CARS AND WHEELS

CARS AND WHEELS

Wednesday, June 8, 2022

 

A NEW PLATFORM FOR THE NEXT WAR

The Moskva after being hit by missiles

On March 9, 1862, the Union warship Monitor met its Confederate counterpart, Virginia. After a four-hour exchange of fire, the two fought to a draw. It was the first battle of ironclads. In one day, every wooden ship of the line of every naval power became immediately obsolete.

On December 7, 1941, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. If the battle of the ironclads settled once and for all the wood-versus-iron debate, Japanese carrier-based aircraft settled the battleship-versus-carrier debate by sinking the cream of America’s battleship fleet in a single morning.

On April 14, 2022, the Ukrainians sank the Russian cruiser Moskva with a pair of Neptune anti-ship missiles. And that success posed an urgent question to the world’s major militaries: Has another age of warfare just begun? After 20 years spent fighting the post-9/11 wars, the United States military’s attention is again focused on a peer-level adversary. The Pentagon hasn’t been thinking this way since the Cold War, and it is attempting a profound transformation. Today, fierce debate attends this transformation, and nowhere more acutely than in the Marine Corps.

In March 2020, the Marine commandant, General David Berger, published “Force Design 2030.” This controversial paper announced a significant restructuring based on the belief that “the Marine Corps is not organized, trained, equipped or postured to meet the demands of the rapidly evolving future operating environment.” That “future operating environment” is an imagined war with China in the South Pacific—but in many ways, that hypothetical conflict resembles the real war in Ukraine.

The military we have—an army built around tanks, a navy built around ships, and an air force built around planes, all of which are technologically advanced and astronomically expensive—is platform-centric. So far, in Ukraine, the signature land weapon hasn’t been a tank but an anti-tank missile: the Javelin. The signature air weapon hasn’t been an aircraft, but an anti-air missile: the Stinger. And as the sinking of the Moskva showed, the signature maritime weapon hasn’t been a ship but an anti-ship missile: the Neptune.

Berger believes a new age of war is upon us. In “Force Design 2030,” he puts the following sentence in bold: “We must acknowledge the impacts of proliferated precision long-range fires, mines, and other smart weapons, and seek innovative ways to overcome these threat capabilities.” The weapons General Berger refers to include the same family of anti-platform weapons Ukrainians are using to incinerate Russian tanks, shoot down Russian helicopters, and sink Russian warships. The successes against a platform-centric Russian Goliath by an anti-platform-centric Ukrainian David have elicited cheers in the West, but what we are witnessing in Ukraine may well be a prelude to the besting of our own American Goliath.



The flying ship is a ground effect vehicle (GEV)  a vehicle that is designed to attain sustained flight over a level surface (usually over the sea), by making use of ground effect, the aerodynamic interaction between the wings and the surface. Among the best known are the Soviet ekranoplans, but names like wing-in-ground-effect (WIG), flarecraft, sea skimmer, or wing-in-surface-effect ship (WISE) are also used.



Later in the very near future..............








Carbon fibre planes: Lighter and stronger by design


Currently, Boeing's latest plane, the 787 Dreamliner uses composites for half of its airframe including the fuselage and wing, while Airbus's A350 XWB has both its fuselage and wings made of carbon fibre.
While the use of carbon fibre has allowed the creation of sweeping wing tips, which can cut fuel consumption by up to 5%, both aircraft are still fairly conventionally shaped.
Yet, the great advantage of using carbon fibre as opposed to traditional metal is that it gives designers much more freedom when trying to juggle the conflicting demands of aerodynamic efficiency, fuel savings and reducing engine noise.
So, the airliners of the future are likely to be radically different.
Such shapes could include blended wing designs, where the fuselage and wings merge into each other - like some military aircraft today.

Similar shape BWB plane  burns 20 per cent less fuel than conventional aircraft and can carry more than 300 passengers

  • 'Flying-V' was developed by the Delft Technical University in the Netherlands and KLM is funding the design  
  • It has the same wingspan as existing planes and is named after the iconic Gibson Flying-V electric guitar 
  • The aircraft would be able to carry up to 314 passengers in the V-shaped layout of the craft its designers claim 
  • Passenger cabin, cargo hold and fuel tanks to be integrated in the design which uses 20 per cent less fuel
Dutch airline KLM are funding a pioneering aeronautical project which could see the shape and layout of commercial aeroplanes changed forever.  
The stunning 'Flying-V' design, financially backed by KLM, has the same wingspan as existing planes and is able to carry up to 314 passengers.
It is named after the iconic Gibson Flying-V electric guitar used by a number of legendary players - from Eddie Van Halen and Jimi Hendrix, to Brian May and Keith Richards.
The concept craft, developed by researchers at Delft Technology University in the Netherlands, flares diagonally backwards from it nose to create the striking V-shape. 
Its designers say this unique configuration uses 20 per cent less fuel. The wings would host the passenger space, cargo hold, fuel tanks and all other infrastructure, it is believed. 

A stunning 'V-shaped' craft developed by researchers at Delft Technology University in the Netherlands has been financially backed by KLM
A stunning 'V-shaped' craft developed by researchers at Delft Technology University in the Netherlands has been financially backed by KLM 



It has the wingspan of existing planes but is shaped like a guitar, with the nose flaring backwards diagonally to create the striking V-shape. It is believed to use 20 per cent less fuel, be more aerodynamic and still be able to carry up to 314 passengers
It has the wingspan of existing planes but is shaped like a guitar, with the nose flaring backwards diagonally to create the striking V-shape. It is believed to use 20 per cent less fuel, be more aerodynamic and still be able to carry up to 314 passengers. 





The aircraft name is derived from the moniker of the electric guitar developed by Gibson in 1958.



Designs were drawn up by Delft Technology University in the Netherlands.


KLM, the Dutch aeronautical giant, is funding the development of the unique plane. 

It has the wingspan of existing planes but is shaped like a guitar, with the nose flaring backwards diagonally to create the striking V-shape. 

Its total width is 215ft (65m) and its length will be slightly shorter, at 180 ft (55m). 

Its size makes it a comparable rival to the traditional Airbus A350 and the Boeing 787. pair of turbofan jet engines will be mounted at its rear and the design would drastically reduce both the carbon footprint of air travel and the expenditure on fuel.Pieter Elbers, the KLM chief executive, refused to reveal the exact extent of the project but it is being heralded as a potential leader in the field of 'sustainable aviation initiatives'. Its size makes it a comparable rival to the traditional Airbus A350 and the Boeing 787 and it would be able to use existing gates, hangars and runways. Its total width is 215ft (65m) and its length will be slightly shorter, at 180 ft (55m).

WHAT IS THE 'FLYING-V'? 




Details of what the inside will look like are scarce but it will inevitably allow for a range of innovative seating arrangements, rooms and fittings. 
The wings would host the passenger space, cargo hold, fuel tanks and all other infrastructure, it is believed
The wings would host the passenger space, cargo hold, fuel tanks and all other infrastructure, it is believed
Its total width is 215ft (65m) and its length will be slightly shorter, at 180 ft (55m). Details of what the inside will look like are scarcebut it will inevitably allow for a range of innovative seating arrangements, rooms and fittings
Its total width is 215ft (65m) and its length will be slightly shorter, at 180 ft (55m). Details of what the inside will look like are scarcebut it will inevitably allow for a range of innovative seating arrangements, rooms and fittings
Lightweight furniture will enable the plane to maximise its gains in fuel efficiency.   
Professor Henri Werij, dean of the university's faculty of aerospace engineering, said the object was to make aviation more sustainable, according to The Times. 
'New and energy-efficient aircraft designs such as the Flying-V are important, as are new forms of propulsion. Our ultimate aim is emission-free flight,' he said. 
The aircraft name is derived from the moniker of the electric guitar developed by Gibson in 1958.
Lightweight furniture will enable the plane to maximise its gains in fuel efficiency. Professor Henri Werij, dean of the university's faculty of aerospace engineering, said the object was to make aviation more sustainable, according to The Times
Lightweight furniture will enable the plane to maximise its gains in fuel efficiency. Professor Henri Werij, dean of the university's faculty of aerospace engineering, said the object was to make aviation more sustainable, according to The Times

Like its Russian counterpart, the American military has long been built around platforms. To pivot away from a platform-centric view of warfare is both a cultural challenge—what does it mean to be a fighter pilot without a jet, a tanker without a tank, or a sailor without a ship?—and a resource challenge. It asks the U.S. military, as well as the U.S. defense industry, to divest itself of legacy capabilities like, for example, a $13 billion Ford-class aircraft carrier, in order to invest in new, potentially less profitable technologies like, say, $6,000 Switchblade drones that can kill tanks.

 disunity among senior commanders. One of the dissenters is a former commandant, retired General Charles Krulak. “You’re divesting yourself of huge capability to buy capability that’s still on the drawing boards,” Krulak told me. “We’re being painted as a bunch of old farts who want the Marine Corps to remain as it was and don’t understand the impact of technology on warfare. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

To discount Krulak’s views would be a mistake. His tenure as commandant ushered in significant innovations for the Corps. He laid the intellectual groundwork that allowed the Corps to fight in the post-9/11 world. He also acquired the V-22 for the Marine Corps, a first-of-its-kind tilt-rotor aircraft that is both a plane and a helicopter. Berger’s strategic vision is also the first of its kind; in the event of a war with China, it imagines a 21st-century island-hopping campaign in which bands of 60 to 70 highly trained, lethally equipped Marines would infiltrate onto islands in the South Pacific to target the Chinese navy with advanced missile systems and other long-range weapons. The war at sea, in Berger’s vision, would be decided by a slew of Moskva-like engagements.

Berger’s critics don’t buy it. “The assumption that Marines can get on contested islands without being detected and conduct resupply missions is unrealistic,” Krulak said. “Plus, you’re underestimating the capability of the Chinese. The belief that these forces will shoot and scoot counts on Marines moving faster than a Chinese missile flies. You’re going to lose Marines and be unable to evacuate our wounded and dead. The Navy won’t sail in to get our wounded.”

Admiral James Stavridis, who spent much of his 40-plus-year Navy career in the South China Sea, is a believer in Berger’s vision. “The Army of tomorrow will look like the Marine Corps of today,” Stavridis told me. “What General Berger is doing is critical.” A truism among Marines is that the Corps must be at its most ready when America is at its least. In the 1930s, the Marine Corps pioneered the amphibious doctrine that would pave the way not only for the island-hopping campaigns in the Pacific but also the amphibious landings that allowed the Army to liberate Europe. Innovation, according to Stavridis, remains a core Marine mission.

The debate in the Marine Corps is more profound than the internecine politics of one service branch; it’s a debate about which form of warfare will dominate in the next decades of the 21st century, a platform-centric one or an anti-platform-centric one. Historical precedent abounds for these types of debates. Before the First World War, in the opening years of the 20th century, many militaries adhered to the cult of the offense, a then-stale belief that well-trained, determined troops would always carry the day over a defending force. In the Napoleonic Wars 100 years before, this had often proved true. But up against the 20th century’s breech-loading rifles and machine guns, the offense had become the weaker form of warfare. Tragically, it took the Marne, the Somme, and countless other bayonet charges into the teeth of chattering machine guns for the generals of that era to accept that their understanding of warfare was dated.

Representative Seth Moulton, a former Marine and Iraq War veteran who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, believes that today’s dissenting generals are failing to comprehend how much technology is changing the battlefield and how quickly the services must adapt. “When you look at what weapons are on top of the Ukrainians’ wish list,” Moulton told me, “it isn’t towed howitzers. Top of their list are armed drones, anti-tank missiles, and anti-ship missiles.”

But what if Berger is wrong? What if his “divest to invest” strategy winds up overinvesting the Marine Corps in a highly specific vision of warfare that never comes to pass? According to Moulton, much of this comes down to the role the Marine Corps has traditionally played as an incubator for new ideas as the smallest, nimblest of the services. “Our country can afford to have the Marine Corps overinvested in a new type of warfare that never comes to pass,” Moulton explained. “What our country cannot afford is to have the Marine Corps underinvested in a new type of warfare that does come to pass.”Events in Ukraine seem to validate Berger’s anti-platform-centric view of warfare, in much the same way that World War I validated those who had argued that defense had become stronger than offense. Of course, no form of warfare maintains primacy forever. Krulak made this point as we finished our conversation. “We need to be careful we don’t learn the wrong lessons from Ukraine. You have a great measure. The next thing you know they come up with a countermeasure. So you come up with a counter-countermeasure.”One of the most famous countermeasures developed after the end of the First World War was France’s Maginot Line, a physical shrine to the primacy of defense. What the French failed to account for was that in two short decades, certain developments—more advanced tanks, aircraft, and combined-arms doctrine—had once again swung the balance, allowing offense to reassume its role as the dominant form of warfare. The result was a German blitzkrieg in June 1940 that simply maneuvered around the Maginot Line.

The wager that Berger and the Marine Corps are making is that anti-platform systems won’t be an American Maginot Line, but the best way to save a generation of Americans from their own Somme or Moskva.


In the twilight of age all things seem strange and phantasmal, 

  As between daylight and dark ghost-like the landscape My heart goes back to wander there, 

And among the dreams of the days that were, 

  I find my lost youth again. 

    And the strange and beautiful song, 

    The groves are repeating it still: 

  "A boy's will is the wind's will, 

And the thoughts of youth are long, long thoughts."

I should not be withheld but that some day 

into their vastness I should steal away, 

Fearless of ever finding open land, 

or highway where the slow wheel pours the sand...RF












    On the road of life one mile-stone more!
    In the book of life one leaf turned o'er!
    Like a red seal is the setting sun
    On the good and the evil men have done,--
         Naught can to-day restore!

    Life is real!  Life is earnest!
      And the grave is not its goal;
    Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
      Was not spoken of the soul. 

    Not enjoyment, and not sorrow,
      Is our destined end or way;
    But to act, that each to-morrow
      Find us farther than to-day. 



    Art is long, and Time is fleeting,
      And our hearts, though stout and brave,
    Still, like muffled drums, are beating
      Funeral marches to the grave. 

    In the world's broad field of battle,
      In the bivouac of Life,
    Be not like dumb, driven cattle!
      Be a hero in the strife! 

    Trust no Future, howe'er pleasant!
      Let the dead Past bury its dead!
    Act,--act in the living Present!
      Heart within, and God o'erhead! 

    Lives of great men all remind us
      We can make our lives sublime,
    And, departing, leave behind us
      Footprints on the sands of time;

    Footprints, that perhaps another,
      Sailing o'er life's solemn main,
    A forlorn and shipwrecked brother,
      Seeing, shall take heart again. 

    Let us, then, be up and doing,
      With a heart for any fate;
    Still achieving, still pursuing,

      Learn to labor and to wait...


    No comments: