International Aerospace Discussion

[shiv]

Indranil, agree with you. This is a table top helipad take off. The 'valley' winds will be different from helipad. The helicopter did a sudden transition from OGE to IGE (That is for sure).

You mean IGE to OGE?

[brar_w]

Aviation Week attempting to connect some dots ;

Opinion: Looking For Answers To The Navy’s Uclass Mystery

http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion ... ss-mystery

What’s going on with the Pentagon’s longest-running drama, the Navy’s Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (Uclass) program? After years of factional intrigue that made Borgia politics look like a Dick & Jane reader, the debate about Uclass specifications has been declared not over, but deferred. (How can there not be enough data to make a decision?) But instead of redoubling their lobbying, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman appear to have walked away.

In January, market analysts grilled Boeing CEO Jim McNerney about the future of the company’s St. Louis operations, which were facing the shutdown of their fighter programs. He seemed unworried—and whatever you think of Boeing/Lockheed Martin’s chances in the Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRSB) contest, neither side has a contract in hand.

Then the U.S. Naval Institute’s Proceedings website reported that Uclass had been designated RAQ-25. Under Pentagon rules, programs don’t get designators; only vehicles do.

U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), a member of the cabal that has been pushing for a high-end Uclass, was discreet in an early-February discussion. “I’m pretty comfortable with the direction that the program is taking,” he said. “I’m not trying to be vague. I just don’t want to go to jail.”

Deputy Defense Secretary Robert O. Work (a supporter of unmanned combat air systems in his previous jobs) explained the Uclass delay in February comments: “In addition to looking at capabilities that we already have and using them differently, we’re going to make sure . . . that when we go after a new platform, it’s the platform that we need from a joint perspective.”

A joint platform is a U.S. Air Force/Navy program—the term can have no other meaning—but if Work is arranging a marriage for Uclass, where’s the bridegroom? When orbital patterns are so disturbed, it’s time to look for a dark planet somewhere in the system.

In October 2010, Maj. Gen. Dave Scott, head of the Air Force’s operational requirements directorate, gave a briefing that disclosed the service’s plans for a long-range strike family of systems (LRS-FoS)—plans that then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates approved a few months later.

Three family members are real today: LRSB, the Long-Range Standoff cruise missile and a “penetrating intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance” (P-ISR) vehicle, which is Northrop Grumman’s secret RQ-180. (A fourth, Conventional Prompt Global Strike, was dropped like a bad habit as soon as the Pentagon’s exit door closed behind its leading advocate, and was replaced by the Minuteman follow-on.)

That leaves one: Penetrating Airborne Electronic Attack (P-AEA). In the LRS-FoS plan, RQ-180 would find targets for LRSB and the P-AEA would suppress defenses. Together, they fill the capabilities gap between the cost-constrained LRSB and the Battlestar-Galactica Next-Generation Bomber (NGB) that Gates canceled in 2009.

Also, after P-AEA appeared in Scott’s briefing, the Air Force terminated its nascent MQ-X project, leaving itself with no visible solution to an obvious problem, which is a large force of MQ-9 Reapers that can be shot down with World War II weapons.

P-AEA appears in no known plan, but you need not dig very deep into the Air Force’s fiscal 2016 budget to find $7 billion in classified acquisition money that is neither part of the cash that the Pentagon launders for the intelligence community, nor the LRSB.

And between early 2007, when Boeing became Lockheed Martin’s partner on the NGB, and October 2013, when the companies re-partnered with Boeing in the front seat, St. Louis proved it had the chops to be publicly and unequivocally identified as the lead on that huge, critical and complex program. Boeing’s stealth expertise has been shown in the X-36, X-45, Bird of Prey and Phantom Ray, but that’s still not the same as delivering and sustaining a complete system.

What follows is a speculative scenario, an exercise in the risky art of connect-the-dots:

A classified P-AEA program started in 2011-12. It may have involved flight demonstrations. Quite recently, Boeing won it, hence McNerney’s confidence about St Louis’s future. It’s been designated RAQ-25, indicating it has a strike capability, and as well as pathfinding for the LRSB, it takes on the MQ-X role. RAQ-25 is somewhere in that $7 billion slush fund.

Work’s comments about “capabilities that we already have” indicate he and other leaders are pushing for a joint Air Force/Navy program based on the RAQ-25. The delay in Uclass allows time for a carrier variant to be demonstrated, and competitors have deemed the battle half over.

Returning to known facts:

This would be exactly the same as the solution proposed in October by a Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments paper on the Pentagon’s Third Offset plan for a future U.S. military. You almost wonder if they knew something.

Certain observations:

- Its long been known that the B-3 is not just a bomber but a family of systems (they have virtually spelled this out over the last few years) and that some components have been in production for a while now (The Texas sightings have been reported by AvWeek as well).

- It has been claimed repeatedly, on and off since the mid to late 90's that Boeing has developed a vast expertise in stealth through classified and de-classified efforts (prototypes and other projects). It prompted a senior officer within the USAF to publicly acknowledge this 10-12 years ago in a Janes report. The fact that The Skunk Works agreed to be a junior partner to Boeing on both the Next Generation Bomber, and the Long Range Strike Bomber only goes to show the level of design expertise they have gathered. This was one of the positives to come off from the MD and Boeing merger as that opened a huge potential IRAD effort for the Phantom Works given Boeing's cash situation.

- I briefly touched the P-AEA mission requirement a few months ago in a post about Electronic Warfare in response to Arthuro's post on the Rafale and spectra l here.. People have poorly reported, and many folks wrongly understand the nature of electronic warfare and the differing and wide ranging activities between the USAF and USN. The ignorant media has taken the cancellation of the CCJ (Core Component Jammer) and the subsequent MASSIVE investment into the highly capable Next Generation Jammer program as a sign that the USAF and USN are picking sides between stealth and electronic warfare. Boeing PR has used this to no real avail (CNO said that they are happy with the level of Growlers just yesterday). The Bottom line is that the USAF's Forward anti-IAD force would include :

- B-2 and B-1 Bombers
- F-22 and F-35 fighters
- Long Range Strike Family

The USN's force would include many different aircraft, most of which are not stealthy. Therefore the two services cannot converge when it comes to which portion of the EM spectrum or the EW/EA mission to cover from an investment perspective. The USAF would continue to pour money into areas where it needs EW/EA and the USN would begin things off with a mid-range jammer while not fielding something that can comprehensively cover the VHF and UHF radars till close to 2030. The USAF would most likely go in a reverse order. Add to that the fact that the USAF is looking at a penetrating option, while the Navy is forced to explore a Stand-Off option. The P-AEA mission set allows you to do things that the stands off mission doesn't unless you go crazy with the power.

- Bill Sweetman was a bit sloppy at describing the Prompt Global Strike Mission. That Mission was never cancelled, but it was de-linked from the Long Range Strike Mission. These are now 2 separate programs. Even prompt Global Strike has been further broken down to tactical strike using Air to Air platforms (Bombers and fighter) and very long range strike using conventional ICBM's. The debate on whether to use BM's for conventional purposes is still ongoing although I personally don't see it much of a problem if the adversary has no issues in sending conventional payloads in a ballistic profile (China).

The Tactical program to develop a prompt strike weapon was formulated soon after the conclusion of the record breaking X-51 Waverider and a total of 600 Million Dollars has been allocated to it. The program is called High Speed Strike Weapon and Lockheed and Boeing have come forward with their designs.

Here is Lockheed's Weapon : http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/produc ... ssw--.html



From what is known - Mach 5+ Speed with a range of close to 500 nm. It is to be used internally on the current and future bombers while externally on the stealth fighters.

Mystery Aircraft Over Texas - http://aviationweek.com/blog/mystery-ai ... over-texas

Three of us here - myself, Graham Warwick and Guy Norris - concur that the photos show something real. Guy and I have known Steve Douglass for a long time, and know that the reason that he sees (and monitors by radio) unusual things is that he spends time looking for them. Here is Steve's account of one of his better radio intercepts. This is more than a random image.

The photos tell us more about what the mysterious stranger isn't than what it is. The size is very hard to determine, for example, although the image size at contrailing height suggests that it is bigger than an X-47B. However, the basic shape - while it resembles Boeing's Blended Wing Body studies or the Swift Killer Bee/Northrop Grumman Bat unmanned air system - is different from anything known to have flown at full size, lacking the notched trailing edge of Northrop Grumman's full-size designs.

The aircraft seen here was accompanied by two others. This and the fact that Steve picked up some apparently related voice traffic suggests that the aircraft is piloted: I doubt that you'd dispatch three large, classified unmanned aircraft anywhere in formation. The risk of a midair would be present, and such an event would be non-career-optimal.

[deejay]

Indranil, agree with you. This is a table top helipad take off. The 'valley' winds will be different from helipad. The helicopter did a sudden transition from OGE to IGE (That is for sure).

You mean IGE to OGE?

Yes Sir, I did. Sorry and thank you for correcting.

Corrected in the original.

[shiv]

Corrected in the original.

I have a question because I have no idea. The Ecuadorian helo yawed to one side soon after its shadow passed over the cliff and then sank.

If a helo moves from IGE to OGE it would the pilot not be required to provide extra thrust ("collective" or whatever that is called in Helo jargon) to account for the loss of lift in moving from IGE to OGE. And if extra power is applied, would that not increase torque on main rotor and cause a tendency to yaw, needing correction by use of rudder pedal?

[deejay]

I have a question because I have no idea. The Ecuadorian helo yawed to one side soon after its shadow passed over the cliff and then sank.

If a helo moves from IGE to OGE it would the pilot not be required to provide extra thrust ("collective" or whatever that is called in Helo jargon) to account for the loss of lift in moving from IGE to OGE. And if extra power is applied, would that not increase torque on main rotor and cause a tendency to yaw, needing correction by use of rudder pedal?

You are correct. My view was that the pilot did apply collective but was inadequate (owing to down draught may be) and definitely did not apply adequate rudder.

As the downward motion aggravated there was a distinct possibility of getting into a Tail Rotor Vortex.

But, this is speculative and almost a similar situation will also happen in case of engine failure.

[shiv]

But, this is speculative and almost a similar situation will also happen in case of engine failure.

I have this habit of watching such videos again and again and again. In fact - for a brief moment just before the end of the video the helo suddenly accelerates down as if hit by a downdraft, but yes it will remain speculative.

[PratikDas]

That is very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Thank you and to @writetake for sharing it on Twitter.

[brar_w]

Inside The Roc's Lair


http://aviationweek.com/blog/inside-rocs-lair

The massive size of the carrier aircraft now in assembly at Mojave, California, for Stratolaunch Systems’s space launch program is apparent for the first time in these rare stills taken from footage shot for a recent news story by KGET 17, a Bakersfield TV station.

The NBC affiliate was granted unprecedented access to film the gargantuan vehicle, dubbed ‘Roc’ after the giant bird of prey in Middle East mythology, as part of an overview report on space-related developments at Mojave. Although Stratolaunch has produced computer-generated images and videos of the Roc, the TV footage is the first time images of the real vehicle in a substantial state of completion have been shown.

Built for Stratolaunch by Scaled Composites, the Roc will be the largest aircraft ever made with a wingspan of 385 ft. This compares to 320 ft for the Hughes H-4 Hercules (Spruce Goose), 290 ft for the six-engined Antonov An-225, 262 ft. for the Airbus A380, and 225 ft. for the Boeing 747-8. Powered by six reconditioned Pratt & Whitney PW4056 engines salvaged along with other parts from two ex-United Airlines Boeing 747-400s, the twin-fuselage carrier aircraft resembles a vastly enlarged version of the Scaled-built WhiteKnightTwo developed for Virgin Galactic.





In the news report, Scaled Composites president Kevin Mickey says the company has so far built “roughly 200,000 lb. of composite structure” for the vehicle. He adds for effect that if the Roc was positioned on the centerline of the 50 yard line of an American football field the wingtips would hang over the goalposts “roughly 15 ft. on each side.”Each of the twin fuselages of the Roc is 238-ft. long and, when complete, will be supported by 12 main landing gear wheels and two nose gear wheels for a total shipset of 28 wheels. The vehicle will be flown by a three-person crew from a cockpit situated in the right hand fuselage. The three-stage Thunderbolt rocket will be carried aloft for launch mounted beneath the wing center section.

Flight tests are scheduled to begin in around a year’s time, with initial launch operations starting in 2018. According to the latest information from Stratolaunch, the Orbital Sciences-built Thunderbolt will be 131-ft long, and weigh around 550,000 lb. Overall weight of the Roc and Thunderbolt will be 1.3 million lbs. The launch vehicle is designed to put 13,500 lb. into a 220 naut. mile, 28.5 degree (LEO) orbit. Payloads will be enclosed within a 16.4-ft diameter fairing. The three-stage vehicle will use ATK-provided solid rocket motors for the first and second stages, while the third will be powered by two liquid-fueled Aerojet Rocketdyne RL10C engines.

Video-

[Philip]

Scaremongering? If the UK forces are so weak,why then is the Moron of Cam sending UK forces to the UKR?! Surely he cannot think that the Russians will simply keep quiet and not sabre rattle themselves when NATO forces have also increased their activities significantly in Poland and the Baltic states? If Soviet era Bear turboprop bombers can worry the Brits,then the Russians with a host of new advanced weaponry available could give the Brits a real nightmare.

Britain 'at mercy' of Putin in a war against Russia, former defence chiefs warn
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 58543.html

Jon Stone
Friday 20 February 2015
Former defence chiefs have questioned whether the UK’s air defences would be adequate in the event of a conflict with Russia.

The warning comes days after RAF jets were scrambled to intercept two Russian strategic bombers flying in international airspace off the coast of Cornwall.

Sir Michael Graydon, a former chief of the air staff, told The Times newspaper: “They have got us more or less at their mercy. We only have two bases where we have got Typoons. One is in Scotland, one is in Lincolnshire. "The guys in Lincolnshire were having to go all the way down to Cornwall just to get anywhere near."

Air Commodore Andrew Lambert, formerly the RAF’s director of defence studies, told the Daily Mail that the Royal Air Force would likely be overwhelmed by sheer numbers in the event of a Russian attack despite having state of the art technology.

A Russian Bear 'H' aircraft photographed from an intercepting RAF Typhoon near UK airspace A Russian Bear 'H' aircraft photographed from an intercepting RAF Typhoon near UK airspace

The Wednesday incident led to two Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft taking off from RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire and escorting the Russian planes.

The Tupolev Tu-95 ‘Bear’ bombers are generally used as maritime patrol aircraft but can be adapted to be used as cruise missile platform.

Sir Michael explained that the flights by the Russian aircraft were designed to test Britain’s air defence response and that the country’s military commanders would have “probably worked out we are not as sharp as we were”.

Nato chiefs also claim Russia has stepped up air patrols over the Baltic sea.

David Cameron dismissed the incident, saying yesterday: “I suspect what’s happening here is the Russians are trying to make some sort of a point, and I don’t think we should dignify it with too much of a response.”

But Russia's deputy foreign minister responded angrily to claims by Defence Secretary Michael Fallon yesterday that the country posed a “real and present danger” to the three Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.

Alexander Lukashevich said the comments were “beyond diplomatic ethics”.

According to a 2013 report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Britain spends 2.4% of its GDP on defence, while Russia spends 3.1%. China spends 1.2% and the United States spends 3.7%.

[member_28756]

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... es-409599/

Boeing holds out for more Super Hornet sales

By: Greg WaldronSingaporeSource: Flightglobal.com This story is sourced from Flightglobal.com 3 hours ago

Boeing remains bullish about the prospects for more sales of its F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet overseas, as the end of production in late 2016 starts to loom.

Chris Raymond, vice-president, business development and strategy for Boeing Defense, Space & Security, says the type is still being pitched to several countries, with potential interest in Malaysia, Europe, the Middle East and possibly also the USA.
“We have to evaluate all these competitions against the timing of the assembly line,” says Raymond. “You don’t want to stop, but you’ve got to be thoughtful about what delivery schedules will be and what the status of the line will be at that time, because you’ve got to factor this into your pricing.”
Raymond was speaking to Flightglobal at the Aero India show in Bengaluru in mid-February.

One key campaign is Kuala Lumpur’s multirole combat aircraft (MRCA) requirement for 18 fighters, which will be in the spotlight at the biennial Langkawi International Maritime & Aerospace (LIMA) exhibition during the third week of March. The MRCA is envisaged as a replacement for Malaysia’s 10 obsolete RAC MiG-29s. But politics and funding issues have put a brake on the long-running requirement.

Boeing has sent Super Hornets to the last few iterations of the LIMA show, including displaying a potential conformal fuel tank enhancement (above). Other candidates for MRCA include the Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab Gripen NG.
“We take any competition for more fighters seriously,” says Raymond. “There is no arguing that [MRCA] has been talked about for a long time, but we have to keep pursuing it. Hopefully the politics and budget will be right for it to move forward at some time.”
Raymond also sees an opportunity for the Super Hornet in Canada, where a recent government report suggested that other fighters are just as capable of meeting the country’s needs as the Lockheed Martin F-35A. It is also eyeing a potential need in Denmark, which has a programme to replace its Lockheed F-16s.

“There are also a couple of countries in the Middle East expressing interest, but we’re not able to disclose those,” says Raymond. “There is some exploration going on around both the Super Hornet and also the [Boeing] F-15.”
Bahrain and Kuwait have previously been regarded as potential Super Hornet buyers.
Raymond estimates that there could also be opportunities to sell more F/A-18 E/Fs or the type’s electronic warfare variant, the EA-18G Growler, to the US Navy.

“There are some noises being made about inventory shortfalls they may have, or electronic attack requirements. We’ll see how the congressional process plays out this year.” He notes that the navy’s existing Super Hornet fleet has also seen extensive use, potentially creating a requirement for additional airframes

[brar_w]

A400M Faces Production Challenges in 2015

http://aviationweek.com/blog/a400m-face ... enges-2015

The A400M is not yet out of the woods. Airbus had to add a charge of €551 million ($620 million) in the last quarter of 2014 owing to delivery delays to the program's partner nations. The company is currently renegotiating delivery schedules and enhancement with its customers.

The problems cited by the manufacturer in its full-year 2014 earnings release Feb. 27 include military functionality challenges and industrial ramp-up. The company has announced that management actions have been launched to secure future deliveries. Airbus has now to explain if it will change its production schedule for 2015.
Initially, the company was supposed to deliver 22 aircraft to at least four customers (France, Malaysia, Germany, U.K.) The new management, appointed in January, has to solve one of Airbus's biggest problems. A Feb. 10 meeting in Berlin with the military managers was supposed to give new guidance and discuss the new schedule ahead, including possible compensation for customers.

[Lisa]

Via E-mail,

FORMATION LANDING

http://www.chonday.com/Videos/laformajet3

[Singha]

good footage of a u2 mission to 70,000ft

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJoMDq4AyLc

[brar_w]

^^ Top gear also did a SR71 clip that is pretty good..

[Sid]

^^ Top gear also did a SR71 clip that is pretty good..

Clarkson looking like a young chimp? How old is this video?

[brar_w]

I think from the 90's..An interesting story of the SR-71 capability was the "rocket ride", which was a time-altitude-speed competition between SR pilots to get form break release to 80K feet and Mach 3. The internal record was 15 minutes from break release on the runway to a speed of mach 3 at an altitude of 80,000 feet. It was also flown out to Mach 3.4 by Bob Gilliland and the only real limit on its speed was the Compressor Inlet temperature of 427 degrees C. It was hoped that NASA would re-engineer the inlet for one of its research projects but that never panned out, but now they are apparently looking to begin propulsion testing for the SR-72 propulsion concept.



A few months before Kelly's death they took him to the airbase to see a SR-71 flyby..Although he was in and out of consciousness, Ben Rich noted he could see tears in his eyes.

[deejay]

Via E-mail,

FORMATION LANDING

http://www.chonday.com/Videos/laformajet3

That is an amazing video. Thanks.

When I saw those planes at negative wing tips (separation less than wing tip length), undercarriage down and all literally flirting with the wake of the one ahead, I said no way they are trying for a landing. But that's what they did right through to deceleration!!!

Great work there.

[Singha]

why do the SR71/U2 pilots wear a fully sealed astronaut type suit?

is it due to lack of oxygen they plug a pipe into a onboard OBOGS unit cum O2 tank ?

[brar_w]

why do the SR71/U2 pilots wear a fully sealed astronaut type suit?

is it due to lack of oxygen they plug a pipe into a onboard OBOGS unit cum O2 tank ?

All that you may need to know on the suite, why and how can be found here

http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/press_suit001.html

[brar_w]

Planning Begins for USAF Next-Gen Air Dominance

The US Air Force is about to start a deep-dive process that will eventually decide what technologies and capabilities it will fund to ensure air dominance in the world of 2030.

And while that includes the potential for a sixth-generation fighter, top service officials continue to stress that the result of the process will likely be a family of systems approach.

Maj. Gen. Tim Ray, director of Global Power in the service's acquisition realm, and Maj. Gen. Paul Johnson, director for Operational Capability Requirements, told Defense News that the Air Force will shortly stand up a team to begin researching these decisions.

The Next-Generation Air Dominance program will be the first pilot program for the Air Force's new Capability Collaboration Team (CCT) structure, part of a broader strategic process unveiled by Gen. Mark Welsh, Air Force chief of staff, at last month's Air Force Association convention in Orlando.The CCT comprises a number of operational, scientific and technical experts from an array of backgrounds, including the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Air Force Research Labs and the major commands. The group will explore in depth various options that could matter in the future, before putting out a product with two components.

The first is a list of technologies the CCT has decided will be needed for air superiority in 2030. The second is a road map for how to achieve those technologies.

For example, the CCT could decide that directed energy weapons are a key part of the strategy. It will present to the chief and secretary a guide for what areas of directed energy need investment, how those investments should be prioritized, and perhaps most importantly, a timeline for when those investments would need to pay off in order to be fielded by 2030.

Johnson said the goal is to be able to guide limited research and development funds from being spread to many projects — with the hope that one works out — toward being focused on a small handful of technologies.

"It's not about a decision to start a program, to go do x, y and z," Johnson said. "It's not a decision to go build the next-generation fighter. It's a set of decisions about what more do we want to learn, how do we want to learn it, and how fast do we want to learn it? It's 'out of this set of technologies, we want to chase these four.' "

Timewise, the CCT will begin meeting in the next few weeks. It will spend the next three years researching technologies before presenting a final product in 2018.

The Pentagon is littered with well-intentioned studies into new technologies. What makes this different, Ray said, is the focus on finding actionable items and then creating guidelines to make them real.

"This isn't a slush fund," Ray said. "It's not just. 'hey I'm going to go solve cold fusion, give me a couple of years and I'll get back to you.' It's 'how do I get that power supply correct of that kind of pod to do directed energy,' or 'how do I get this signature from this range to that range?' "

For that to work, Ray said, industry must play a critical role. That fits with a promise from Welsh, who in Orlando pledged that industry would be brought in earlier in the technology development process.

"[Right now] you have to wait until we kind of make up our mind and give you a plan, so you can't energize your resources, your thinking, to help us get ahead of this curve," he said at the conference. "We're not talking to you about it. We must do that. You should be part of this transition planning. You should be part of the [process] in developmental planning."

At the same time, Ray warned that industry needs to be prepared for a shift away from the days of one prime controlling everything from development through production.

"We have a lot of known players and we want to hear what they have to say. The interesting part will be if we get out of the program business, how many more voices will we get that aren't the prime players?" Ray asked rhetorically. "Technology is moving way too fast for us to lock down a program and say it's all got to go through one guy."

That may lead to more focus on studying and prototyping technology without a guarantee of future production, Johnson said.

"When I bring industry in here, industry is understandably interested in what the program is going to look like, which is not my conversation at this point," Johnson said. "So I've got to make it workable so when I get ready to do some experimentation or prototyping, that industry is willing to participate in that, knowing that at the end of the day there may not be anything after that."

Rebecca Grant of IRIS Research said opening another avenue of communication with industry is a net positive for the service. And while she said the CCT brings "all the right ingredients" together, she said the service needs to stick with the concept to make it really work.

"The best technology development stories come out of this mix of people and insights," she said. "What we don't know is if you can get everyone together in a room and just [have] the big insights. Like exercise, you need do this on a regular basis and go for the small gains as well."

Mark Gunzinger, a former service official now with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, called the CCT a "great idea" that could "help accelerate the transition of new, potentially game-changing technologies into the program of record." However, he also offered a word of caution.

"Beginning these efforts by 'researching new technologies' may take teams down the path of trying to figure out how emerging technologies could help airmen improve how they operate today," he said. "I think it's also important to challenge current operational concepts and think through how new technologies could enable airmen to operate very differently in the future."

Hints of the Future



Both generals stressed that the goal is to allow the CCT to be as open as possible as it explores future concepts.

"We can't be prescriptive. We do have to be open," Ray said. "We have to show them what's going on in the intel community with data management, with cyber, with space, so they can begin to look at the tools and what they mean and the implications of those things. It's a broader exposure."

However, the men did drop a few hints as to what technologies they foresee the CCT considering.

Johnson expressed confidence that the 2030 solution would not involve just the development of a heavily advanced fighter with all-onboard capability, noting "there is every likelihood it's going to be some sort of family of systems, and hopefully it will be a mix of old and new.

"I would have every expectation that it will probably be 'programs' — that's one man's opinion," he added. "Sensors, weapons, the whole collection of things."

That family could include a mix of modernized versions of legacy systems in use today, working hand-in-hand with new systems that will be online by 2030. The CCT will be on the lookout for what Johnson called "quick wins," things like experimental sensor upgrades that could be put onto current systems relatively quickly.

The CCT will also look at how to build in growth for potential future technologies, Ray said, noting "we certainly realize we need to build in more inherent adaptability in what we do."

That includes looking at how to build in excess power and create space for any new system, to make sure there is the ability to add newer technologies as they come along.

The generals casually mentioned directed energy and signature reduction as other technologies that will likely be looked at, which isn't news to anyone who has followed the talk about a potential next-generation fighter.

Grant highlighted directed energy as an area that could really gain from the CCT model.

"The time is right for demonstrating progress in directed energy," she said. "I think all future systems from here on out, we're going to have a discussion in directed energy on those systems. We'll be talking about it a lot more."

While the focus now is on the family of systems, there is confidence in industry that a major part of that will involve a sixth-generation fighter.

The Air Force isn't alone in looking at next-gen air dominance technologies. The Navy has said it is looking at a next-gen fighter to replace the F/A-18 and complement the F-35C, and Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall has launched the Aerospace Innovation Initiative, a DARPA-led development program for X-planes to test technologies and concepts.

Johnson said he is in regular contact with his counterpart in the Navy, and Ray added that the lead Air Force representative to the initiative will also be part of the CCT.

That should create a cross-cutting of technologies between the three sides, including, perhaps, letting the CCT test some of the technologies on a prototype plane, then bring those results back into its research.

Industry, meanwhile, is gearing up for what could be a lucrative contract.

Northrop Grumman has already stood up a pair of teams, dedicated to the Navy and Air Force programs respectively, while Boeing has quietly released several mock-ups of future fighter concepts.

Orlando Carvalho, the head of Lockheed Martin's aerospace division, told Defense News that the company's SkunkWorks division is working on a design, but said that work is a natural outgrowth from the company's previous developments.

"When it comes to next-generation air dominance, that work for us is a continuum," he said. "We don't discretely stand up teams, disband teams around that — that's what we do at the SkunkWorks, and it's a continuum."

Carvalho said the Pentagon has "definitely" communicated with companies about what future threat scenarios, tactics and requirements may be.

Both Ray and Johnson are sympathetic to industry's desire to know what a next-generation fighter may look like, but insist they need this structure to prevent the proverbial cart from leading the horse.

"The automatic question [from industry] is when do we do the AOA [analysis of alternatives]? I don't want to hear about an AOA," Ray said. "I want to do some learning first. I want to know what the alternatives are before I begin to analyze those alternatives. Right now we don't even know what the alternatives are."

While the US Air-Force has said that they won't do an AOA till after the CCT has presented which would be in 2018, the USN is mere months away from its own AOA on the FA-XX fighter that would replace the F-18E/F and EA-18 aircraft. The Process is usually an AOA that conducts a thorough assessment and analysis of alternatives based on which a decision is made to enter into the program.If the AOA results are favorable Milestone activity follows with a serious of RFP's issued culminating in a Demonstration and Evaluation phase during which a team is down-selected. This demval phase may or may not involve aircraft test articles (PAV's if you want to call them that). Post DemVal phase is the Engineering phase where the shortlisted design is actually developed. The DARPA study and an X plane program is over and above the USAF and USN studies and that kick starts in 2016.

[Philip]

in video-clip of Russian MIG-31 Foxbats on a sortie.The whole bunch of MIG-31s are to receive upgrades soon.
http://rt.com/news/210935-norway-f16-mi ... erception/
Flight fright: Russian MiG-31 jet pulls midair maneuver on Norwegian F-16 (VIDEO)
Published time: December 03, 2014

[Singha]

the Mig31 seems to have opened its landing gear doors which look like they might be airbrakes as well , to deliberately slow down and give the nato munna a fright
https://defencerussia.files.wordpress.c ... 08/127.jpg

[brar_w]

Boeing, Saab Unveil Small Diameter Bomb

Ground launched weapon (Video inside)

[Austin]

U.S. Air Force Sheds Some Light on Coming LRS-B Contract

“If you’re in a fixed-price contract, it’s really important to have a good estimate of what you think it is going to cost,” LaPlante said. “Let’s say you’re wrong 50 percent one way or the other, somebody is going to really get hurt,” either the contractor or the government, he explained. “For KC-46, the government made a decision and that said, ‘Look, this is based as much on a 767.’ We think we have a pretty good idea on what the cost estimate should be. We’re going to do a fixed-price—that’s actually unusual. Most development programs are cost plus. My belief on the LRS-B is it’s going to be more traditional in the sense that we are doing a little bit more cutting edge [development]. It’s not based upon a commercial item, and so I think more likely it’s going to be in the cost-plus regime.”

In 2010, the Department of Defense under Secretary Robert Gates established an average unit procurement target of $550 million in then-year dollars for the bomber, with a requirement for 80 to 100 aircraft to replace aging B-52 and B-1B bombers by the mid-2020s. LaPlante acknowledged that the target cost has risen with inflation but said it still provides a number for the winning contractor to build to. “Fifty-five dollars in 2010 is 57 or 58 dollars today. We know that,” he said. “But we put it in as a requirement—to build 100 airplanes, it’s going to cost $550 million [each]. What that does is, that drives the design. Industry has to design to that number and we’re going to assess against that number.”

The Air Force started funding the LRS-B program in the FY2013 budget; it released a request for proposals (RFP) to industry last July, keeping details of the program classified. For FY2016, which begins in October, the service is seeking $1.2 billion in research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) funding for the LRS-B, increasing from $913 million in the current fiscal year. The service’s budget lists the program start in the first quarter of FY2016.

The projected LRS-B budget in the Pentagon’s Future Years Defense Program rises to $3.7 billion in RDT&E funding in 2020. Assuming RDT&E costs then begin to level off and gradually decline in subsequent years, the total development cost would be roughly $24 billion, the independent Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments estimates. Assuming the Air Force buys 100 bombers by the mid-2030s, its total procurement cost would be roughly $66 billion in then-year dollars, bringing the overall cost of the LRS-B program to $90 billion, the institute said.

Northrop Grumman and the team of Boeing and Lockheed Martin are contending for the LRS-B contract award, which the Air Force now expects to make in the summer. When it announced the RFP release, the service said it expected to make a contract award by this spring.

[brar_w]

I don't think anyone with the knowledge would have considered the most critical stealth and force projection program to not be cost-plus. In fact to make it fixed-cost they have to not only seek congressional approval but also have the SecDef sign off on it. Not to mention you'd end up with extremely low-risk designs and contractors that would be unwilling to take any risk what-so ever. Even if you include a lot of TRL-7 technologies you still cannot justify a fixed price development unless you want to take a risk or bankrupt a few defense contractors over a 90 Billion dollar program.

[brar_w]

Boeing teams with Saab to offer manoeuvrable, SDB-based artillery

Boeing and Saab have completed customer demonstrations of a new Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB) that they are marketing as a more capable and manoeuvrable munition for the M270A1 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS), company officials said during a 10 March press briefing.
GLSDB combines a GBU-39B with an M26 rocket, said Beth Kluba, vice president for Boeing Weapons and Missile Systems. "It's off-the-shelf technology," she said. "That really drives the risk down for this new capability."
Boeing began working on the GLSDB in 2011 but quickly completed development after Saab became a partner on the programme in August 2014. Demonstrations for unnamed potential customers have been conducted at a range in Sweden.
It is launched out of a legacy MLRS launcher, which is in service with the US Army and 13 of its allies in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.
Saab North America President Michael Andersson told reporters that the companies are continuing discussions with several potential customers, which include current MLRS operators. Kluba confirmed that there have been discussions with the US Army, but both companies declined to name other countries interested in the system. Kluba said one contract could be signed within 18-24 months.
GLSDB provides precision, terrain avoidance, and a range of up to 150 km forward-firing and up to 75 km behind the launch point. A programmable fuze provides impact and delay fuzing for deep penetration or proximity height-of-burst.

ANALYSIS

The ability of the SDB to manoeuvre during its flight path to provide the optimum approach to the target has been proven, as has the ability of MLRS rockets to provide timely, organic fire support to ground forces. The combination of the two weapons will provide artillery units with the traditional advantages of artillery combined with the ability to provide the kind of effects on target normally reserved for air-launched weapons. Therefore it could provide a lower cost alternative to airstrikes, when considering not only the cost of the weapon system but also the costs associated with maintaining aircraft on station to provide support.
The 150 km range of the system is more than double that of the current GMLRS rocket, extending the reach of artillery units close to ranges currently achieved by short range ballistic missiles such as the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) for a fraction of the cost. The system also benefits from the fact that Boeing has already developed several variants of the SDB, with the ability to scale effects by using the Focused Lethality Munition (FLM) or to engage moving targets with the addition of the Semi-Active Laser kit currently employed on the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM).
The launch of GLSDB is well timed in the sense that the US Air Force has re-commenced production of the SDB, which will enable Boeing to leverage a hot production line to fulfil potential orders and keep cost levels low.
The move also comes at a time when many countries are still looking to dispose of their M26 MLRS rockets that can no longer be used due to their Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munition (DPICM) payload. Again, the GLSDB approach enables the use of current rocket motor stocks to provide a low cost solution compared with to a missile.
Although Boeing and Saab have not indicated the unit cost of the system, the current unit cost of SDB is stated as USD40,000 in US Air Force FY16 budget documentation. This compares with the USD1.3 million FY2014 unit cost for the ATACMS Block IA.
While the cost of the system is expected to be higher than the baseline SDB, it would not be surprising if the cost was lower than the current price of GMLRS rockets, with a stated US FY15 unit cost of USD115,351.

[Shreeman]

Mass widow maker -- http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/11/us/fl ... ef=edition

Design flaw? Ground the fleet and import european stuff?

[Austin]

Russia's MiG-31 Interceptors to Stay in Service Until 2026 - Manufacturer

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — The Mykoyan MiG-31 Foxhound supersonic interceptor aircraft will stay in service with the Russian Air Force until 2026, the head of the MiG corporation said Wednesday.

"The MiG corporation is currently developing heavy fighter-interceptor aircraft to replace the MiG-31, but the MiG-31 will remain in service until 2026," Sergei Korotkov told RIA Novosti.

According to the Defense Ministry, the Russian Air Force has over 120 MiG-31 interceptors in service and more aircraft in reserve.'

The MiG-31, the fastest fighter-interceptor in service anywhere in the world, has been the subject of a comprehensive upgrade to MiG-31BM standard.

The upgraded MiG-31 aircraft is able to perform all tasks within a radius of 4,000 kilometers (2,500 miles), Korotkov said.

The MiG-31 is a long-range supersonic interceptor jet. The two-seater aircraft can intercept targets up to 200 kilometers (124 miles) away thanks to its advanced radar and long-range missiles. It can operate efficiently in all weather conditions and is equipped with state-of-the-art digital avionics.

The MiG-31 was first used in the Soviet Air Force in 1981. Production of the aircraft ended in 1994 but it remains in service in the Russian and Kazakh air forces.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150311/ ... z3U9N9ZWgi

[Singha]

the sdb rocket is another amazing reuse. massa is making quantum leaps in internet-of-things and guided munitions.

rest are all sucking thumbs and attempting to stay relevant.

club bowlers vs michael holding.

[brar_w]

Its actually something passed on by the US Army..They really do not want it. SAAB jumped up and Boeing was only able to complete the project because of their involvement and through securing a foreign customer. The best part is the rockets are already made and available in large supply and were going to be retired anyway...so very low additional cost of making this setup. With a developed product the US DOD may wish to pick some up in the future.

[TSJones]

Rockets are old school unless you want to traverse great distances. They are up front expensive and can be expensive to store and maintain. What makes the Generals' hearts go pitter patter are smart munitions for artillery, lasers and electro mechanical launchers (rail guns). Much cheaper to shoot, store and maintain and distances of up to 150 kms are being bandied about for the rail guns. There will always be a need for longer distance rockets but they are for a more strategic purpose of deep strike missions and thus worth their far greater cost.

[brar_w]

Rail guns are no substitute for this sort of a setup unless you are projecting a 20 year time-frame. The Ground launch SDB is already ordered by a customer and is undergoing trials. The Blitzer mobile is still heavy and bulky and would not be a widely dispersed weapon even if it goes active in the next 10-15 years which would be a very challenging time-frame. The SDB as a weapon is in production, is fairly cheap given the capability and the back end of this weapon is already in inventories of many nations and a lot of them are going to be gutted even when they have life left in them.

[Manish_P]

Jugaad is always useful... even when it is TFTA

[brar_w]

Predator B Fleet Hits One Million Flight Hours

Predator B/MQ-9 Reaper remotely piloted aircraft operated by the United States and other countries recently reached one million cumulative flight hours, announced manufacturer General Atomics Aeronautical Systems on Monday. Nearly 90 percent of the 78,606 sorties over a 14-year period that led to this milestone were in combat, according to the company. A Predator B flying on Feb. 20 hit the fleet-hour milestone, states the company’s release. The first flight of a Predator B took place on Feb. 2, 2001. The Air Force is the principle operator of these airplanes, flying armed variants designated MQ-9s for gathering intelligence and striking ground targets in places like the Middle East. The Homeland Security Department uses unarmed versions for monitoring US borders and NASA flies Predator Bs for scientific research. The British Royal Air Force, French air force, Italian air force, and other customers also operate the aircraft. Predator B/MQ-9 aircraft are currently logging more than 700 hours a day, according to the company, which has delivered more than 230 of them and is currently building three of them per month. The company announced earlier this month that it is offering the Predator B to Spain.

[Singha]

we absolutely need to prioritize and IOC our Rustom2 instead of trickle funding it as a exploratory project.
for low cost maritime surveillance, GMTI for medium depth land targets, tactical ELINT they can be quite useful for us.
it must have automated navigation and ability to fly through adverse weather, fly at night, takeoff and land automatically from waypoints.

armed drone occupies all the headlines but is not a real wartime or peacetime use case for us, as both PLA and TSPA are well armed with manpads and fighters.

the BAMS is going to be very expensive. its better to deploy a desi soln with mostly desi avionics.

[Austin]

New Radars, IRST Strengthen Stealth-Detection Claims

[Philip]

The above report from AWST,etc., shows that stealth is not the magic bullet that the US hoped for.USN CNO,Adm.Greenert has made some comments of the same (posted in the JSF td) ,pushing for more stand-off PGMs instead of buying more JSFs and has actually cut by 1/3 the number of JSFs for the USN.
Here is another report on the capability of Russian S-400 SAMs and its impact upon stealth aircraft like the JSF. Russia iis also upgrading its "dozens" of TU-95 bear bombers ( IN has 12 TU-142 LRMP equivs)
,equipping them with new eqpt. and stand-off missiles for carrier kills.

The report carries a certain amt. of hype,only to be expected,but has hard facts that cannot be ignored.
http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2015/03/11/how ... 41895.html

How Russia’s S-400 makes the F-35 obsolete
March 11, 2015 Rakesh Krishnan Simha

The sale of the powerful S-400 surface-to-air missile systems to China not only marks another milestone in Russia-China relations, it is a remarkable example of how a comparatively inexpensive weapon can make a trillion dollar project obsolescent before it even gets off the ground.
• Russian army puts into service long-range missile for S-300V4 system — source
• S-400 air defence missile system defends the skies over Moscow

How Russia’s S-400 makes the F-35 obsolete

The S-400 was developed to defend Russian air space and a few hundred kilometers further against missiles and aircraft of all types, including stealth. Source: Vitaliy Belousov / RIA Novosti

It’s not often that a relatively inexpensive air defence weapon is able to make a trillion dollar fighter programme obsolete. But the $500 million S-400 missile system has done precisely that to America’s brand new F-35 stealth fighter.

In November 2014 Moscow and Beijing inked a $3 billion agreement for the supply of six battalions of S-400 anti-aircraft/anti-missile systems that will significantly boost China’s air defence capability against the US and its allies in the Western Pacific.

With a tracking range of 600 km and the ability to hit targets 400 km away at a blistering speed of 17,000 km an hour – faster than any existing aircraft–the S-400 is a truly scary weapon if you are facing its business end.First deployed by Russia in 2010, each S-400 battalion has eight launchers, a control centre, radar and 16 missiles available as reloads.

пустым не оставлять!!
S-400 air defence missile system defends the skies over Moscow

Unlike the overhyped US Patriot missile that turned out to be a dud in battle, the S-400 was designed to create the daddy of Iron Domes. “Given its extremely long range and effective electronic warfare capabilities, the S-400 is a game-changing system that challenges current military capabilities at the operational level of war,” Paul Giarra, president, Global Strategies and Transformation, told Defense News. The S-400 will have the “effect of turning a defensive system into an offensive system, and extend China’s A2/AD (anti-access/area-denial) umbrella over the territory of American allies and the high seas.”

But first a bit of background. The S-400 was developed to defend Russian air space and a few hundred kilometers further against missiles and aircraft of all types, including stealth. Because it is a highly potent and accurate weapon that can tip the balance of power in any war theatre, Moscow has long resisted the temptation of exporting even its older iteration, the S-300, to troubled allies Syria and Iran.

An S-300 missile fired from, say, Damascus will blow away an aircraft over central Tel Aviv in about 107 seconds, giving the Israelis just enough time to say their prayers. It is precisely because the S-series missile systems can so dramatically upset the military balance that Israel has pressured Russia against introducing it into the Middle East tinderbox. Israel has also warned it would go after Syrian S-300 batteries with everything it’s got.

However, China’s case is different because the chances of another country daring to take a shot at the Chinese are next to zero. This development is really bad news for the F-35.

Russia and the US have traditionally adopted different military strategies. During the Cold War the US relied upon carrier-based aircraft to project power in the Western Pacific, and the strategy continues today. The Russians on the other hand decided these floating airfields were easy targets for their shore-based long-range aviation and anti-ship cruise missiles.

If it came to war, waves of long-range bombers such as the Tu-95M Backfire would take off from safe bases deep in continental Russia, fire their powerful cruise missiles from safe stand-offdistances and blast the carriers out of the water. The Russian pilots would then head home to watch the damage on CNN!

The Russian logic was elegantly simple. Back then the average nuclear powered aircraft carrier cost$1 billion whereas the average anti-ship cruise missile cost $1 million or less. For the money they’d have spent on a single carrier, the Russians figured they could build a thousand cruise missiles. Even if just a fraction of these missiles got through, all American carriers were dead in the water.

The Russians were so sure about the accuracy of their cruise missiles that the Backfirescarried only one Raduga Kh-22 (NATO name AS-4 Kitchen) missile armed with a nuclear warhead. According to weapons expert Bill Sweetman and Bill Gunston these missiles could be “programmed to enter the correct Pentagon window”.

China too is following the same trajectory. It has adopted the Russian Cold War strategy of attacking aircraft carriers with waves of bombers armed with its cruise missiles(that are knockoffs of Russian missiles). In fact, complete destruction of a carrier isn't necessary; even slight damage can put such large vessels out of commission for months. And since wars don’t last that long these days, the crippling of its carrier arm will force American capitulation early on in any conventional conflict.

To counter the missile threat to its carriers, the Americans are relying on the F-35 as a cruise missile killer. More than a trillion dollars have already been spent on this troubled project. Even if the F-35 is able to miraculously overcome its shortcomings, the S-400 upends this strategy.

пустым не оставлять!!
Strategic forces to use Yars ballistic missiles

Lockheed-Martin claims the F-35 has such advanced electronics that it can jam anything directed at it.But the S-400 won’t be easy to shake off. “It has many features specifically designed to overcome countermeasures and stealth, such as a larger, more powerful radar that is more resistant to jamming. It also actually has a set of three missiles of varying range that provide overlapping layers of defense," Ivan Oelrich, an independent defence analyst told The Diplomat.

There’s another way the S-400 degrades the F-35’s availability. Fourth generation aircraft such as the Su-30 and MiG-29 have aluminium bodies but stealth aircraft have composite bodies with special radar absorbing coating that requires several hours to apply. For each hour of flight, the F-35 requires 9-12 man hours of maintenance.

But that’s in normal flight. Wear and tear will be of a higher degree during evasive maneuvers that are inevitable if trying to shake off an S-400 radar lock (that's if the F-35 has enough time to react to the missile in the first place). Not only does the stealthy skin require new repair techniques, but extensive skin damage will necessitate repairs at Lockheed's land-based facilities. It is because of this reason that Eglin air force base in Florida has 17 mechanics per F-35.

Navy gets jitters

The F-35’s backers say the aircraft can emit frequencies, which can confuse and disable the S-400. But the US Navy's acquisition of 22 Growler jamming aircraft suggests the F-35’s jamming capability is not really all that it’s cracked up to be. According to Air Force Technology, there are some figures in the US Navy and industry which say the F-35's stealth and EW capabilities are simply not enough.

“Pentagon officials are in an awkward position. If the Pentagon was to invest in more electronic warfare aircraft – such as the Growler – it would signal a lack of faith in the F-35's capability to penetrate enemy airspace. Equally, if it didn't invest in additional electronic warfare capabilities, the lives of F-35 pilots could be at risk with the proliferation of more advanced A2/AD weapons in countries such as China.”

пустым не оставлять!!
How Russian military technology is used abroad

These weapons the Pentagon is losing sleep over are clearly the S-300 and S-400.

According to Air Power Australia, “The S-300P/S-400 family of surface to air missile systems is without doubt the most capable SAM system in widespread use in the Asia Pacific region.”

“While the S-300P/S-400 series is often labelled ‘Russia's Patriot’, the system in many key respects is more capable than the US Patriot series, and in later variants offers mobility performance and thus survivability much better than that of the Patriot.”

Growing trust

The missile deal is a pointer to the increasing bonhomie between the political leaderships in Moscow and Beijing. The S-400 deal follows the clearance of the Su-35 fighter-bomber sale to China last year. Negotiations that had got bogged down for years because the Russian side wanted to protect their intellectual property were greenlighted after the West imposed sanctions.

The Russian concern was the Chinese would buy a few ‘samples’, take them apart, and then cancel the deal after deciding they could reverse engineer local versions. These knock-offs which would then be peddled cheap as chips overseas. In fact, the Chinese have traditionally reverse-engineered Russian weapons. Their J-15 jet fighter, for instance, is a copy of the Russian Sukhoi-33.

However, the complexity of the S-300 and Russian aircraft engines has proved to be the biggest constraint on Beijing’s copycat industry. This has reassured Moscow about proceeding with the sale of advanced weaponry. Plus, in 2008 and 2012 Russia made China sign stronger intellectual property protection agreements.

As of now Beijing will only receive four of these systems, but even this small number will be enough to create the daddy of Iron Domes over future battlefield theatres.

If you are an F-35 pilot, here’s a piece of advice: stay out of range.

[brar_w]

but has hard facts that cannot be ignored.

Facts? Care to share with us some of them particularly those that would be relevant and required to draw some of these outrageous conclusions. The article displays little or no understanding of tactics that the USAF or other operators of F-35 would likely employ. Even a basic discussion on how the S-400 shifts that calculus almost has to mention the LO/CLO_Comm otherwise it is just wishful thinking and may as well be a forum post rather than an analysis of any sort (to its credit it is published as an "opinion").

“While the S-300P/S-400 series is often labelled ‘Russia's Patriot’, the system in many key respects is more capable than the US Patriot series, and in later variants offers mobility performance and thus survivability much better than that of the Patriot.”

The cardinal rule of assessing IAD capability is to not compare systems to systems but systems to threat. He most likely did not get the memo. The US Army does not deploy the Patriot like an S300 or S400 operator deploys its weapons. The Patriot is designed to at its highest capability be deployed alongside THAAD and other assets (Aegis ashore for example). Any enhancements that would duplicate the capability of these systems is a non-starter for the Patriot system.

If it came to war, waves of long-range bombers such as the Tu-95M Backfire would take off from safe bases deep in continental Russia, fire their powerful cruise missiles from safe stand-offdistances and blast the carriers out of the water. The Russian pilots would then head home to watch the damage on CNN!

What simplistic argument. Its not like those aircraft could not have been dealt with while in the air (stand off ranges anyone?) or when they were on a cruise strike. Heck the F-14 pilots trained for just that. But why present both sides of the threat_counter threat argument when it clearly would have conflicted with the agenda.

There’s another way the S-400 degrades the F-35’s availability. Fourth generation aircraft such as the Su-30 and MiG-29 have aluminium bodies but stealth aircraft have composite bodies with special radar absorbing coating that requires several hours to apply. For each hour of flight, the F-35 requires 9-12 man hours of maintenance.

Again a lack of basic understanding on the stealth of the F-35, TopCoat or IR cover. great!

Mike Hostage that the F-35 is a stealthier airplane than the F-22. But one of the crucial aspects of stealth has always been maintaining it. How much does stealth degrade during operations? How long does it take to restore it? How much does it cost to maintain? Lockheed Martin has long boasted about the F-35’s designed-in stealth.

“I would call it one of the success stories,” [Maj. Gen. Jeffrey] Harrigian said. “But I was skeptical early on.”

Col. Carl Schaeffer, who was the Air Force’s top integration guy on the F-35 until Harrigian was named, entered the conversation and was about as positive as one can get on such a topic: “The high point for this program is the LO [Low Observables] maintainability.” He pointed to the creation by Lockheed Martin of an LO “innovation team,” formed with a range of highly experienced stealth experts as a key reason behind the success of the aircraft’s relatively easy maintenance. No one in the room offered any details except to note that no one has to apply multiple coatings that wear off.

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/03/thre ... e-on-time/

[TSJones]

“Given its extremely long range and effective electronic warfare capabilities, the S-400 is a game-changing system that challenges current military capabilities at the operational level of war,” Paul Giarra, president, Global Strategies and Transformation, told Defense News. The S-400 will have the “effect of turning a defensive system into an offensive system, and extend China’s A2/AD (anti-access/area-denial) umbrella over the territory of American allies and the high seas.”

Fowler, nice to know that the S-400 system can defeat a coordinated Wild weasel attack with cruise missile saturation from subs and F-35s probing the radar limits at the same time. i'm sure Moscow has tested all all of this out. Especially when their sats have been blinded/knocked out. i culd go on nad on..........

[Philip]

Why I used the word "hype" in some posts. Don't shoot the postman! Nevertheless,there is often the glint of gold in the pan along with the sand...

For another futuristic hype/hope,read this.Ck the link for pics/videoclip of the superb concept of the proposed mega-transport.

http://rt.com/news/242097-pak-ta-russian-army/

Future Russian army could deploy anywhere in the world – in 7 hours
Published time: March 19, 2015

Artist concept of future Russian Special Purpose Aircraft (Concept: Aleksey Komarov, Customer and Technical Manager: Volga-Dnepr Group)

In the future, a fleet of heavy transport aircraft will reportedly be capable of moving a strategic unit of 400 Armata tanks, with ammunition, to anywhere in the world. And probably at hypersonic speed, enabling Russia to mount a global military response.

According to a new design specification from the Military-Industrial Commission in Moscow, a transport aircraft, dubbed PAK TA, will fly at supersonic speeds (up to 2,000 km/h) and will boast an impressively high payload of up to 200 tons. It will also have a range of at least 7,000 kilometers.

The PAK TA program envisages 80 new cargo aircraft to be built by 2024. This means in a decade Russia’s Central Command will be able to place a battle-ready armored army anywhere, Expert Online reports, citing a source in the military who attended the closed meeting.

One of the main tasks of the new PAK TA is to transport Armata heavy missile tanks and other military hardware on the same platform, such as enhanced self-propelled artillery weapons systems, anti-aircraft missile complexes, tactical missile carriers, multiple launch missile systems, and anti-tank missile fighting vehicles.

The PAK TA freighters will be multilevel, with automated cargo loading and have the capability to airdrop hardware and personnel on any terrain.

A fleet of several dozen PAK TA air freighters will be able to lift 400 Armata heavy tanks, or 900 light armored vehicles, such as Sprut-SD airborne amphibious self-propelled tank destroyers.

READ MORE: Russia’s new Armata tank on Army 2015 shopping list
Russia's T-14 Armata Main Battle Tank. (A still from Youtube video by arronlee33)

“With the development of a network of military bases in the Middle East, Latin America and Southeast Asia, which is expected to be completed during the same time period (by 2024), it’s obvious that Russia is preparing for a full-scale military confrontation of transcontinental scale,” Expert Online says.

A source who attended the closed meeting of the Military-Industrial Commission told the media outlet on condition of anonymity that he was “shocked” by the demands of the military..

According to the source, the PAK TA project has been ongoing for several years now and will eventually supplant the currently operating air freighters. But such a global mission statement for national military transport aviation has never been voiced before.

“It means for the first time we have the objective of creating an operational capability to airlift a full-fledged army to any desired place on the planet,” the source said. This means delivering a task force the size of the former NATO and the US troops in Iraq, in a matter of hours to any continent. “In the context of the current military doctrine that defies comprehension,” the source said.

The initial PAK TA specification entailed building subsonic air freighters with a conventional 900 km/h cruising speed and a moderate 4,500-kilometer range.

The program involves the creation of wide-body freighters, with payloads varying from 80 to 200 tons, to replace all existing Ilyushin and Antonov cargo aircraft.

The only operating aircraft with a comparable payload is the Antonov An-225 Mriya (up to 250 tons), but this is a one-off aircraft created specially for the Soviet Buran space shuttle program.
Artwork: Aleksey Komarov

Last year, it was reported that future military air freighters will be developed by the Ilyushin Aviation Complex, with some experts saying the company may base designs on the Il-106 cargo plane (80 tons) project that won a government tender in the late 1980s, but was abandoned after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Now, with ambitious specifications and objectives, the PAK TA is a truly next-generation transport aircraft.

READ MORE: Russia to deploy fifth-gen fighters, S-500 missiles in 2016