International Aerospace Discussion

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 May 2014 18:49

Russian Air Force to induct a hundred MiG-35 fighters after 2016

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 May 2014 16:19

In Pictures

HeliRussia 2014 (Helicopter Industry Exhibition HeliRussia 2014)

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 May 2014 21:04

US firm pitches ‘budget’ jets for Swiss air force

American company Textron Airland is bidding to sell its “budget” Scorpion jets to the Swiss government at one-seventh the cost of Swedish Gripen fighter planes turned down by voters in Switzerland this month.

Not bad for nations that just need a fighter but have no intentions of doing something with it

although it would make for a funny site for them to walk into red flag armed with these

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBi1loOVrkA[/youtube]

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 May 2014 10:30

Future of Advanced Manufacturing

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyWuHcvyqD0[/youtube]

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 May 2014 05:59

Funny story about the Swiss in AWST.Apparently,they're "too poor" to afford ANY replacement for their F-5s!

Since the td. has been locked,I'm posting this here,after the US admits that the "pings" which "launched a thousand ships" to search for the missing MH flight were bogus.Here are the most popular theories,including former Malaysian pres. Mahathir blaming the US/CIA/Boeing for the event.

Missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370: The 13 theories that could explain where the plane is - and what happened to it

With no trace of the missing Boeing 777 in the "ping" search area, conspiracy theorists have tried to fill in the gaps of what we know

Adam Withnall

Thursday 29 May 2014

Officials today confirmed what we have feared for some time - that a relatively tiny search zone in the southern Indian Ocean is not the final resting place of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.

From an underwater mission covering 850 sq km (320 sq mile) where acoustic "pings" were heard, the area being searched has now been extended to around a 60,000 sq km (23,100 sq mile) zone based on satellite data which remains disputed in some quarters.

The Australia-led search control team estimate it could be August - next year - before this region has been covered, and hopes of finding the Boeing 777's flight recorders are becoming increasingly dim.

With so much uncertainty surrounding the circumstances of MH370's bizarre disappearance, it has become rich territory for aviation experts, bloggers and conspiracy theorists alike.

Here we round up 13 of the most prominent theories as to where the plane ended up, and what went wrong in the first place.

Shot down in a military training exercise

While the Australian officials leading the search for MH370 say they remain “absolutely convinced” it ended up in the southern Indian Ocean, some passengers’ families – and theorists – distrust the unprecedented satellite data analysis involved.

Among those who support this view are the British journalist and author Nigel Cawthorne, who has controversially already published the first book on the plane’s disappearance.

Boatswain's Mate, Able Seaman Morgan Macdonald (L) observing markers from a Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) P3K Orion at sea in the Southern Indian Ocean Boatswain's Mate, Able Seaman Morgan Macdonald (L) observing markers from a Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) P3K Orion at sea in the Southern Indian Ocean He supports one theory, based on the eye-witness testimony of New Zealand oil rig worker Mike McKay, that the plane was shot down shortly after it stopped communicating with air traffic controllers.

At the time there was a series of war games taking place in the South China Sea involving Thailand, the US and personnel from China, Japan, Indonesia and others, and Cawthorne has linked this to Mr McKay’s claims to have seen a burning plane going down in the Gulf of Thailand.
Flown north and shot down deliberately, prompting cover-up

At a stage in the investigation when it was believed the plane could have flown for some time from where it disappeared along either a northern or southern corridor, many posted on forums suggesting that if it had been the former we would never hear about what happened.

Some still support this view, and former RAF navigator Sean Maffett told the BBC that after 9/11, any unidentified airliner entering the airspace of another country would lead to fighter jets being scrambled.

“If the plane is in the northern arc it could easily have been shot down,” he said. This theory also involves a national – or possibly international – cover-up, based on the premise that no country would want to admit to shooting down an airliner full of passengers from all over the world.
Flown north in the ‘shadow’ of another plane

Another theory suggests that instead of flying south, the plane flew north in the “shadow” of another airliner around half an hour to an hour after dropping off civilian radar.

The aviation blogger Keith Ledgerwood argued that MH370 and Singapore Airlines flight 68 were in the same vicinity at the time, and said: “It became apparent as I inspected SIA68's flight path history that MH370 had manoeuvred itself directly behind SIA68 at approximately 18:00UTC and over the next 15 minutes had been following SIA68.”

By flying a short distance behind and most likely a little above the altitude of SIA68, also a Boeing 777, Ledgerwood said that it would be able to appear as a single blip on radar screens.

Flight officer Rayan Gharazeddine on board a Royal Australian Air Force AP-3C Orion, searches for the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 in the southern Indian Ocean, Australia Flight officer Rayan Gharazeddine on board a Royal Australian Air Force AP-3C Orion, searches for the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 in the southern Indian Ocean, Australia SIA68 flew on to Spain – and this theory suggests MH370 could have branched off and landed in one of a number of locations across Xinjiang (north-east China), Kyrgyzstan or Turkmenistan.

Experts have said that the idea sounds “feasible”, and that even if higher-resolution military radar was monitoring SIA68 operators might have dismissed the fact that there were two objects as an technical glitch or echo.
Tried to land on a desert island beach

After reports that the plane had turned left shortly following its disappearance from civilian radar screens, speculation grew that it could have landed on a remote beach somewhere like the Andaman Islands, which lie between Indonesia and the coast of Thailand.

Though CNN reported that locals dismissed the idea a Boeing 777 could land on an airstrip there undetected, the archipelago consists of hundreds of remote islands with some long stretches of sand.

Former BA pilot Steve Buzdygan said it would be difficult – but not impossible – to bring a 777 down on a long deserted beach.
Landed at a US military base

One of the more outlandish conspiracy theories that has gained some traction online is the idea that MH370 could have been “captured” and flown to a military base on the UK-owned tropical atoll of Diego Garcia, in the middle of the Indian Ocean.

Flying Officer Elizabeth Vonfinster, an Air Combat Officer with No. 2 Squadron sits at her station aboard the RAAF E-7A Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) aircraft during its return from another mission in the search for the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 in the southern Indian Ocean Flying Officer Elizabeth Vonfinster, an Air Combat Officer with No. 2 Squadron sits at her station aboard the RAAF E-7A Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) aircraft during its return from another mission in the search for the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 in the southern Indian Ocean The base is run by the US, and some have reportedly said in forum postings that the Kremlin has put some credence into this possibility.

Such is the strength of belief in this theory that the US government has been forced to issue a denial. A spokesperson for the US embassy in Malaysia told the local Star newspaper that there was “no indication that MH370 flew anywhere near the Maldives or Diego Garcia”. “MH370 did not land in Diego Garcia,” he added.
Headed for a remote airport in Langkawi, Malaysia

One theory, put forward by another aviation blogger named Chris Goodfellow, has it that the sudden left turn came after major catastrophe knocked out a range of the plane’s electronics, from transponders to communications equipment.

In this scenario and in the middle of the night, Goodfellow argued, the pilot would redirect towards the nearest safe airport.

“This pilot did all the right things,” he said. “Actually he was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi, a 13,000ft (4,000m) strip with an approach over water at night with no obstacles. He did not turn back to Kuala Lumpur because he knew he had 8,000ft ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier towards Langkawi and also a shorter distance.”

This theory assumes that the plane was in fact controlled manually once it disappeared – and that it did not make it to Langkawi.
A fire throughout the plane

Many theories accept that the Inmarsat satellite analysis is accurate – that the plane headed south into the Indian Ocean and flew on for hours before a final, partial “handshake” in a remote location thousands of miles off the west coast of Australia.

This photo illustration shows a journalist looking on the data communication logs from British satellite operator Inmarsat and released by the Malaysian authorities on 27 May This photo illustration shows a journalist looking on the data communication logs from British satellite operator Inmarsat and released by the Malaysian authorities on 27 May The issue here becomes explaining what happened in the cabin between the last contact with flight controllers and the plane’s seemingly inevitable crash far out to see.

One suggestion is that a fire broke out, not just in the cockpit but throughout the interior of the plane. The implication is that this resulted in the attempt to turn back, after which the fire killed those on board.

This theory would then have it that the fire went out before damaging the exterior of the plane, which flew on autopilot until its fuel ran out.

Yet such a fire would be expected to spread with at least some warning – and that surely would have given the pilots time to issue a mayday distress signal.
An explosion in the cockpit

The theory of a sudden explosion within the cockpit before the turn left could explain why there was no attempt to signal for help.

Since 9/11 cockpits doors have been fortified to become extremely difficult to bypass, and such a sudden incident could perhaps have incapacitated both pilots while keeping out the rest of the crew.

This explanation does not seem to tally with the claims of some Malaysian officials, however, that the change in direction was the result of “seven or eight keystrokes into a computer on a knee-high pedestal between the captain and the first officer”.
A struggle at altitude

Though Malaysian officials believe that the plane was deliberately diverted, and that its communications systems were turned off one after the other, a detailed background check into all 227 passengers has cleared all of suspicion.

If, however, we do accept that the plane was the subject of a passenger hijacking, it remains to be explained why the hijackers did not try to do more than fly the plane into the middle of the southern Indian Ocean.

Angus Houston is leading the search for missing Malaysian aircraft Angus Houston is leading the search for missing Malaysian aircraft One theory suggests that there was some kind of struggle for control of the plane that ultimately ended with mutual destruction.

Further analysis of data by Malaysian officials suggests that the plane was flown erratically once it left civilian radar, climbing to 45,000ft before dropping very low. Buzdygan told the BBC he would resort to this sort of flying if faced with would-be hijackers. “I’d try to disorientate and confuse the hijackers by throwing them around,” he said.
A botched hijack attempt

The climb to 45,000ft could also have been carried out by the hijackers once they had taken control – in a bid to kill the passengers on board.

At such an altitude it could be possible to depressurise the cabin, causing oxygen supplies to be deployed. These run out after 12-15 minutes and, if those flying the plane had access to another oxygen supply, could have been an attempt to prevent anyone intervening.

Under this theory the suggestion is clearly that the attempt failed, killing the hijackers as well.
Pilot suicide

As part of the ongoing criminal investigation in Malaysia, police are looking into the state of mind and possible motives of the captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah and co-pilot Fariq Abdul Hamid.

The Malaysian police chief Khalid Abu Bakar has said that “all possibilities” will be looked into, and there have been reports that Shah was going through a difficult marriage break-up.

Pilots Zaharie Ahmad Shah, 53, left, and Fariq Abdul Pilots Zaharie Ahmad Shah, 53, left, and Fariq Abdul Yet such comments have been rubbished by the man’s relatives, who have described him since as a dedicated family man and model professional.

Hugh Dunleavy, the commercial director of Malaysia Airlines, described Shah as a seasoned pilot with an excellent record.

“There have been absolutely no implications that we are aware of that there was anything untoward in either his behaviour or attitude,” he told Reuters. “We have no reason to believe that there was anything, any actions, internally by the crew that caused the disappearance of this aircraft.”
Sabotage – for a life insurance scam or corporate attack

One of the other strands of the criminal investigation regards whether the plane was subject to some form of sabotage – either as part of a life insurance scam or over industrial espionage.

Bakar said that when passengers and crew were being investigated, police were looking for “Maybe somebody on the flight has bought a huge sum of insurance, who wants family to gain from it or somebody who has owed somebody so much money, you know, we are looking at all possibilities.”

There were also 20 employees of the US silicon chip company Freescale Semiconductor on board the plane at the time, and a retired Delta Airlines pilot has suggested the plane’s disappearance was an attempt to steal technology the engineers had applied – but not yet received – a patent for.
A CIA cover-up

Finally, the former prime minister of Malaysia Mahathir Mohamad has waded in with his own theory – suggesting that, one way or another, the CIA is definitely hiding something.

In a blog entry posted on 18 May entitled ‘Boeing Technology – What goes up must come down’, Dr Mahathir Mohamad makes ten claims including that the plane was taken over remotely by officials working for Boeing and the CIA.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 05 Jun 2014 09:22

Talk about bizarre !

*****, homophobic jokes and dirty talk about women became common in the Blue Angels team- investigation

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 05 Jun 2014 09:28

Omani Hawk AJT production begins at BAe facility

Omani Hawk production begins

Doesn't seem like HAL managed to get any work out of future Hawk orders..unlike Turkey, which has signed deals with OEMs that give it a workshare for future sales and also after-sales service and support. Since India has ordered so many Hawks, they could've bargained with BAe to get some workshare on all future Hawk sales.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 05 Jun 2014 18:05

One of the contenders for the OH58D Kiowa warrior replacement

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrk9yvkWyEo[/youtube]

http://raider.sikorsky.com

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 05 Jun 2014 22:19

Jet crashes into California homes but no injuries

The Harrier AV-8B had taken off from Marine Corps Air Station in Yuma, Arizona, and was almost at his destination at Naval Air Facility El Centro when he ejected and the jet crashed for reasons not immediately clear, Ferguson said.

SSSalvi · Post by **SSSalvi** » 06 Jun 2014 03:18

It was Courtesy .. more than a rule of law that did not let it happen.

Now finally it has happened : Arabsat is JAMMED .. and its operators have approached ITU for justice.

http://sssalvi.blogspot.com/2014/06/jam ... eared.html

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 06 Jun 2014 07:26

a number of years ago a US satellite that carried an iranian dessident show was jammed. The jamming was coming from a facility in Cuba. We told the cubans to shut it down, or else. The jamming stopped.

SSSalvi · Post by **SSSalvi** » 06 Jun 2014 07:31

^^^

Thanks for the info.

Good to learn that a little arm-twisting healed the problem. Let's hope that same thing happens again.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jun 2014 07:58

TSJones wrote:a number of years ago a US satellite that carried an iranian dessident show was jammed. The jamming was coming from a facility in Cuba. We told the cubans to shut it down, or else. The jamming stopped.

The US "told" the Cubans to do something and the Cubans complied? That has been the tradition since 1962 at least. Nice.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 06 Jun 2014 08:22

shiv wrote:
TSJones wrote:a number of years ago a US satellite that carried an iranian dessident show was jammed. The jamming was coming from a facility in Cuba. We told the cubans to shut it down, or else. The jamming stopped.
The US "told" the Cubans to do something and the Cubans complied? That has been the tradition since 1962 at least. Nice.

we had already been through the jamming thing with cuba back in the '60's about broadcasts coming from south florida. They're not to mess with our signals and we don't mess with theirs. So now everybody on the island can listen to cry baby glen beck and rush limbaugh. and we can listen to commadante numero uno's 6-7 hour speeches.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 06 Jun 2014 11:59

Philip wrote: New US secret stealth UCAV to enter service by 2015. DEc '13 report though.

The UAV is in the Low Rate Initial Production phase according to fairly solid investigative journalism conducted by a few reputable publications.

Unmasking the RQ-180
Secret New UAS Shows Stealth, Efficiency Advances
Where Does RQ-180 Fit In Stealthy UAS History?

Aviation week's estimate of its shape. They report that size is quite large with their estimates being a wingspan of 130 feet (40m) which would be around 2/3rds of span of the B-2.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 06 Jun 2014 16:59

^^^^yes, it's been spotted flying over the Texas panhandle in the last year or so.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 06 Jun 2014 18:30

Got any link?

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 06 Jun 2014 21:33

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/secret ... 7641492832

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Jun 2014 21:40

Mar 28, 2014 :: Mystery aircraft photographed over Texas

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-D7x1VUdp4F8/U ... 0/dean.jpg

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 06 Jun 2014 22:20

NRao wrote:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-D7x1VUdp4F8/U ... 0/dean.jpg

just a curiosity question: what is the requirement in terms of exhaust trail for a stealth fighter. This image shows quite a long trail just like any 4th gen fighter aircraft

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 06 Jun 2014 22:43

The B-2 employs a contrail management systems which is basically an early warning type of a setup that warns the pilot of heavy contrail formation allowing the pilot to change altitude. Other methods have been tried as listed in the link down below.

In 1994 the government awarded a $63.5-million [other sources report $16 million] contract to the Northrop Corporation to fine-tune stealth bombers in a number of ways. One retrofit involved the installation of "contrail management systems." Ophir, an optical sensor manufacturer in Littleton, Colorado, saved the day. Its Pilot Alert System uses lidar (light detection and ranging) to differentiate contrails from clouds and tell the pilot to change his altitude when his aircraft is "conning."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... trails.htm

The exact technique or equipment used is probably still largely classified, and if its a system then its likely not used outside of combat or combat training (not routinely).

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Jun 2014 17:17

F-22s land in Malaysia for first Southeast Asian exercise

Six US Air Force (USAF) F-22 Raptor air-superiority fighters arrived in Malaysia at RMAF Butterworth airbase on 6 June to take part in the bilateral Exercise 'Cope Taufan 2014'.

The participation of the F-22 in its first exercise in a Southeast Asian country follows discussions in 2013. The United States is keen to engage with Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) Sukhoi Su-30MKMs, which in the past carried out air combat exercises with US Navy carrier-based fighters whenever a carrier transited through Malaysian waters.

The six F-22s are a composite detachment from the 19th and 199th fighter squadrons, both from the 154th Fighter Wing based at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, and arrived from Andersen Air Force Base in Guam. They will be joined by Boeing F-15Cs of the 131st Fighter Squadron, 104th Fighter Wing, Barnes Air National Guard Base, Massachusetts.

Both types will engage in air-to-air combat exercises with the RMAF's Su-30MKMs of No 11 Squadron, Mikoyan MiG-29s of No 17 Squadron, Boeing F/A-18Ds of No 18 Squadron and BAE Systems Hawks of No 6 and 15 squadrons. The latter scenario would involve two Hawks against one USAF fighter.

'Cope Taufan 2014' will also include a number of logistics exercises involving USAF transport squadrons: C-130s of 36th Airlift Squadron, 374th Airlift Wing from Yokota Air Base, Japan, and C-17s from the 517th Airlift Squadron, 3rd Wing, Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska; and 535th Airlift Squadron, 15th Wing and 204th Airlift Squadron, 154th Wing, both of which are based at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam. The RMAF will be represented by C-130s from No 20 Squadron.

'Cope Taufan 2014' takes place from 9 to 20 June with USAF units staging out of RMAF Butterworth for the fighter units and RMAF Subang and RMAF Kuantan for the USAF transport and special operations units. The exercise has also folded in the 'Teak Mint' exercise conducted with RMAF and USAF special operations units and the 'Balance Mint' exercise between USAF special operations and the Malaysian Army Gerakhas Special Forces.

More pictures here:

http://syarkghost.blogspot.in/2014/06/c ... e-f22.html

Aircraft involved-

RMAF
6 and 15 Skuadron - BAE Systems Hawks
11 SKN - Sukhoi Su-30MKM
17 SKN - Mikoyan MiG-29
18 SKN- Boeing F/A-18D Hornets

USAF

131st Fighter Squadron, 104th Fighter Wing, Barnes Air National Guard Base, Massachusetts (F-15C)
199th Fighter Squadron, 154th Wing, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii (F-22A)
19th Fighter Squadron, 154th Wing, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii (F-22A)
36th Airlift Squadron, 374th Airlift Wing, Yokota Air Base, Japan (C-130)
517th Airlift Squadron, 3rd Wing, Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska (C-17)
535th Airlift Squadron, 15th Wing, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii (C-17)
204th Airlift Squadron, 154th Wing, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii (C-17)

From the US point of view, American military aviators will probably relish the opportunity to fly with advanced Russian fighters such as the MiG-29 and Su-30 as the air combat serials represent the ultimate in dissimilar air combat training.

Second, Cope Taufan will see the United States military deploy its Joint Deployable Electronic Warfare Range (JDEWR) to Malaysia for the first time. This training aid should add value to the Angkatan Tentera Malaysia (Malaysian Armed Forces) as it will allow Malaysian warfighters to understand and appreciate how air combat tactics should be executed in contested airspace.

http://kementah.blogspot.in

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 08 Jun 2014 17:35

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How much is the possibility of F-22 trying to size up the Su 30 MKM radars and avionics which probably has same Radar and S/w as the MKI.

member_23651 · Post by **member_23651** » 08 Jun 2014 17:38

Very true, it is basically meant to size up MKI and somewhat MKM. They held similar exercise with packees F7 aircrafts-some years back.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Jun 2014 18:02

Here's what I could find on the Joint Deployable Electronic Warfare Range listed above, which was something that seemed interesting

The Joint Deployable Electronic Warfare Range (JDEWR) was developed to bring PACAF’s training capabilities to a wider audience. JDEWR, a mobile Electronic Warfare oriented autonomous platform, is a system of systems that provide tactical-level training to participants in live training events around the world. Frequently, these events have limited or no range instrumentation or on-site training capabilities. JDEWR has been used to support multinational and joint exercises at weapon ranges in Thailand, Australia, and Canada, and unit-level training in South Korea.

To mitigate the issues of securing sensitive data while allowing participants at different clearance levels to train together, PACAF adopted the SimShieldTM cross domain solution from Raytheon Trusted Computer Solutions. SimShield allows for secure, bi-directional interoperability among LVC assets that are dissimilarly classified. SimShield supports
the standards-based, Test and Training Enabling Network Architecture (TENA) protocol utilized by JPARC and JDEWR. By deploying SimShield within the architecture, JPARC can utilize secure bi-directional integration and interaction of all equipment and sub-systems throughout the training environment.

http://www.trustedcs.com/resources/case ... yFINAL.pdf

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Jun 2014 18:21

dhiraj wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How much is the possibility of F-22 trying to size up the Su 30 MKM radars and avionics which probably has same Radar and S/w as the MKI.

The USN has been training with the MKM"s

If indeed they have participated with the full spectrum of US carriers then its quite likely that the MKM's have mixed up with the AN/ALQ-218. Although not as sophisticated as the ALR/94 it would be quite handy if one were so inclined. Although most air forces look to gain some valuable intel from these, and most will look to protect what needs to be protected.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Jun 2014 18:46

brar_w wrote:
dhiraj wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How much is the possibility of F-22 trying to size up the Su 30 MKM radars and avionics which probably has same Radar and S/w as the MKI.
The USN has been training with the MKM"s

One does not have to train with anyone to get to know things.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Jun 2014 19:31

NRao wrote:

One does not have to train with anyone to get to know things.

There are many number of ways one can gather emissions intel, but my point was that if the US wanted to snoop in on Su-30MKM emissions that this would not be the first training exercise which would provide them with an opportunity to do so.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 09 Jun 2014 20:40

"MADRID: A Eurofighter jet crashed on Monday while landing at the Moron air base in southwestern Spain near Seville, a defence ministry spokeswoman said.

"A Eurofighter has crashed on landing on the runway of the Moron base," she said. She was not able to confirm media reports that the pilot had died in the crash."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 307925.cms

This is what happens when concentrate intellectually challenged people at one spot.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Jun 2014 20:52

brar_w wrote:
NRao wrote:

One does not have to train with anyone to get to know things.
There are many number of ways one can gather emissions intel, but my point was that if the US wanted to snoop in on Su-30MKM emissions that this would not be the first training exercise which would provide them with an opportunity to do so.

Or obtain a copy of it!!

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 10 Jun 2014 03:08

brar_w wrote:US firm pitches ‘budget’ jets for Swiss air force

American company Textron Airland is bidding to sell its “budget” Scorpion jets to the Swiss government at one-seventh the cost of Swedish Gripen fighter planes turned down by voters in Switzerland this month.
Not bad for nations that just need a fighter but have no intentions of doing something with it although it would make for a funny site for them to walk into red flag armed with these

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBi1loOVrkA[/youtube]

I have friend who is married to a Swiss woman. When I asked whether she was was a Swiss Army Wife (say it a couple of times), he started to laugh.

The Swiss are into neutrality/banality to the extent butter will not melt on body parts.

The Swiss perfectly illustrate Ambrose Bierce:

"The Wooden Guns

An Artillery Regiment of a State Militia applied to the Governor for wooden guns to practice with.

“Those,” they explained, “will be cheaper than real ones.”

“It shall not be said that I sacrificed efficiency to economy,” said the Governor. “You shall have real guns.”

“Thank you, thank you,” cried the warriors, effusively. “We will take good care of them, and in the event of war return them to the arsenal.”

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/374/374-h/374-h.htm

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 Jun 2014 17:30

Some more pictures from Cope Taufan 2014 exercise

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Jun 2014 19:54

Guys ,what gives? This is not a CT incident,hard evidence.Was the MH flight also part of this phenomenon?

'Unprecedented' disappearance of aircraft from radar screens in Europe
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... html[quote]
For almost half an hour, 13 aircraft vanished from air traffic controllers' radar screens as they flew at high altitude above Europe, it has been revealed.

The "undprecedented" disappearances happened on 5 June and 10 June, hitting control rooms in Austria and neighbouring countries.

The relevant EU agencies have been asked to investigate, Austria's flight safety organisation said on Thursday. Marcus Pohanka of Austro Control said the height, location, identities and other information for a total of 13 aircraft suddenly vanished.

He said several neighbouring countries had similar incidents and the EU's Eurocontrol and European Aviation Safety Agency has been asked for a probe. He did not identify the other nations. but the daily Kurier said flight controllers in Munich and Karlsruhe in Germany, and in Prague, the Czech Republic, also reported related problems.

The newspaper cited unnamed experts as saying interference between the aircrafts' transponders and ground control was apparently to blame. Pohanka declined to confirm that or to say which airlines and planes were involved. But he suggested that at least some may have been long-distance passenger aircraft, based on their high altitudes.

There was no danger at any time, he said, adding that extra air controllers were immediately called to their posts, where workers established voice contact with pilots and widened flight corridors.
[/quote]

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Jun 2014 01:07

More from Cope Taufan 2014

Video footage including Su-30 and F22 in the air towards the end

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qileve7hazQ[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qileve7hazQ

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 15 Jun 2014 22:28

A-10s Saved the Day in Botched Afghanistan Raid

And excellent write up of an incident in Afghanistan that shows the relevance of old-fashioned, low-flying CAS on the modern day battlefield. Contrary to what some analysts like to imagine, you still can't provide accurate close air support from aircraft leisurely ambling about at high altitude.

Folks who have actually fought in Afghanistan swear by the A-10 and the kind of support it provides. High-altitude bombers don't even come close.

“The B-1 was now rushing to get the targeting solutions for the JDAMs,” the A-10 pilot wrote. “The JTAC ordered a bomb-on-coordinate nine-line”—a detailed attack order in standardized format—“and the B-1 was frantically attempting to repeat the coordinates while plugging them into his targeting system.”

“At the same time I was attempting to visualize where the coordinates were plotted, using just the verbal data alone—a skill set I learned from some experienced A-10 pilots,” the Warthog flier recalled.

“One set of coordinates made the hair on the back of my neck stand up,” the A-10 pilot wrote. “I glanced at my canopy, where I had very similar coordinates written in grease pencil and circled with ‘FDLY’”—code for friendly troops—“written on top. Before I could put two and two together, I heard the JTAC clear the B-1 hot for the four JDAMs.”

“Immediately after the ‘cleared hot,’ I heard my flight lead interject.”

“Abort! Abort! Abort!” the flight lead barked into the radio.

“State reason!” the B-1 crew demanded.

“Screw reason!” the A-10 leader responded. “God damn it, abort—you’re about to kill friendlies!”

The B-1 waved off. Irritated, the British JTAC asked why his bomber had aborted.

“You passed your own coordinates!” the A-10 flight lead shot back.

“The JTAC disagreed with that assessment,” the junior A-10 pilot wrote. “What I heard on the radio next still impresses me to this day. My flight lead asked the JTAC what GPS system he was using, then walked him through the page menus to confirm he was reading the system correctly.”

“This took an amazing amount of prior self-study and composure during paramount stress.”

The JTAC followed the senior Warthog pilot’s directives. “Holy shit, mate,” the air controller said. “You’re right. We’re spinning everything and we’re re-setting this.”

“Countless friendly lives were saved by a laminated Russian 1:50 map, a five-cent grease pencil and a dedicated and professional … pilot with the experience and training to sift through the fog of both air and ground war,” the A-10 pilot wrote.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Jun 2014 22:38

And excellent write up of an incident in Afghanistan that shows the relevance of old-fashioned, low-flying CAS on the modern day battlefield. Contrary to what some analysts like to imagine, you still can't provide accurate close air support from aircraft leisurely ambling about at high altitude.

Folks who have actually fought in Afghanistan swear by the A-10 and the kind of support it provides. High-altitude bombers don't even come close.

I do not think anyone has questioned the fact that the A-10's ability to go down and do CAS is not valued or a much needed capability in places like Afghanistan. That being said, Afghanistan is a permissive environment. You can pretty much arm anything with any weapon and it will fight uncontested. Put that in a context where your opponent is at a near peer level, or even remotely capable of having a capable weapons inventory to defeat slow and low aircraft and you'll see those aircrafts being severely challenged to perform even a reasonable level of CAS for the troops on the ground. That is the point the US air force was making when it said that when they are asked (by the budget makers) to pit the A-10's specialist CAS role with other roles (CAS, SEAD, DEAD, Air to air, ISR) they are forced to leave out those platforms that can perform one specific mission (specialist platforms). If the A-10 was so important in the future threat scenarios then the US Army should have taken some money out of their budget and taken over the entire fleet and said that 'we'll do this mission on our own' (Like the USMC do). Bottom line is that its a neat capability to have. Its utility is highly questionable against a moderately well equipped opponent. Add to that the fact that air forces all around the world are planning at doing CAS without platforms like the A-10. The french will be doing this with the Rafale the brits with the F-35 and so will the USAF. Thats just how it is going to be against any reasonable opponent. The Down and dirty mission is also why the F-35's gun carries a different round to that of the F-16 , F-15 families. While these carry the 20mm round the F-35 carries the 25mm round. While it won't be as good as the A-10 (No multi role fighter, be it the rafale, the eurofigther, gripen or F-35 will be) its the best you can do from a multi role capability.

The article you have posted is quite remarkable (thx for putting it up). It raises some very important points on the "fog of war" and the human element and mistakes that can be made. There was a plan way back to put auto self coordinate ability with the JTAC so that blue on blue could be prevented. This would require an override if the JTAC for example placed blue coordinates accidentally (this came with the net centric concepts - I think dod buzz or some army website did a report many years ago). Another point is that the concept of using a JDAM for CAS is slowly shifting to using the SDB I and II the latter adds many other targeting options. Laser designation is more accurate and immune to the mistakes of a wrong coordinate. Add a mix of both and you have added accuracy.

http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Progr ... PCAS).aspx

At the human level even the A_10 is not immune to mistakes.

On 28 March 2003, during the Iraq Invasion, four British armored vehicles were carrying out forward reconnaissance when they were spotted by two A-10 Thunderbolt II ground attack aircraft. The American pilots spotted the orange air recognition panels on the vehicles, but misidentified them as being “orange rockets” on enemy vehicles. After confirming with a Ground Forward Air Controller (GFAC) that they were clear of friendly forces, the aircraft strafed the vehicles twice. Two Scimitar light tanks were destroyed in the attack – five British soldiers were wounded, and one killed. A British inquest into the incident came to a number of conclusions about the cause of the incident, including the fact that the A-10s had not passed on the fact they had spotted the British patrol to the GFAC, nor did the aircraft receive clearance to engage from him. A US Air Force investigation recommended disciplinary action against both pilots, but both pilots where then later cleared of wrongdoing.

http://listverse.com/2012/11/03/8-worst ... ndly-fire/

http://www.militarycity.com/iraq/1725564.html

One thing that is often forgotten when folks write articles pro and against the A-10 retirement is that the A-10 retirement will close the chapter on one of the best strafing aircraft in the western word, it will however not remove the ability to carry out effective strafing from other assets available.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy9VPTWyLh0[/youtube]

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Jun 2014 23:43

UK PILOT FLIES THE B-2, TRAINED AS INSTRUCTOR PILOT

When the B-2 Spirit arrived at RAF Fairford for training June 8, an RAF pilot was part of the contingent as part of an elite exchange program between the two allies.

This exchange program is a tangible representation of the special relationship the U.S. and UK have enjoyed for many years.

Flight Lieutenant Ian Hart, a UK citizen and officer in the RAF, has been training with the 13th Bomb Squadron at Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri. since 2012 and is a fully mission-qualified instructor pilot in the B-2 Spirit.

“In the UK, we’re lucky enough to have exchanges all over the world with our allies,” Hart said. “We have more with the U.S. than anyone else because they’re a very close ally.”

Since World War I, the U.S. and UK have fought and trained side-by-side. One way to strengthen partnerships among the two nations is with interoperability training between warfighters. Using exchange programs the two nations accomplish operational training in a variety of mission specialties including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, tankers, bombers, fighters and helicopters.

“It’s about building an understanding,” Hart said. “We’re improving relations, interoperability and understanding with how closely we work together.”

Hart is the fourth RAF pilot to to fly the B-2, and recently his training brought him back to the UK and RAF Fairford.

“It’s lovely to get back and see the local area,” Hart said. “Fairford is a lovely place and things feel more familiar to me, like driving on the ‘correct side’ of the road, among other things.”

Hart flew the RAF GR4 Tornado for more than ten years before he trained in the B-2. He has enjoyed experiencing the differences between the two types of aircraft, as well as the difference between the U.S. military and the RAF operational procedures; the main one being the interactions with air traffic control.

“I’ve got a head start on the other pilots in the UK because I understand the structure and the air traffic control procedures,” Hart said. “In the U.S., rules are much more aligned through the Federal Aviation Administration and the way their airspace is structured.”

Hart remarked that this program has allowed him to grow in many ways.

“Seeing different structures and rules have really helped me develop professionally both as an officer and a pilot,” Hart said. “It’s given me ideas I will bring home on how we can improve systems ourselves.”

Hart believes having a common understanding of flight operations between the USAF and RAF will in turn make integration even more seamless.

The methods of training are different between the two nations though the intent is the same, Hart said.

“The U.S. training system and way of maintaining combat readiness is different from ours. The ways rules are written on how pilots must land, perform air refuels, and other various tasks to maintain mission readiness are different,” Hart said.

Nevertheless, Hart noted the outcome is still professional, highly trained pilots.

“Professionalism and pride are right at the top of the similarities that we both have,” Hart said. “The core of what we do remains the same throughout. We both have that to succeed, and that drive to do better, learn and teach other people.”

If Hart was called today to fight alongside the U.S., he would be ready, he said.

“We maintain that combat currency,” Hart said. “Part of what we’re doing here is to keep that mission training going to see how we would operate in a different airspace. I maintain my combat currencies just like every other pilot on the B-2. I have to hit the same standards and requirements to ensure that we are ready to go.”

“We are fully trained and confident,” Hart said.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Jun 2014 23:45

Mihir wrote:A-10s Saved the Day in Botched Afghanistan Raid

And excellent write up of an incident in Afghanistan that shows the relevance of old-fashioned, low-flying CAS on the modern day battlefield. Contrary to what some analysts like to imagine, you still can't provide accurate close air support from aircraft leisurely ambling about at high altitude.

Folks who have actually fought in Afghanistan swear by the A-10 and the kind of support it provides. High-altitude bombers don't even come close.

I hate to see the A-10 go, but things are changing - for better or worse, time will tell.

However, here is a post from the JSF thread:

brar_w wrote: An image of AN/AAQ-37 (EODAS) picking up Ground fire, and automatically geolocating it, feeding targets to the weapon and displaying all relevant information onto the MFD.

In the future a lot, if not all, of IFF info should be displayed on screens.

Of course this assumes everything will work, but that is where things are headed to.

"Plastics"!!!

"Networks".

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Jun 2014 23:51

The thing with DAS and its ability is going to push other allied capabilities. If you notice this image (the one you have linked) was not an original capability expected from the DAS at IOC (still is not). This was added as a requirement after these sensors flew and the performance was shared with tactical players. Northrop grumman (maker of das) was asked to bolt on a patched software to the main 2b software (much how apple e begins writing software and testing concepts for IOS9 even before IOS8 is complete for example) to demonstrate the capability. The beauty is that the ICP's, the sensors and the assemblies are able to do this just through software. Even without the geolocation abilities, the ability to pick up ground fire straight from the helmet mounted DAS image and be able to put a gun on it would be much easier compared to what the F-16 or 18 does.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 16 Jun 2014 17:10

brar_w wrote:UK PILOT FLIES THE B-2, TRAINED AS INSTRUCTOR PILOT

Flt Lt Hart has been flying for RAF for 12+ years now - 10 years on Tornado and 2+ years on B2. Strange that he is still a Flight Lieutenant.