Gallery of USAF Weapons Note: Inventory Numbers Are Total Active Inventory Figures As of Sept
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
2018 Annual Report Our Leadership Team (From Left to Right): Frank A
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS In millions, except per share data 2018 2017 2016 Net Sales $53,762 $49,960 $47,290 Segment Operating Profit 5,877 5,092 4,982 Consolidated Operating Profit 7,334 6,744 5,888 Net Earnings From Continuing Operations 5,046 1,890 3,661 Net Earnings 5,046 1,963 5,173 Diluted Earnings Per Common Share Continuing Operations 17.59 6.50 12.08 Net Earnings 17.59 6.75 17.07 Cash Dividends Per Common Share 8.20 7.46 6.77 Average Diluted Common Shares Outstanding 287 291 303 Cash and Cash Equivalents $772$ 2,861 $ 1,837 Total Assets 44,876 46,620 47,560 Total Debt, net 14,104 14,263 14,282 Total Equity (Deficit) 1,449 (776) 1,477 Common Shares Outstanding at Year-End 281 284 289 Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities $3,138 $ 6,476 $ 5,189 NOTE: For additional information regarding the amounts presented above, see the Form 10-K portion of this Annual Report. A reconciliation of Segment Operating Profit to Consolidated Operating Profit is included on the page preceding the back cover of this Annual Report. On the Cover: F-35B Lightning II On September 29, 2018, the first F-35B Lightning II stealth fighters landed on the flight deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth, as Britain’s newest Royal Navy aircraft carrier conducted trials off the Eastern Seaboard of the United States. These developmental trials included more than 500 take-offs and landings from the warship over an 11-week period. The F-35B is one of three variants of the world’s most advanced supersonic fifth-generation fighter jet. -
Transformation-Optics-Based Design of a Metamaterial Radome For
IEEE JOURNAL ON MULTISCALE AND MULTIPHYSICS COMPUTATIONAL TECHNIQUES, VOL. 2, 2017 159 Transformation-Optics-Based Design of a Metamaterial Radome for Extending the Scanning Angle of a Phased-Array Antenna Massimo Moccia, Giuseppe Castaldi, Giuliana D’Alterio, Maurizio Feo, Roberto Vitiello, and Vincenzo Galdi, Fellow, IEEE Abstract—We apply the transformation-optics approach to the the initial focus on EM, interest has rapidly spread to other design of a metamaterial radome that can extend the scanning an- disciplines [4], and multiphysics applications are becoming in- gle of a phased-array antenna. For moderate enhancement of the creasingly relevant [5]–[7]. scanning angle, via suitable parameterization and optimization of the coordinate transformation, we obtain a design that admits a Metamaterial synthesis has several traits in common technologically viable, robust, and potentially broadband imple- with inverse-scattering problems [8], and likewise poses mentation in terms of thin-metallic-plate inclusions. Our results, some formidable computational challenges. Within the validated via finite-element-based numerical simulations, indicate emerging framework of “metamaterial-by-design” [9], the an alternative route to the design of metamaterial radomes that “transformation-optics” (TO) approach [10], [11] stands out does not require negative-valued and/or extreme constitutive pa- rameters. as a systematic strategy to analytically derive the idealized material “blueprints” necessary to implement a desired field- Index Terms—Metamaterials, -
Air Force Next-Generation Bomber: Background and Issues for Congress
Air Force Next-Generation Bomber: Background and Issues for Congress Jeremiah Gertler Specialist in Military Aviation December 22, 2009 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL34406 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Air Force Next-Generation Bomber: Background and Issues for Congress Summary As part of its proposed FY2010 defense budget, the Administration proposed deferring the start of a program to develop a next-generation bomber (NGB) for the Air Force, pending the completion of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and associated Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), and in light of strategic arms control negotiations with Russia. The Administration’s proposed FY2010 budget requested no funding specifically identified in public budget documents as being for an NGB program. Prior to the submission of the FY2010 budget, the Air Force was conducting research and development work aimed at fielding a next-generation bomber by 2018. Although the proposed FY2010 defense budget proposed deferring the start of an NGB program, the Secretary of Defense and Air Force officials in 2009 have expressed support for the need to eventually start such a program. The Air Force’s FY2010 unfunded requirements list (URL)—a list of programs desired by the Air Force but not funded in the Air Force’s proposed FY2010 budget—includes a classified $140-million item that some press accounts have identified as being for continued work on a next-generation bomber. FY2010 defense authorization bill: The conference report (H.Rept. 111-288 of October 7, 2009) on the FY2010 defense authorization act (H.R. -
L AUNCH SYSTEMS Databk7 Collected.Book Page 18 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM Databk7 Collected.Book Page 19 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM
databk7_collected.book Page 17 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM CHAPTER TWO L AUNCH SYSTEMS databk7_collected.book Page 18 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM databk7_collected.book Page 19 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM CHAPTER TWO L AUNCH SYSTEMS Introduction Launch systems provide access to space, necessary for the majority of NASA’s activities. During the decade from 1989–1998, NASA used two types of launch systems, one consisting of several families of expendable launch vehicles (ELV) and the second consisting of the world’s only partially reusable launch system—the Space Shuttle. A significant challenge NASA faced during the decade was the development of technologies needed to design and implement a new reusable launch system that would prove less expensive than the Shuttle. Although some attempts seemed promising, none succeeded. This chapter addresses most subjects relating to access to space and space transportation. It discusses and describes ELVs, the Space Shuttle in its launch vehicle function, and NASA’s attempts to develop new launch systems. Tables relating to each launch vehicle’s characteristics are included. The other functions of the Space Shuttle—as a scientific laboratory, staging area for repair missions, and a prime element of the Space Station program—are discussed in the next chapter, Human Spaceflight. This chapter also provides a brief review of launch systems in the past decade, an overview of policy relating to launch systems, a summary of the management of NASA’s launch systems programs, and tables of funding data. The Last Decade Reviewed (1979–1988) From 1979 through 1988, NASA used families of ELVs that had seen service during the previous decade. -
Gallery of USAF Weapons Note: Inventory Numbers Are Total Active Inventory figures As of Sept
Gallery of USAF Weapons Note: Inventory numbers are total active inventory figures as of Sept. 30, 2014. By Aaron M. U. Church, Associate Editor I 2015 USAF Almanac BOMBER AIRCRAFT flight controls actuate trailing edge surfaces that combine aileron, elevator, and rudder functions. New EHF satcom and high-speed computer upgrade B-1 Lancer recently entered full production. Both are part of the Defensive Management Brief: A long-range bomber capable of penetrating enemy defenses and System-Modernization (DMS-M). Efforts are underway to develop a new VLF delivering the largest weapon load of any aircraft in the inventory. receiver for alternative comms. Weapons integration includes the improved COMMENTARY GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator and JASSM-ER and future weapons The B-1A was initially proposed as replacement for the B-52, and four pro- such as GBU-53 SDB II, GBU-56 Laser JDAM, JDAM-5000, and LRSO. Flex- totypes were developed and tested in 1970s before program cancellation in ible Strike Package mods will feed GPS data to the weapons bays to allow 1977. The program was revived in 1981 as B-1B. The vastly upgraded aircraft weapons to be guided before release, to thwart jamming. It also will move added 74,000 lb of usable payload, improved radar, and reduced radar cross stores management to a new integrated processor. Phase 2 will allow nuclear section, but cut maximum speed to Mach 1.2. The B-1B first saw combat in and conventional weapons to be carried simultaneously to increase flexibility. Iraq during Desert Fox in December 1998. -
National Guard and Reserve Equipment Report for FY2015
NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 (NGRER FY 2015) (In Accordance with Section 10541, Title 10, United States Code) March 2014 Prepared by Department of Defense Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Materiel and Facilities) COL Denise L. Loring, Editor Washington, DC 20301-1500 The estimated cost of this report for the Department of Defense is approximately $292,000 in Fiscal Years 2013–2014. Generated on 2014Feb28 RefID: 0-43F5A8A OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 1500 DEFENSE PENTAGON WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1500 FOREWORD The Reserve Component (RC) allows for expanded capacity and capability as a cost-effective part of the Total Force with global reach and flexibility. Since 2001, the RC has supported more than 875,000 mobilizations worldwide. Budgetary pressures will continue to require astute management of reduced resources to mitigate their effects. The RC provides capability and capacity at a reduced cost in a time of funding reductions across all components. The RC, when integrated as part of the operational force during armed conflict and peacetime, provides for a cost-effective force mix at acceptable levels of risk to support the defense strategy. The RC equipment levels are at some of the highest levels in history; however this era of postwar fiscal reductions will bring significant equipping challenges over the next several years. The Department has made strides in enhancing equipment transparency and accountability, but has not yet attained transparency into the Services procurement and distribution processes and outcomes. The Department must explore other options, such as separating the RC procurement funding, to meet the intent of the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve initiatives on equipping inadequacies between Active Component (AC) and RC. -
Program Acquisition Cost by Weapon System Major Weapon Systems OVERVIEW
The estimated cost of this report or study for the Department of Defense is approximately $32,000 for the 2017 Fiscal Year. This includes $13,000 in expenses and $19,000 in DoD labor. Generated on 2017May03 RefID: E-7DE12B0 FY 2018 Program Acquisition Cost by Weapon System Major Weapon Systems OVERVIEW The combined capabilities and performance of United States (U.S.) weapon systems are unmatched throughout the world, ensuring that U.S. military forces have the advantage over any adversary. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 acquisition funding request for the Department of Defense (DoD) budget totals $208.6 billion, which includes base funding and Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding; $125.2 billion for Procurement funded programs and $83.3 billion for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) funded programs. Of the $208.6 billion, $94.9 billion is for programs that have been designated as Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs). This book focuses on all funding for the key MDAP programs. To simplify the display of the various weapon systems, this book is organized by the following mission area categories: Mission Area Categories • Aircraft & Related Systems • Missiles and Munitions • Command, Control, Communications, • Mission Support Activities Computers, and Intelligence (C4I) Systems • RDT&E Science & Technology • Ground Systems • Shipbuilding and Maritime Systems • Missile Defense Programs • Space Based Systems FY 2018 Modernization – Total: $208.6 Billion ($ in Billions) Space Based Aircraft & Systems Related $9.8 -
Gallery of USAF Weapons Note: Inventory Numbers Are Total Active Inventory Figures As of Sept
Gallery of USAF Weapons Note: Inventory numbers are total active inventory figures as of Sept. 30, 2011. ■ 2012 USAF Almanac Bombers B-1 Lancer Brief: A long-range, air refuelable multirole bomber capable of flying intercontinental missions and penetrating enemy defenses with the largest payload of guided and unguided weapons in the Air Force inventory. Function: Long-range conventional bomber. Operator: ACC, AFMC. First Flight: Dec. 23, 1974 (B-1A); Oct. 18, 1984 (B-1B). Delivered: June 1985-May 1988. IOC: Oct. 1, 1986, Dyess AFB, Tex. (B-1B). Production: 104. Inventory: 66. Aircraft Location: Dyess AFB, Tex.; Edwards AFB, Calif.; Eglin AFB, Fla.; Ellsworth AFB, S.D. Contractor: Boeing, AIL Systems, General Electric. Power Plant: four General Electric F101-GE-102 turbofans, each 30,780 lb thrust. Accommodation: pilot, copilot, and two WSOs (offensive and defensive), on zero/zero ACES II ejection seats. Dimensions: span 137 ft (spread forward) to 79 ft (swept aft), length 146 ft, height 34 ft. B-1B Lancer (SSgt. Brian Ferguson) Weight: max T-O 477,000 lb. Ceiling: more than 30,000 ft. carriage, improved onboard computers, improved B-2 Spirit Performance: speed 900+ mph at S-L, range communications. Sniper targeting pod added in Brief: Stealthy, long-range multirole bomber that intercontinental. mid-2008. Receiving Fully Integrated Data Link can deliver nuclear and conventional munitions Armament: three internal weapons bays capable of (FIDL) upgrade to include Link 16 and Joint Range anywhere on the globe. accommodating a wide range of weapons incl up to Extension data link, enabling permanent LOS and Function: Long-range heavy bomber. -
Aerodynamic Performance Study of a Modern Blended- Wing-Body Aircraft Under Severe Weather Situations
CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Tamkang University Institutional Repository Aerodynamic Performance Study of a Modern Blended- Wing-Body Aircraft Under Severe Weather Situations Tung Wan1 and Bo-Chang Song2 Department of Aerospace Engineering, Tamkang University, Tamsui, Taipei, 251, Taiwan, Republic of China Due to the high fuel cost in recent years, more efficient flight vehicle configurations are urgently needed. Studies have shown remarkable performance improvements for the Blended-Wing-Body (BWB) over conventional subsonic transport. Also, aircraft during taking-off and landing might face strong crosswind and heavy rain, and these effects may be even more detrimental for BWB due to its peculiar configuration. In this study, a 3-D BWB is first constructed and numerically validated, and heavy rain effects are simulated mainly through two-phase flow approach. Three crosswinds considered are 10m/s, 20m/s and 30m/s, and the resulting BWB’s low speed stability derivative values under crosswind are different from typical transport, representing the intrinsic nature of BWB static unstable tendency. Also, the heavy rain influence to BWB is that lift decrease and drag increase at all angle of attack spectra, and liquid water content of 39g/m3 is more detrimental than 25g/m3, with maximum reduction of lift at 0 degree and maximum increase of drag at 6 degree angle of attack during taking-off and landing. The degradation in maximum lift to drag ratio could reach a stunning 10 to 15 percent at low angle of attack attitude. Nomenclature CL Lift coefficient CD Drag coefficient Cl Rolling-moment coefficient Cm Pitching-moment coefficient Cn Yawing-moment coefficient α Angle of attack, deg β Side-slip angle, deg L/D Lift to Drag Ratio dp Droplet particle diameter Re Reynolds number I. -
Windshear Radar Calibration: Transmitter Power and Receiver Gain Stability
NASA Technical Memorandum 107589 Windshear Radar Calibration: Transmitter Power and Receiver Gain Stability Anne I. Mackenzie June 1992 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Langley Research Center Hampton, Virginia 23665-5225 I . INTRODUCT ION During 1991, the Antenna and Microwave Research Branch began its Windshear Radar Experiment flights onboard the Boeing 737 airplane owned by NASA Langley. Experiment team members used a radio frequency (RF) test set to check the radar transmitter power and receiver gain on the airplane before and after flights. This document contains the results of power measurements and gain and noise calculations done to characterize the radar stability over a period of months. The RF test set was manufactured by IFR Inc. and shall be referred to here as the IFR test unit. The test unit performed two functions: it measured the radar transmitter power and provided known signal inputs to the radar receiver. Upon receiving the test signal inputs, the windshear radar recorded the automatic gain control (AGC) attenuation applied to the signal and the resulting in-phase and quadrature ( I,Q) detected voltages of the signal. From those recorded values, receiver gain and receiver noise power have been calculated. I,Q CHASSIS 2 MHz ori IFR TEST COLLINS 7 MHz- i IF i VIDEO i I,Q TAPE > R/T ~BANDPASS[SECTION~SECTION~DETECTOR~RECORDER FILTER j G=30dB CONSTANT RECEIVER GAIN CALCULATED LRECEIVER NO ISE POWER CALCULATED Figure 1.-Simplified block diagram of the Windshear Radar receiver showing the portions characterized by the system gain and noise. Figure 1 shows major portions of the receiver system which are characterized by the gain and noise power calculations described here. -
FY 2007 Unfunded Priority List (UPL)
FY 2007 Unfunded Priority List (UPL) Feb 2006 SAF/FMB POC Budget and Appropriations Liaison Office (703) 614-8110 FY 2007 UNFUNDED PRIORITY LIST INDEX FY2007 UNFUNDED PRIORITY LIST EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................. 4 NARRATIVES FOR TOP 16 PRIORITIES 1. National Defense Airlift Fund Capability Upgrades................................................ 10 2. AFSOC Predator.................................................................................................... 13 3. A-10 Modifications ................................................................................................. 16 4. Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) ............................................. 21 5. Armored Security Vehicles .................................................................................... 34 6. M-4 Carbine........................................................................................................... 37 7. SNIPER Pod Procurement and Advanced Targeting Pod (ATP) Research .......... 41 8. Guardian Angel Combat Equipment ...................................................................... 45 9. ICBM Security Modernization ................................................................................ 49 10. Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) - Focused Lethality Munition (FLM)......................... 53 11. AF Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Emergency Response ........................ 56 12. B-1/B-52 Deployable Phase Maintenance Kits ...................................................... 61 13. B-2 Satellite -
AFDD 2-8 Command and Control
Cover Sheet for Air Force Doctrine Document (AFDD) 6-0, Command and Control OPR: LeMay Center/DD 28 July 2011 AFDD numbering has changed to correspond with the joint doctrine publication numbering architecture (the AFDD titles remain unchanged until the doctrine is revised). Any AFDD citations within the documents will list the old AFDD numbers until the doctrine is revised. The changed numbers follow: OLD NEW TITLE AFDD 2-1 changed to AFDD 3-1 Air Warfare AFDD 2-1.1 changed to AFDD 3-01 Counterair Operations AFDD 2-1.2 changed to AFDD 3-70 Strategic Attack AFDD 2-1.3 changed to AFDD 3-03 Counterland Operations AFDD 2-1.4 changed to AFDD 3-04 Countersea Operations AFDD 2-1.6 changed to AFDD 3-50 Personnel Recovery Operations AFDD 2-1.7 changed to AFDD 3-52 Airspace Control AFDD 2-1.8 changed to AFDD 3-40 Counter-CBRN AFDD 2-1.9 changed to AFDD 3-60 Targeting AFDD 2-10 changed to AFDD 3-27 Homeland Operations AFDD 2-12 changed to AFDD 3-72 Nuclear Operations AFDD 2-2 changed to AFDD 3-14 Space Operations AFDD 2-2.1 changed to AFDD 3-14.1 Counterspace Operations AFDD 2-3 changed to AFDD 3-24 Irregular Warfare AFDD 2-3.1 changed to AFDD 3-22 Foreign Internal Defense AFDD 2-4 changed to AFDD 4-0 Combat Support AFDD 2-4.1 changed to AFDD 3-10 Force Protection AFDD 2-4.2 changed to AFDD 4-02 Health Services AFDD 2-4.4 changed to AFDD 4-11 Bases, Infrastructure, and Facilities [Rescinded] AFDD 2-4.5 changed to AFDD 1-04 Legal Support AFDD 2-5 changed to AFDD 3-13 Information Operations AFDD 2-5.1 changed to AFDD 3-13.1 Electronic Warfare AFDD