quantity is a quality of its own) of small (harder to hit), lightweight (air transportable and good fuel economy), and small arms resistant vehicles than it does to produce hulking gas guzzlers like the MRAP / JLTV / Stryker series of vehicles. It's simply not possible to make a light tactical vehicle resistant to AT weapons for any reasonable weight / loss in mobility, which is why we should stop trying and put more money into Active Protection Systems like DARPA's Iron Curtain that pre-detonates / disrupts incoming grenades / rockets / missiles.

Take a look at one of these Stryker vehicles to understand why it's so difficult to adequately defend a vehicle loaded with half a dozen or more soldiers:

Stryker Frontal View

It's huge, meaning significantly larger than the M113A4 it was intended to replace. It has less volume under armor, it's a lot taller so it rolls a lot easier, significantly larger in every dimension and heavier as a matter of fact, and it's no faster off-road than any M113, irrespective of what armor either vehicle is or isn't equipped with. Simple physics can't be beaten with any number of PowerPoint presentations nor any amount of love for "big trucks", so you'll have to use practical work-arounds. The only place you can secure a speed advantage over the M113 is on a well-built road that can take the weight.

Now take a look at these little guys:

Army Eyes Air-Deployable Ultra-light Military Vehicle

Imagine trying to get a bead on a slightly smaller vehicle built for a driver and a weapon system operator. If you score, you kill the vehicle. If you fail to do that, then a vehicle like this that's equipped with a M230 or Mk19 or GAU-19 or Javelin missile launcher will most definitely kill you. In practice, troops in Afghanistan and Syria equipped with these light vehicles have used their speed to run around enemy positions equipped with a heavy machine gun or mortar or RPG and attacked them from unexpected directions.

So... Something along the lines of a fuel cell powered FED Alpha concept would serve as command / recon / medevac vehicles, equipped with anti-tank / anti-bunker and anti-drone missiles. The rest of the troops would ride into combat in battery powered small arms resistant ATV's equipped with 30mm cannons (for use against other vehicles or field fortifications) or 40mm grenade launchers (indirect fire against dismounted infantry or insurgents). That gives the commander the tools to strike swiftly and decisively. Anything less well protected than a steel reinforced concrete bunker or a MBT can be destroyed by the bulk of his or her force's weapon systems.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2019-03-17 15:08:38

US Military Technology Investments to Combat Climate Change

#2 2019-03-17 19:20:26

Re: US Military Technology Investments to Combat Climate Change

#3 2019-03-17 20:53:19

Re: US Military Technology Investments to Combat Climate Change

#4 2019-03-17 23:37:57

Re: US Military Technology Investments to Combat Climate Change

#5 2019-03-18 02:47:14

Re: US Military Technology Investments to Combat Climate Change

#6 2019-03-21 13:32:06

Re: US Military Technology Investments to Combat Climate Change

#7 2019-03-21 16:48:54

Re: US Military Technology Investments to Combat Climate Change

#8 2019-03-25 15:46:05

Re: US Military Technology Investments to Combat Climate Change

#9 2019-03-27 20:07:27

Re: US Military Technology Investments to Combat Climate Change

#10 2019-04-27 16:21:12

Re: US Military Technology Investments to Combat Climate Change

Board footer