International Military Discussion

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 Aug 2014 18:37

The JMR derivative would probably fill the role. They'll most likely wait to see where the blackhawk replacement program leads to before making a call. The main problem here is that no one knows what the budget for such systems (Blackhawk replacement, apache replacement, cobra replacement etc) is going to look like given that the services have a host of other priorities in the modernization department and the fact that the cold-war saw massive development and acquisition and that means that at the other end of the curve there would be a similar investment required to replace the capability as it begins to fade away. The Chinook and the apache probably have at least one solid upgrade that is pretty certain..That would add a decade or two to the program so expect them to be there till the 40's for the apache and the 50's for the chinook. Blackhawk is the more pressing requirement and the JMR seems to focus heavily on that. The requirement is obviously for increased range and higher speed and possibly altitude and these are driven by survivability demands.

Bell’s V-280 Valor tiltrotor, named after its 280-knot top speed, can fly at double the speed and has twice the range of any of the Army’s current helicopters.

“The aircraft can provide the military with unmatched range, speed and payload capabilities, and is designed with operational agility in mind to provide our soldiers transformational reach and revolutionary capability on the battlefield,” Keith Flail, program director for the Bell V-280 Valor, said in a statement. “We remain focused on providing exceptional capabilities and flexibility in an advanced aircraft with reduced weight, complexity and cost.”

Boeing-Sikorsky’s helicopter, called the SB>1 Defiant, features a coaxial, counter-rotating rigid main rotor blades on top, and a pusher propeller in the rear that allows the aircraft to accelerate and decelerate. The aircraft is based on Sikorsky’s X-2 demonstrator.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 Aug 2014 19:02

Why Is AREA 51 Building A Mysterious New Hangar And What Will It Hide?

In the latest satellite imagery released to the public, dated June 30th (partial) and June 2nd (full), Area 51 continues to undergo changes, and one of them is significant in nature. This new construction project is of especially high interest, not just because of its physical size, but also because of its very peculiar location and timing.

Area 51 (aka Groom Lake, aka The Ranch, aka Dreamland, aka Watertown Airstrip) and construction go hand-in-hand. The secretive super-base is like the Federal Government's Winchester Mystery House. Improvements to the base have not stopped since its founding, which occurred the better part of a century ago.Over the years, the base has expanded from a dry lake bed, an apron, a row of low-slung hangars and some barracks, to a massive complex with a sea of buildings, dozens and dozens of hangars, an intricate radar signature measuring installation, a complex web of taxiways and two massive concrete runways. If it were not situated in the most secluded and heavily guarded locale in America it could be any major US Air Force installation, complete with a baseball diamond and a looming air traffic control tower.

In 2007, the biggest addition in some time was added to the base's southwest corner, hidden partially behind a giant dirt berm. This fairly massive and modern hangar was fitted-out with extensive office space and a pair of 175 foot doors, one on each side of the structure. The facility was clearly purpose-built for something, and that something, or some things, were not small in size. The width of the doors alone added to the mounting evidence that what was contained within was an asset, or assets, that were strategic in nature.

At the time that this new structure was completed, it was thought to house a proof of concept demonstrator for the Next Generation Bomber (NGB) program and/or a deep penetrating and very stealthy High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) reconnaissance drone, basically an aircraft with similar capabilities as the RQ-4 Global Hawk but much more survivable and even more autonomous.

Since then, the USAF has all but outright admitted that a stealthy and large penetrating unmanned surveillance aircraft exists, and is currently in some form of limited operation. Aviation Week has dubbed this aircraft the "RQ-180" (that is most likely NOT its true designation) in their piece that unofficially 'unmasked' an aircraft that many of us already assumed existed.

The bomber test article on the other hand may have actually been data derived from the RQ-180 itself, as it probably shares some similarities with the Next Generation Bomber, especially in regards to its latest generation of wide-spectrum stealth shaping, coatings and some avionics. Alternatively, it could have been a separate machine entirely, one that flew around the turn of the decade. Both the RQ-180 and the bomber demonstrator are thought to have belonged to Northrop Grumman, which is America's advanced unmanned systems (unclassified at least) and stealth bomber guru.

Rumors were rampant around the 2006-2007 time-frame regarding a "restricted" proof of concept demonstrator contract that was being fought over by various American aerospace manufacturers, one that seemed oriented around a large airframe with a lot of future revenue potential. Northrop Grumman was said to have won this contract, along with at least $2B to build and test the resulting aircraft. This could have been what we now call the RQ-180 or it could have been a Next Generation Bomber technology demonstrator, or it could have been a single aircraft that would perform both tasks. Even though $2B is a lot of money, other funds may have also been applied to the project clandestinely. This would be of no surprise for those who follow clandestine programs, as the USAF's 'black budget' has exploded over the last decade and half, and in 2010 alone it was over $15B.

For reference, the USAF could buy 375 F-16 Block 50s with their yearly black budget alone.

Around 2012, Lockheed was said to have begun retrofitting a previously abandoned stealth penetrator test article at their Palmdale Skunk Works installation. Some rumors stated that this actually happened earlier, right after Northrop Grumman won the previously mentioned $2B contract. This recycling of parts from a cancelled demonstrator would have most likely been a self-funded research and development initiative focused on Next Generation Bomber related technologies. This would make some sense, as whoever won the aforementioned $2B contract (which Northrop Grumman did) would have a leg up on the competition for the actual Next Generation Bomber competition, and whoever won that massive contract would probably own the strategic stealth aircraft market for decades to come. So saying that the stakes were high would be a massive understatement.

Whether or not Lockheed did indeed put such an aircraft into internal testing service is not known, but if the rumors are true, and a previously mothballed Lockheed project was indeed pulled out of storage, adapted, and used as a risk reduction and proof of concept demonstrator in preparation for the final Next Generation Bomber bid, it would mean that possibly two distinct test aircraft exist, and possibly more.

Whatever was developed during that time period, along with a DoD study, succeeded in making their case by about the end of 2010 or so, right around the same time that Defense Secretary Gates abruptly become a Next Generation Bomber believer instead of an ardent opponent of it. During interviews, Secretary Gates alluded to the fact that he had 'seen some things that changed his mind' when it came to the validity and potential capability of a new stealth bomber aircraft. He would not elaborate any more than that, leading some to believe that he was referencing the aforementioned activities at Groom Lake.

Fast forward four years and the Next Generation Bomber program, now known as Long Range Strike-Bomber (LRS-B) program, is clearly funded and underway, and formal but classified requirements for the new super-weapon were officially sent to potentially bidders, team Lockheed-Boeing and team Northrop Grumman, just last month. There is rumored to be a requirement for a flyoff between the two teams, which will be officially announced next Spring, but there is a good chance that a 'soft' flyoff of more rudimentary technology demonstrators has already occurred at Area 51. The spotting of three previously unknown flying wing aircraft over Amarillo, Texas, and a single similar unidentified aircraft over Wichita, Kansas, may lend some credence to this theory.

With this background in mind, we now return to the new developments at Area 51. A new engine test cell located towards the northern part of the base appears to have been finalized since the last images were available, and there are some other small improvements that are noticeable around the sprawling installation, but the massive hangar being constructed far south of the aforementioned hangar built in 2007 is quite literally, a big deal.

The location of this new structure, measuring about 225 feet across, is interesting as it is located right off the end of the runway, far south of the rest of the base. This location would keep it out of the immediate view of the general apron area, and would also allow for quick access to the runway, resulting in minimal taxi times.

More inside

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Aug 2014 02:55

Northrop grumman design for DARPA XS1 spaceplane

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 20 Aug 2014 06:49

Jhujar wrote:http://seekingalpha.com/news/1927405-bo ... ram?uprof=

Boeing-Sikorsky team, Bell selected for U.S. helicopter program

The U.S. Army selects Textron's (TXT -0.3%) Bell Helicopter unit and a team of Boeing (BA -0.2%) and United Technologies' (UTX -0.7%) Sikorsky Aircraft to develop the next phase of a helicopter replacement program the Pentagon forecasts could be worth as much as $100B.
TXT and the Boeing-Sikorsky team were chosen from among four bidders vying to build a demonstrator for the Army's planned Joint Multi-Role helicopter, which would replace Boeing's Apaches and Sikorsky's Black Hawks.While the program will not generate significant revenues for several years, investors are watching the test phase as manufacturers position themselves with new technology aimed at making military helicopters fly faster and longer.

Instead of buying the AH-64/Chinook HAL needs to participate in a program of this kind. Either the US or the European effort will get us access to high tech that we don't have. So joint production, like we have with the Russians, and the FGFA. We would have to pit the US/EU against each other and that is the only way we can get technology out of them. Both will sell it for an extortionate price if they see no other option. We have to come back to the EU and say US gave it to us for only 50 billion, and get the price down that way.

The Eurocopter X-3 program is superior in helicopter tech so that is the program we need to sign up for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_X3

We can offer composites, titanium, and our helicopter experience in high altitude. Besides tech, we also have the ability to produce helicopters for 1/4 the price that the EU/US can. We have it all.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Aug 2014 07:06

The Eurocopter X-3 program is superior in helicopter tech so that is the program we need to sign up for

Superior to what exactly?

There is a time and place for joint technology projects but I do not think HAL is the best way to go with this. Tata's have a relationship with Sikorsky, as it turns out Sikorsky is working with its own money and that of its partners. If the product is viable perhaps the Tata's can chip in. In return for their investment they will get a work-share of the eventual production according to a business arangement between private companies. The only problem that I foresee is that these are Private corporations looking at their industrial base. Boeing, Sikorsky team and the Lockheed Bell team. Europe has its own programs but there isn't much demand in terms of high production numbers so expect the research and development to be to scale (of the eventual production).

A lot of shakeup is happening in the current rotary winged side of the defense industry with BELL selling off its tilt rotor technology to Agusta Westland for all commercial applications (retaining rights to military application). The JMV is by far the largest rotary winged program in the world coming after a very long lull in rotary winged R&D (V-22 aside, but its rather unfair to treat it as a helo) and many are predicting that post the final downselect (2018-2020) one of the companies (Bell or Sikorsky) will most likely shut shop and be acquired by either a major US prime or a foreign source (Agusta westland etc). It would be interesting to see Tata position itself and try to win some work since it already has work on other projects.

The Euro X3 and the Sikorsky (company funded) X-2 both have demonstrated speed. Both the Sikorsky and the Bell prototypes downselected offer even greater speed (250-280 Knts) and even more range despite the speed (2x compared to the aircraft they are meant to replace)..However it remains to be seen what tradeoffs exist It is entirely possible that the operators wish to trade some of that speed or range for a lower cost..Nothing is free..Technically you can make something that goes @ 250 knots or 280 go at 300 but its the cost associated with it ( Clarence Johnson's famous interpretation of the Pareto principle comes to mind here) that will ultimately define the capability that actually goes into these helos. The JMR is to develop technologies that go into all future helos in the USA and USMC, be it the cobra, the kiowa warrior or most importantly the Blackhawk. The AH-64 is an attack helo which has no replacement in the pipeline. A JMR varient may at some time (2030+) replace the AH-64 but that would be an attack helo designed for an era where rotary winged CAS has to deal with DEW's and even more portable Air defenses. .

Totally different projects and one must not be traded-off with the other.

govardhanks · Post by **govardhanks** » 21 Aug 2014 16:06

Can anyone please explain in simplest terms what is SOFTWARE DEFINED RADIO? and how is going to help in both military and civilian life?

Some defence journal is banging every now and then in twitter, that "DARPA investing big in Software defined radio(SDR)"!!

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 21 Aug 2014 16:12

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software-defined_radio

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 21 Aug 2014 16:37

http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/I2O/Progr ... lenge.aspx

govardhanks · Post by **govardhanks** » 21 Aug 2014 17:50

So this tech can be developed into something which is resistant to jamming or an effective alternate in signal to noise heavy situations?

krishnan ji sorry for asking old question, I searched and got to know it has been discussed here already. brar ji thanks for link.

Between I would like to put some interesting links-

For advanced
http://www.miltechmag.com/2012_12_01_archive.html
http://www.ettus.com/blog/2013/04/corga ... uct-family
http://www.ece.uvic.ca/~elec350/lab_manual/ar01s04.html

this video is really amazing! (although did't understand much technical part)
basically it can be used hack and spy on any network dependent on radiowaves.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 22 Aug 2014 00:21

This development has a number of implications and suspected applications:

http://spaceref.com/missions-and-progra ... space.html

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Aug 2014 07:51

http://asia.nikkei.com/Tech-Science/Tec ... ighter-jet

TOKYO -- Japan will begin test flights next year to determine whether the country has the right stuff to build a fighter jet without relying on Western contractors.

The Ministry of Defense plans to seek around 40 billion yen ($384 million) in funding for the effort for the fiscal year starting next April.

The government will decide by fiscal 2018 whether to proceed with the development of a purely Japanese fighter, according to its latest medium-term defense program.

Production of the F-2, a fighter jointly by Japan and the U.S., ended in fiscal 2011. The last of the jets are expected to be retired from the Japanese Air Self-Defense Force around fiscal 2028.

To gauge the feasibility of creating an indigenous fighter, the ministry's Technical Research & Development Institute began work on the Advanced Technology Demonstrator-X (ATD-X) four years ago. Researchers have made progress in a number of areas, including lightweight airframe designs and missile-firing mechanisms.

The ATD-X is slated for its first flight using stand-in engines next January. Testing of stealth airframe designs is to begin in April. Prototyping of the actual engines -- a joint effort by IHI, Mitsubishi Heavy and other defense contractors -- is to start as soon as fiscal 2015 and take about five years. Heat-resistant ceramics, an area in which Japan excels, will be employed for the turbine blades.

Creating a fighter jet of its own will prove fiscally as well as technically demanding for Japan. Initial costs are estimated at 500 billion yen to 800 billion yen, but test flights and the development of ancillary equipment will likely add significantly to the total.

Even if Japan takes a pass on the end result, the defense ministry reckons that possessing its own fighter technology will work to the country's advantage in joining multinational arms development programs and negotiating to buy other countries' fighters.

(Nikkei)

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Aug 2014 09:58

^ These chaps are capable of pulling 16*365 hours of work year in and year out so I won't be surprised if they meet their deadline. Mitsubishi HI (makers of Zero) have both the history and means to pull this off. Let the land of rising Sun come out of Unkil's shadow.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 22 Aug 2014 17:28

It could also be a repeat of what has happened in the past. Time will tell and a lot of what happens will be reactionary to what else comes out of china's closet in the next decade. I expect china to disclose a strategic bomber with a continental range (at least) before the end of this decade. A decision on the Japanese fighter is not due till 2018 and incidentally that is when the Next generation FA-XX is likely to come out of the RFP stage and ready for down-select. Japan isn't producing affordable fighters with the F-2 having a very high cost of procurement (leave aside development). A lot of things are happening at the moment given that japan and others in the pacific have realized that smaller skirmishes are more likely over disputed territory so a quick reactionary force is an absolute priority and numerical inferiority is also a virtual given unless allies chip in. They are looking for an even larger LHD having toured USS americas just recently. V-22's and Triton's for top cover and possibly P-8's as well. F-35A's are going to be assembled in house and even the F-35B's are looking quite likely especially as china increases its flexibility and basing options with the new sea planes its developing. In the long term I see them replacing their F-15 fleet with the FA-X or a future derivative of the F-35 (super Lighting II?) that lockheed has proposed to the USN. The F-2 may perhaps be replaced with the in house fighter.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Aug 2014 18:09

Their time-lines seem to coincide with that of the USAF's next gen plane decision points.

Ranjani Brow · Post by **Ranjani Brow** » 22 Aug 2014 18:17

Why would JMSDF be interested in P-8 when they already have Kawasaki P-1 in production.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 22 Aug 2014 19:06

Could be a possibility for interoperability with the Triton. On a second thought they may just decide to share data with US P-8's in the region and gain integration from that end.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 Aug 2014 19:21

China has launched two C28A firgates for Algeria

Photo replaced, apologies

Yugandhar · Post by **Yugandhar** » 22 Aug 2014 20:07

This C28A ship has no exhaust?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Aug 2014 06:48

Yugandhar wrote:This C28A ship has no exhaust?

Looks like it is there right behind the tall mast?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Aug 2014 06:55

There was a thread that dealt with titanium sponge made in India, etc.

Here is some news:

3-D Manufacturing of Titanium Components Takes Off

This landing gear knuckle illustrates how electron beam melting (EBM) technology can be used to produce one-of-a-kind parts rapidly without any tooling. Since the part is built layer-by-layer, the microstructure is completely uniform regardless of whether a thick section or thin section is examined. This homogeneous microstructure translates into uniform, consistent mechanical behavior. The material possesses complete isotropy. Thermal shunts fabricated as the part is being built (visible on the part) are used to keep the temperature isothermal and are easily broken off after the part has been built. (All images: CalRAM)

This warm air mixer is a component designed by Northrop Grumman for the U.S. Navy’s unmanned combat aerial surveillance system. CalRAM fabricated this complex component in one piece from Ti-6Al-4V using its EBM technology. If traditional manufacturing processes were used, this component would have been made in several pieces that would have had to be joined. The demonstration of part count reduction without the need for tooling illustrates how additive manufacturing can be used to reduce cost and shorten delivery schedule.

A pump-fed, liquid rocket engine uses Shrouded impellers in the turbo pumps for high-efficiency pumping, and they are generally made from high-value materials, like titanium alloys, because of their high specific strength. As such, they are extremely expensive to produce and may take several months or longer to be made. Using EBM technology, they are producible in days and have been shown to meet or exceed burst speeds.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Aug 2014 19:35

SpaceX rocket explodes during test flight

A three-engine version of the Falcon 9 rocket was being tested on Friday, based on SpaceX’s Grasshopper prototype.

“During the flight, an anomaly was detected in the vehicle and the flight termination system automatically terminated the mission,” the company said in a statement on Friday.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 23 Aug 2014 19:41

it is very difficult to get a rocket to self land on a designated spot for reusability. they are attempting an extremely difficult objective. more good luck and power to them

note that elon musk refuses to file patents. he says why give the Chinese a play book?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 23 Aug 2014 23:27

note that elon musk refuses to file patents. he says why give the Chinese a play book?

A strategy that 3M has used successfully in the past (post it)..

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 23 Aug 2014 23:30

Singapore quietly expanding F-15 fleet

Singapore appears to have quietly boosted the size of its F-15SG fleet from 24 aircraft to 40, according to Boeing financial statements, aircraft registration filings, and US congressional reports.

Singapore originally bought 12 F-15SGs - with an option for eight more - under a contract signed in December 2005. In October 2007 the city-state modified this option by buying 12 more to give it a total of 24.

These aircraft have all been confirmed as delivered and have US-type serial numbers running from 05-0001 to 05-0024. Several remain in the United States with the Republic of Singapore Air Force's (RSAF's) 428th Fighter Squadron at Mountain Home Air Force Base (AFB) in southwestern Idaho, while the remainder are active in Singapore with 149 Squadron.

Aircraft operating in Singapore use four-digit serial numbers in the 83xx sequence, starting at 8301, although these do not run consecutively.

In January 2014, several aircraft with new serial numbers - 05-0025, 05-0028, 05-0030, 05-0031, and 05-0032 - were seen at Mountain Home AFB. These had not been previously reported and suggest that Singapore has obtained another batch of eight aircraft.

Meanwhile, a 26 November 2012 letter from the US State Department to House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner under the Arms Export Control Act refers to the "sale, modification, and follow-on support of eight F-15SG aircraft to the Government of Singapore".

Figures released by Boeing show that eight F-15s were delivered to an unspecified customer in 2012.

Boeing financial data also shows that a total of 93 F-15s were delivered from 2005 to 2012. South Korea has confirmed that it received 61 and Singapore that it received 24 for a total of 85, leaving eight unaccounted for in public records.

Finally, on 5-6 August 2014, Boeing took out civil aircraft registrations for what it described as F-15SG aircraft: N361SG, N363SG, N366SG, N368SG, N373SG, N376SG, N378SG and N837SG.

Neither Boeing nor the Singapore Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) would confirm whether the city-state had acquired 16 more F-15s than previously disclosed, although they also did not deny it.

A Boeing spokesman told IHS Jane's that the company was "unable to discuss" the number of F-15s it had supplied to Singapore, while a MINDEF spokesman said: "The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) bases our procurement on the assessed long-term defence needs, and the RSAF has purchased sufficient F-15SGs to meet our defence requirements."

COMMENT
Singapore's reticence on its follow-on purchases of F-15s is unsurprising: it has long demurred on outlining the extent of its defence procurement and capabilities, instead preferring to quietly build up what is widely seen as the best equipped military in Southeast Asia.

One retired armed forces officer told IHS Jane's that this was a strategic decision to keep its neighbours guessing, and also because the country's leaders did not need to use military procurement as a populist crutch.

However, this refusal to confirm acquisitions can occasionally lead to surreal conversations with military and defence industry officials, such as at the 2012 Singapore Airshow, when Israeli officials would not confirm the sale of IAI Heron unmanned aerial vehicles to Singapore despite the presence of one on static display at the show.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 24 Aug 2014 01:18

^^^^Oh yeah, they're gettin' all the goodies with that too. And I quote:

Sensors: Sniper ATP surveillance & ground targeting pods replace the LANTIRN twin-pod system that still equips a number of Strike Eagles. They turn the F-15SG into a reconnaissance platform, whose day/night cameras can pick out targets as small as individual people from miles away. The pods can also geo-locate what they see with GPS co-ordinates, which can be fed to GPS-guided weapons. If more precision is needed, they can use the laser rangefinder and laser designator to independently target what they find with laser-guided weapons like the AGM-65 Maverick missile, or Paveway bombs.

For aerial fights, Infra-Red Search and Track pods were added to Singapore’s standard equipment list. These pods allow F-15SGs to pick up heat emissions from enemy aircraft at long distances, whether it’s created by engines or by the friction of the air against a fast-moving jet. Unlike radar targeting, IRST is completely passive, and cannot trigger any warning receivers. Since “stealth” aircraft shapes are only stealthy to certain radar frequencies, IRST is also a useful backup weapon against those planes.

Avionics: The avionics are advanced, but not unusual for new fighters. Two items deserve mention, even so.

JHMCS helmet-mounted displays ensure that key information is available no matter where the pilot looks, including targeting cues. That multiplies the effectiveness of modern missiles, whose datalinks and wide seeker radius give them very wide latitude.

MIDS-LVT units give the planes “Link-16″ capability, which means that any enemy seen by one F-15, or by other Link-16 equipped fighters, ground radars, etc., has its location transmitted to all other equipped units via encrypted radio, along with symbols that show friendly units. There are rumors that a number ofIsraeli electronics and self-defense systems external link will be part of the F-15SG as well.

Singapore deploys F-15SGs locally as 149 Squadron, at Paya Lebar AB. It has another 12 in the USA at Mountain Home AFB, ID for training as the 428th “Buccaneers” Fighter S

ooh la la, nothing but the deluxe for Singapore. Absolute gear whores! Maximum!

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Aug 2014 01:21

Unlike South Korea Singapore opted for the AESA with its Beagles. SOKO i am guessing will adopt the An/Apg-82 just like the USAF

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 24 Aug 2014 10:01

Uh oh, she no good.........

http://spaceref.biz/company/europes-lat ... aunch.html

An investigation is underway after yesterday's launch by Arianespace of a Soyuz rocket which left its twin payload of Europe's fifth and six Galileo GPS satellites in a lower wrong orbit.

According to a statement released by Arianespace "complementary observations gathered after separation of the Galileo FOC M1 satellites on Soyuz Flight VS09 have highlighted a discrepancy between targeted and reached orbit." This comes after the mission had been deemed a success which raises many questions including the interpretation of the telemetry being received at the time of the launch.

Preliminary details of are to be released today after an analysis of the flight data. It is unclear at this time if the satellites will be able to be boosted to their higher proper orbits and sources suggest they might be too far of course to be of much use. The focus of the investigation appears to be on the Soyuz' Fregat upper stage.

Full Arianespace Launch Coverage Including Congratulatory Speeches

negi · Post by **negi** » 24 Aug 2014 13:04

^ They have no choice but to burn fuel to raise orbit ; you never know Russians might be pulling a fast one on EU chaps for siding up with Unkil on too many things of late.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Aug 2014 19:42

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Aug 2014 21:14

Largest SCO exercise so far.

China hosts largest ever military drill with Russia, other SCO nations: Photos

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Aug 2014 02:40

TSJones wrote:it is very difficult to get a rocket to self land on a designated spot for reusability. they are attempting an extremely difficult objective. more good luck and power to them

note that elon musk refuses to file patents. he says why give the Chinese a play book?

From a while ago

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 25 Aug 2014 04:19

brar_w wrote:Singapore quietly expanding F-15 fleet

my prediction is the JSF will prove to be a failure and countries will continue to hang onto their F-15 and F-16 fleets with successive upgrades.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Aug 2014 04:35

Based on what? Singapore is not pitting the F-15SG vs the F-35. Their decision to go for a multi fighter force pre-existed before they jumped into the JSF program. The F-35 is a long term replacement for the F-16 fleet while the F-15SG fleet is going to last a very very long time in their air force (Its a 16,000 hour airframe). As things stand most of the F-16 operators are going in for the F-35, with the NG version of the F-16 having been a no go for most of the leading viper operators including the USAF. Only nations now going in for the F-16 are nations that will not be operating a 5th generation fighter for a long time. IDF developed the SUFA for IOC way before the JSF and so did the USAF when they put a stop at acquiring the F-16 beyond block 50/52. Upgrades to the fleet are in line with a tradeoff of capability addition vs airframe life so expect most air-forces to make that tradeoff. Major F-16 operators including the USAF, IDF, Turkish Air force and the smaller EU air forces are acquiring the F-35. RAAF will acquire it to replace their classic Hornets. South Korea is acquiring both the F-15K and the F-35 under a pre-planned acquisition program that was always supposed to acquire an advanced 4th generation aircraft and a fifth generation aircraft in two separate phases. They will most likely develop a third 5th gen LITE aircraft to complete their fighter fleet.

If you look at advanced 4th gen (F-18, F-15 and F-16) acquisition they were by nations that either required a dual capability (South Korea) or nations that would not for political reasons get the F-35 before the IDF has it or others whose fighters were retiring before the F-35 arrival and were therefore forced to bifurcate their purchase and replace one capability with a 4.5 generation aircraft while the other capability with the 5th generation aircraft. No major F-16 operator is buying more F-16's and the same pretty much applies for the F-15 (if you exclude those air forces that planned to operate a mixed fleet from the start).

Singapore, since joining the F-35 development program categorically said that they were going to take the 3 phases to fighter modernization.

Phase 1 - Acquisition of a heavy adv 4th generation fighter (Now the F-15SG)
Phase 2 - Modernization of the F-16 fleet
Phase 3 - Acquisition of the F-35 (possibly in the B version).

Singapore's current fleet of F-16's is not very old with the first one having come to them in 1998 and the last around 2004-05 and its is for this reason that no one really expects them to buy any new aircraft until the modernization program for the F-16 has concluded (to the best of my knowledge it hasn't even started yet). Boeing, BAE and Lockheed martin are competing for a future Singapore F-16 modernization program.

Why Singapore Wants the F-35

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGh4R2u-UbQ

srai · Post by **srai** » 25 Aug 2014 06:02

I don't know why non-US companies compete in Singapore's fighter competition. Singapore, with its unique arrangement of basing/training of its US-made combat aircraft fleet on US soil, would highly unlikely opt for non-US fighters. Have the Europeans offered basing of Singaporean aircrafts?

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 25 Aug 2014 07:31

brar_w wrote:What this program is aiming to create is a new family of helicopters that can be modified to suite the mission needs. Some of the 4 original competitors are using the same basic technology or set of technologies to create multiple prototypes to demonstrate their design maturity and to reduce risk. Sikorsky and Boeing are doing this through the internally funded Raider and the DARPA/USA funded Defiant. The magnitude of the effort is of similar nature to the JSF program although the program won't use a common vehicle for all the different things (haven't made that call yet). As had happened to the fixed wing fighter industry (consolidation) expect the looser in this competition to fold shop or be acquired by a major prime either from within the US or from outside (Augusta Westland).

I notice that the technology looks quite primitive compared to the Eurocopter X-3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_X3

A technology demonstration platform for Eurocopter "high-speed, long-range hybrid helicopter" or H³ concept,[1] the X³ achieved 255 knots in level flight on 7 June 2013, setting an unofficial speed record for a helicopter

The Eurocopter Tiger and this technology demonstrator point to the comprehensive all round supremacy of the EU tech compared to the US. Stealth, composites, agility and lightweight. The EU helicopters are the world best right now. No wonder HAL's helicopters and the Chinese are based off European designs.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7fWDOfOcWU[/youtube]

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Aug 2014 07:41

I notice that the technology looks quite primitive compared to the Eurocopter X-3.

Really? Whats your awesome technical analysis behind that? You saw two extra rotors on the sides and came to the conclusion? How is a blackhawk going to function with those side rotor blades in that configuration? Could it just be (very tiny bit) possible that the two designs ( X-2 and X-3) were based on different technical challenges?

A technology demonstration platform for Eurocopter "high-speed, long-range hybrid helicopter" or H³ concept,[1] the X³ achieved 255 knots in level flight on 7 June 2013, setting an unofficial speed record for a helicopter

And the X-2 also surpassed the 250 knots barrier with easy, but that wasn't the point of the program. The point was to show that this could be done and the technology adapted for a future platform that would get the speed and still manage to achieve a range close to 2x that of the incumbent aircraft. That was the entire point of the X-2 and the scope of the company funded tech demonstrator . Company funded tech demonstrators are BARE BONE aircraft that are strapped together by obtaining cheap parts from other programs and minimal cost and man hour input. They are usually specific in their mission role and function that they have to validate. The X-2 was simply that, a bare bone validation that allowed sikorsky to take their design that they had on paper and validate it through a technology demonstator so that when they work on future projects they have a pretty good data set of hard testing numbers to tweak and incorporate.

The follow on to the X-2 is in the works and is having its electrical wiring installed -

http://raider.sikorsky.com

Even this is a tech demonstrator (and NOT A PROTOTYPE). Sikorsky is trying to show that speed and range can be considerably improved while fielding a technology that is validated, de-risked and that is scalable according to the application i.e it can be applied to a blackhawk class helicopter as well as to an attack helicopter (not the same aircraft but same technology applied to different aircraft).

The third tech demonstrator using this technology is going to be the Defiant which sikorsky and boeing are jointly developing using an extension of the same technology that began its de-risking path with the X-2. Bell has its valor that is a tilt rotor (coming form bell that makes sense) and tries to provide a different solution to the similar technological problem (speed and range)

The Eurocopter Tiger and this technology demonstrator point to the comprehensive all round supremacy of the EU tech compared to the US. Stealth, composites, agility and lightweight.

The X-2 was not required to demonstrate any of those qualities. It was a company funded effort to validate just one key technology going into their future design submissions, that was high speed and handling qualities at that high speed. Companies choose what they want to spend their own money on and for Sikorsky and friends the X-2 was to show SPEED because they damn well knew that the JMR program would have a lot of SPEED written into the KPP's as did Bell and others in the race. Composites were not a requirement for the X-2 because Sikorsky is teamed with Boeing (who own Hughes) who are well known for their IP in composites for all applications.

Companies all around the world have an internal R&D department. One of the main jobs of that is to foresee potential mission requirements and upcoming contract awards and trying to strategically position the R&D pipeline so that capability is at the lowest possible risk going into these competitive programs. The X-2 took care of speed and handling. Buildng upon that Sikorsky teamed with its partners (Boeing) and are launching in a few months the Raider that builds upon that and makes a more mission relevant tech demonstrator with seating for troops, composite fuselage and other more operationally relevant features. Even so, it would still be a tech demonstrator and not even a prototype (check the difference on the two often confused terms). Meanwhile Sikorsky and Boeing have just won an official CONTRACT to develop yet another tech demonstrator in the defiant based on loosely the same technology they have de-risked with the X-2 and will derisk shortly with the Raider. These company funded test beds are not to score brownie points over cross continent helo makers but to become more competitive when the real fight begins for a down-select.

comprehensive all round supremacy of the EU tech compared to the US

They don't even compete in the same class. Europe has nothing in the heavy attack helicopter class or the V-22 class while its been many decades since the US army or the Marines designed a clean sheet light attack helicopter. Bell and Agusta were co-developing the 609 commercial tilt rotor but recent news reports have revealed that Bell/Textron has sold its IP on tilt rotors for commercial use to Agusta.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 25 Aug 2014 07:42

srai wrote:I don't know why non-US companies compete in Singapore's fighter competition. Singapore, with its unique arrangement of basing/training of its US-made combat aircraft fleet on US soil, would highly unlikely opt for non-US fighters. Have the Europeans offered basing of Singaporean aircrafts?

After the Philippines asked the US to leave two decades ago, Singapore offered and the US accepted to base a full service US Navy depot and a US Air Force logistical center. Singapore will get their JSFs if they want them. They are such gear heads I can't imagine them NOT getting them. Everything top shelf.

It should be noted that Singapore is one of the few countries that gives India a positive trade balance.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 25 Aug 2014 07:45

brar_w wrote:
TSJones wrote:it is very difficult to get a rocket to self land on a designated spot for reusability. they are attempting an extremely difficult objective. more good luck and power to them

note that elon musk refuses to file patents. he says why give the Chinese a play book?
From a while ago

it is rumored Space X will attempt a full production launch recovery on to a barge off the Florida coast sometime next year.

the US is going thru a renaissance of space launch services. it beggars the imagination.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Aug 2014 07:50

Space X is like giving multi-billion dollars to any one of us forum members and letting us run wild

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Aug 2014 08:09

Another point that I forgot to mention in the HELO post. There is nothing magical about 250 Knots (which both the X-2 and X-3 surpassed). Bell with its valor are aiming for something like 280 knots (The V-22 already does 270+ knots using the tilt rotor). The 2 tech demonstrators that have been downselected are quite different approaches. From a prelim reading on the matter it appears that the BELL design will have some advantage as the speed requirements are increased while Sikorsky has a design that will continue to compete at high speeds but will be a significantly lower risk and associated cost. Bell's design which falls back on its own R&D and strengths is more optimized for vertical lift and cruise while Sikorsky has a technology that can be better added to varying mission types (either black hawk or a cobra or a apache replacement). It may well be that post the fly-off the US Army may choose a speed of 210 or 220 knots as the "sweet spot". Speed does not come without the cost penalty. Like i said a few days ago, anything that has flown @ 250 knots can be taken to 270 and beyond with plenty of money thrown in. Its the customer that ultimately decides where the performance graph and the cost graphs best meet.

Winner takes all programs are very very tricky as the OEM's have to be very careful as to what priority they give to their program especially in large scale programs where a defeat could mean the folding of the company. McDonnell Douglass completely screwed up the STOVL propulsion by showing the Middle finger to the USMC during the JSF days (they developed a lift engine setup using hot air which the USMC had categorically said they did not want) and hoping that the large USAF order base will still swing the deal in their favor - and got completely burnt and left in a state where they were acquired by Boeing. If the sweet spot of the JMR follow on is closer to 200-220 knots then to the 250+ knots, Bell may well end up with a more risky and costly proposal in the Valor. Similarly if the US army prioritizes vertical lift and essentially the "blackhawk" mission over the long term apache mission then the Valor would seem to have the upper hand. Its also entirely possible that they down select the Valor and fund the AH-64F and bring back the Sikorsky JMR for a future, delayed Apache replacement. These are big stakes (to read the direction a program will take) and the folks making the call from the project submission standpoint literally stake their careers on the line.

Bell+Lockheed's offering - http://bellv280.com

As you can see there is only one company competing in the JMR with a helicopter

which goes to show that the US Army isn't really interested in a particular technology and its application but how best to fulfill a mission need. The rest is left up to the OEM's to design and submit.