Triton’s Southern Latitudes are Covered by Non-Volatile Ices

On the surface composition of Triton’s southern latitudes

Authors:

Holler et al

Abstract:

We present the results of an investigation to determine the longitudinal (zonal) distributions and temporal evolution of ices on the surface of Triton. Between 2002 and 2014, we obtained 63 nights of near-infrared (0.67–2.55 μμm) spectra using the SpeX instrument at NASA’s Infrared Telescope Facility (IRTF). Triton has spectral features in this wavelength region from N2, CO, CH4, CO2, and H2O. Absorption features of ethane (C2H6) and 13CO are coincident at 2.405 μμm, a feature that we detect in our spectra. We calculated the integrated band area (or fractional band depth in the case of H2O) in each nightly average spectrum, constructed longitudinal distributions, and quantified temporal evolution for each of the chosen absorption bands. The volatile ices (N2, CO, CH4) show significant variability over one Triton rotation and have well-constrained longitudes of peak absorption. The non-volatile ices (CO2, H2O) show poorly-constrained peak longitudes and little variability. The longitudinal distribution of the 2.405 μμm band shows little variability over one Triton rotation and is 97 ±± 44°° and 92 ±± 44°° out of phase with the 1.58 μμm and 2.35 μμm CO bands, respectively. This evidence indicates that the 2.405 μμm band is due to absorption from non-volatile ethane. CH4 absorption increased over the period of the observations while absorption from all other ices showed no statistically significant change. We conclude from these results that the southern latitudes of Triton are currently dominated by non-volatile ices and as the sub-solar latitude migrates northwards, a larger quantity of volatile ice is coming into view.

Some Naval and Marine Aviation News, Including UCLASS, From DOD Authorization Act

Here's a short list:

1.  6 Additional F-35Bs for the US Marine Corps, bring their total for 2016 to 15.

2.  12 Additional F-18Es for the US Navy.

3.  An additional MQ-4C Triton.

4.  $350 million for UCLASS (navy asked for $135M).   Up to $305M may be used for competitive prototyping and at least some of it is supposed to be used for the X-49B testing to reduce the risk of UCLASS.  The committee also said:

“The conferees believe that the Navy should develop a penetrating, air-refuelable, unmanned carrier-launched aircraft capable of performing a broad range of missions in a non- permissive environment. The conferees believe that such an aircraft should be designed for full integration into carrier air wing operations—including strike operations—and possess the range, payload, and survivability attributes as necessary to complement such integration,” according to the statement.

“Although the Defense Department could develop land-based unmanned aircraft with attributes to support the air wing, the conferees believe that the United States would derive substantial strategic and operational benefits from operating such aircraft from a mobile seabase that is self-deployable and not subject to the caveats of a host nation.”

link.

Mini Crazy Thought: Triton for Carrier ISR and 2 Different UCLASS for Strike and Fleet Defense?

There is a fight right now about whether or not to make the UCLASS an ISR bird with a small strike capability or a primarily deep strike stealthy bird.

The navy already has an ISR bird.  Its the MQ-4C Triton.  Why not fly a variant (D?) off the carriers for ISR?  After all, they landed and flew a C-130 off the Forrestal as a test and the C-130 has the same wingspan as the Triton.  Most likely, the Triton would need to have an upgrade due to the fact it needs to be able to be launched off the deck and that's nontrivial.  However, between an orbit of Tritons (long distance, long endurance) and the dispersed capability of the TERN (medium endurance and distance) launched from the destroyers, cruisers and frigates, the ISR role is more than taken care of.  In fact, there ought to be a 24/7 ISR patrol if there are 5 Tritons and two TERNs per surface ship (meaning 8 per carrier battle group) of a Triton and two TERNs.

If that is the case, then the UCLASS ought to be a strike asset which can carry an ISR payload if necessary, but its main emphasis ought to be penetration and strike.  In that case, I'd guess that would mean something along the lines of Boeing, Northrop or Lockheed's designs.  The UCLASS strike asset then becomes useful for 'first day' or high risk operations.  If that is the case, a wing of 12 UCLASS would probably be appropriate.

However, in the articles I've seen on the FA-XX, the navy has expressed a desire for a F-14 replacement.  The F-14's role was as a fleet defense fighter or interceptor to prevent Soviet bombers from taking out the carrier battle group.  While the F/A-18E/F has semi filled this role since the F-14's retirement, it has a shorter combat radius (390 nm vs 500 nm) and lower maximum speed (mach 1.8 vs mach 2.34).  No drone currently being considered under the UCLASS would have the speed of either the F/A-18E or the F-14, but it actually has a longer range (18+ hours at 400 mph, there and back again is 3600 miles for an Avenger).  So that makes you wonder...could you take one of the UCLASS proposals and turn it into a Fleet Defense Fighter?

Let's take the public stats of General Atomics' Avenger Tail #2.  Tail #2 is supposed to have an internal weapons bay capacity of 1,600 kg (which we'll skip for now) and an external capability on 6 hard points of 2,900 kg.  We'll work with the external mount points first. 

As an aside, for the moment, we are going to ignore the fact you will have to do some nontrivial upgrades (like an AAW radar at the minimum!) except to acknowledge they need to happen and will have some nontrivial impacts on the aircraft design (bigger engine to produce more power for the radar and other kit which reduces range, payload, etc).

This is an air defense UCAV.  Its meant to shoot down incoming missiles and aircraft beyond the range of the surface ships defense capabilities.  The F-14 carried the Phoenix missile for this role.  This missile, while having excellent speed and range, was a monster in weight and also was retired over a decade ago.  The nearest equivalent is the British Meteor.  While possibly slower than the Phoenix, the Meteor is far, far lighter at less than half the weight.  Assuming we can mount more than one missile per external hard point, we can easily get a total of 12 Meteors on the Avenger#2.  The weight is 2,220 kg.  We are left with 680 kg: it might be then possible to mount another four AMRAAMs (no, you couldn't quite get 4 more meteors, sorry).  Not that it makes sense to consider it, but you could place 2 Stingers or Starstreak on the two remaining hard points (assuming each hard point could be used as a triple mount).  Unfortunately, 2 Sidewinders are too heavy (each is 85 kg and left over total is 72 kg...doh).

Just with this alone, you've outgunned the F-14 (at most 6 Phoenix or 4 Phoenix and 2 AMRAAM and 2 Sidewinders) or the F/A-18E/F (4 AMRAAM and 2 Sidewinders).  Here we have 12 Meteors and 4 AMRAAMs: the missile firepower of almost 3 F-14s.  However, we're not done: we have the internal weapons bay left and 1,600 kg.

Avenger with HELLADS laser

In terms of mass, you could run off and do another 8 Meteors, but in terms of volume, probably not.  I am going to suggest you do not want to 'waste' this weight with missiles.  Rather, DARPA is already planning on doing a test with General Atomics which points the way for how to use the internal weapons bay.  You put a HELLADS into it.  A what?  A Laser.  A 150 kilowatt laser.

General Atomics is already planning on putting their HELLADS laser on one of the Avenger UCAVs in 2018.  Lasers have a really, really cheap 'bullets' (ie cost per shot).  They also cannot be dodged and despite the popular sentiment you only need to mirror surface a munition, keeping it clean so that works is almost impossible.

Why use a laser?  Consider.

Place your Fleet Defense Avenger at 8,230 m (27,000 ft) at 160 km (100 mi) from the carrier between the carrier and the threat.  The distance to the horizon is 324 km (~202 mi) and theoretically, that's your engagement range.  Let's assume China or Russia have developed a kick ass, hypersonic antiship missile which flies at Mach 10 and flies almost at torpedo heights.  The Avenger will have a total engagement time before the missile passes the Avenger is 100 seconds and from the Avenger to the carrier is 50 seconds.  If it takes 20 seconds (average, pessimistically) to bag a missile with a laser, then the Avenger will take down seven with the laser and 12 with the Meteors and four with the AMRAAMs (optimistically).

The reality is modern antiship missiles have a max speed of around Mach 5.  Therefore half that of the kick ass ASM described above.  That brings the total kills from the laser now up to 15.  If you are assuming a 3M-54 Klub, then it flies at Mach .8 for most of its range and then speeds up when close the target.  Assuming 'close' means 50 km, then even before the Klubs pass the Avenger, the laser will have bagged over 67 missiles: the Klub would be obsolete, really, under these circumstances.

The immediate reaction might be to argue to replace the missiles on our Avenger with more lasers.  First of all, it will cause other problems (power generation will probably be insufficient) and if the weather is too poor, the laser will not work as well and may be constrained to four or less kills.  It is best to hedge the bets then with the laser and missiles on our Fleet Defense Avenger.

At any rate, a single FD Avenger, as a Fleet Defense Fighter/Interceptor then has the kill capability of 3 F-14s (assuming 6 Phoenix per F-14).  Now for the moment, let's assume the FD Avenger is deployed in the same numbers as the F-14 Tomcat used to be: 14 per carrier.  The equivalent potential kills would be as much as 42 Tomcats.  For fleet defense, that's excellent.  Furthermore, they can stay in the air on patrol for far, far longer than an F-14: 3x as much each.

Note, our FD Avengers are not air superiority fighters and cannot engage in dogfights or what have you.  They are meant for fleet defense, which is a very different role.  They also cannot jump to Mach 2.3 and go hunting on the other side of the fleet formation.  They are moved into position and then stay on station.  They are not interceptors in the traditional sense.








 


So, what does our carrier air wing look like?  Given Carrier Tritons, UCLASS and the FD Avenger?

The assumption is we'd still have 5 E-2x as our AWACS (etc).

There are 'now' 5 Tritons for ISR.

We would have 10 strike UCLASS.

There would be 14 FD Avengers. 

There would be 6 F-18G Growlers.

That would leave us with 20 F-35c and 24 F/A-18E/F (or FA-XX, later).

There would be a total of 6 SH-60 Seahawk for search and rescue and/or antisub work.


The 'nice' thing about the airwing above is it can potentially be put onto the carrier decks far faster than what will likely happen with the FA-XX.  Theoretically, you could squeeze in another 10 aircraft, especially if the total personnel and deck space for the drones than manned aircraft, but the aircraft carrier might pop like a balloon then from being overfull.

So, a mini crazy thought: use the Triton for ISR from the carrier and two different UCLASS for the separate missions of deep strike and fleet defense.

US Navy Needs Triton, Poseidon & UCLASS for ISR

The future of Navy long-range reconnaissance, the recently arrived MQ-4C Triton drone, sprawls across its hangar here, with a wingspan 13 feet wider than a Boeing 737 but a body that’s 80 percent lighter.

Designed for 24-hour-plus patrols at 50,000 feet, Triton still can’t do the job by itself, say both the program manager and the admiral in charge of all Navy drones. It will provide the high-altitude, theater-spanning coverage that cues more tactically-focused recon aircraft to zoom in (in both senses of the word). Primarily, that means the manned, land-based P-8 Poseidon and the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance & Strike (UCLASS) drone. That’s three tricky balls for the Navy to keep in the air at once, especially in a time of tightening budgets:

The P-8 entered service late last year and is meant to work intimately with Triton. But the equipment to let a P-8 crew see all of a Triton’s sensor data and to remotely control the drone “is unfunded at this point,” Capt. Jim Hoke, the Triton program manager, admitted to visiting reporters last week.

As for Triton, as of late October all three aircraft built so far will be at Pax River for testing. A fourth test aircraft was cut for lack of funds, and an important collision-avoidance radar is behind schedule. The drone will enter operational service in late 2017, on Guam, but the planned buy of 68 aircraft is in some doubt. We can probably get by with fewer, Hoke told reporters, because Triton will be more reliable and spend less time in maintenance than the planning models predict.

Meanwhile, the controversial UCLASS program has not yet asked industry to submit final designs: Its official Request For Proposals (RFP) is delayed pending a top-level review of the 2016 budget, because critics in both Congress and the Pentagon argue the Navy’s requirements focus too much on “surveillance” at the expense of “strike.”

We need all three aircraft, Rear Adm. Mathias Winter insisted when I got him alone during the Pax River visit. But, I asked, echoing the skeptics, why buy two different intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) drones? In essence, his answer was that the Triton is designed to meet the theater combatant commander’s needs, while UCLASS will work directly for the carrier strike group commander.

link.

US Navy MQ-4C Triton set for 2017 Service Entry

The U.S. Navy’s newest and largest drone took another step last week towards its first operational deployment in 2017 after it completed a cross country flight to Patuxent River, Maryland, where engineers will complete more tests on the MQ-4C Triton.

Navy pilots flew the Triton at altitudes of 50,000 feet from Palmdale, California, along the U.S. southern border with Mexico and up the Atlantic Coast. The 3,290 nautical mile flight took 11 hours for the Triton to complete, Navy officials said.

Officials said the Triton will fly up to 2,000 hours before it’s deployed operationally at sea. The Navy has grand plans for the Triton once it enters operational service.

“We brought Triton home to the center of research, development, test and evaluation for naval aviation,” said Rear Adm. Mat Winter, who oversees the Program Executive Office for Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons (PEO (U&W)) at NAVAIR. “The testing performed here over the next few years is critical to delivering a capability that will provide our warfighter an unparalleled awareness of the maritime environment in locations across the globe.”

The aircraft, which boasts a 130-foot wingspan and can reach altitudes of 60,000 feet, is engineered as a long-endurance surveillance platform, meaning it can stay in the air as long at 30 hours on a single mission.

Navy admirals plan to use the Triton to offer better situational awareness across the large swaths of ocean the Navy’s fleets cover. Triton will feature advanced radars that will help carrier strike groups identify enemy threats.

The Triton’s next-generation radar, called the Multi-Function Active Sensor (MFAS), is a 360-degree radar capability optimized to provide the identification of surface ships over vast areas covering thousands of miles..

link.