International Aerospace Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4059
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby kit » 24 Sep 2015 20:07

http://www.janes.com/article/54776/south-korea-denied-access-to-technologies-sought-through-f-35-offset-deal


South Korea's Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) confirmed on 24 September that it has been prohibited from accessing some of the technologies requested through a defence offset programme linked to the country's purchase of Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Singha » 24 Sep 2015 20:30

some of the alligators will go on the mistrals.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9231
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Sep 2015 20:39

hnair wrote:Thanks brar_w, very informative. So the third-stream approach is a new approach to the earlier one, as the GE gent rightly pointed out. Does the west europeans have any equivalent programs?



There is no propulsion requirements from any of the current European programs. Requirements are likely to emerge in a few years time for a UCAV (FCAS) effort that follows the Taranis and Neuron programs. I don't think their is any technology development out there that has an engine or parts of an engine on the bench at the moment but I'll dig around and see if I can find them. Rolls Royce took part in the ADVENT program which preceded the AETD and AETP engine programs and essentially started the effort to develop sixth generation aircraft engines. The Pentagon chose not to award Pratt and Whitney any R&D money for the ADVENT core, choosing RR and GE for the work instead. P&W came in in the AETD phase of the program having designed their adaptive engine on internal funds in the interim. RR then got left out of the follow on technology development efforts and will most likely not be in a position to compete once the next Great Engine War finally leads to a selection. I am not sure how much of the work RR performed for the Pentagon's ADVENT (AFRL) program is transferable to European programs though.

ice video that sums up all the things we desperately want to achieve
•Reliable, efficient core that is lightweight, strong and can withstand higher temperatures
•Low bypass for high thrust
•High bypass for fuel efficiency
•Air cooling for stealth and efficiency


Yes these engines are critically important if one wants to move beyond the current capability. The F-35 for example has 5 times the thermal requirement of the F-16 and this increase isn't likely to subside as directed energy weapons are introduced over the next few decades. The third stream will open up another dimension to keeping the IR signature down especially since the fuel sink that was introduced with 5th generation has pretty much exhausted its limits even with different blends that can be tried out (won't deal with the amount of thermal control required for future systems).
http://www.janes.com/article/54776/south-korea-denied-access-to-technologies-sought-through-f-35-offset-deal


South Korea's Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) confirmed on 24 September that it has been prohibited from accessing some of the technologies requested through a defence offset programme linked to the country's purchase of Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.


A couple of those things were always going to be tough, particularly the radar. They'll find other collaborators (Thales, SELEX, ELTA for example) for these on the F-X and move on, but the technology transfer was always supposed to have two components i.e. the developer has to agree to sell its technology and then the State and Defense departments have to release the technology since it was developed under their funding. In this case the developer agreed to sell all 25 technologies but the ultimate decision authority only agreed on 21 of the 25.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9231
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Sep 2015 22:44

Actually all you'd need is a software modification for the Aim-9X to allow for delayed ignition.


That would be the easiest way to do. Interestingly the Aim-9X Blk II hit Milestone C with BlkIIs second subblock to be available in a couple of years. Beyond 2017 however there is nothing happening in that program and it would be a nice time to get that underway for an interim solution. Unfortunately with sequestration and the BCA you cant really look out more than 2 years with any sort of certainty and the Navy did well to get out of the Block III program for now. The USAF's work in future missiles is all super quiet other then some of the stuff the OEM's are allowed to release from time to time. The lack of an internal Aim-9X is a reasonable risk the USAF (and to a lesser extent the USN) is willing to absorb in the interim given that they have built in significantly better HOBS capability into the AMRAAM - a missile that has scored short range kills in an actual combat situation.

http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-show- ... w-projects

Another option would be to simply put an Aim-9X seeker on an AMRAAM. You won't even have to build new ones and could modify older C's. The seeker was already put on and launched for the NCADE missile.


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby ramana » 27 Sep 2015 05:27

Shiv and Philip for you

Night bombing over Europe

Something to think over since IAF has RAF legacy.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby shiv » 27 Sep 2015 06:38

ramana wrote:Shiv and Philip for you

Night bombing over Europe

Something to think over since IAF has RAF legacy.


Nice link ramana but this stuff is old hat, well known and well publicized. The RAF legacy is only in mannerisms. Not warfighting

Air Marshal Harris, the British wartime CAS mentioned in the article, also known as "Bomber Harris" wrote a book called the "Bomber Offensive". I have the book. By coincidence I saw it last night while dusting off some old books.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9231
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 28 Sep 2015 14:34

An interview of Group Captain Townsend of the RAF. He has previously commanded a Typhoon squadron. Particularly of note is his opinion on the Sensor Fusion and integration of the F-35 and the Typhoon. As I have previously mentioned while the latter also claims sensor fusion, sensor fusion by itself can mean something totally different in terms of how deep you have your sensors, and your off-board sensors integrated and how often all that information - combined - is used to project SA vs how often you stove pipe your tactical picture...

http://www.sldinfo.com/shaping-a-new-co ... h-carrier/

Group Captain Townsend: The F-35 is not a multi-role fighter.

Multi-role, in current thinking, would be a sequential series of tasks.

The F-35 is doing a number of missions simultaneously.

The concept of mission simultaneity is really important.

The airplane has the ability to do things without the pilot asking it to do it.

Automatically conducting, particularly, ISR whilst it’s conducting an OCA mission or an attack mission in a very different way than platforms have done business in the past.

This is something that other operators are working in the package alongside F-35 need to understand.

That the F-35 operator won’t be going through sequential thought process.

He will be thinking about the battle space in a broader sense, a much different way than a Typhoon operator would be thinking about the battle space.

I think there is another step change and difference in the way in which the information is displayed to the pilot which is important and is extremely intuitive.

I’ll give you an example. I commanded a Typhoon squadron for two years.

Very early on this job with F-35, I was lucky enough to fly the F-35 simulator. and the different way in which F35 displays information compared to Typhoon is eye-catching.

In fact, I asked for the simulator to be stopped because I was taken aback by the information being displayed to me.

There was just so much data available at my fingertips, but displayed in a really different sense in Typhoon.

So very, very quickly, I knew a great deal about the entity being targeted – sensor fusion at work.

I think it’s a very different way of displaying information that any other fast jet has done before.

Knowing what my wingman is seeing and my wingman knowing what I am seeing, and my ability to communicate what I want to have achieved by my formation, by my package, which all may be by the air wing that’s air-borne at the time.

This airplane changes the game in a way which we can conduct that sort of business.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Philip » 28 Sep 2015 18:51

Defense Update report:
Xcpt:
Egypt to Equip its New Mistral-Class Helicopter Carriers With 50 Russian Made Ka-52K Alligators
Each Mistral vessel is capable of carrying 16 helicopters, up to 1000 troops and 50 armored vehicles.

Egypt, France and Russia have reached an agreement to sell Egypt the two Mistral Helicopter Carriers originally built in France for the Russian Navy. Saudi Arabia is likely to finance the acquisition, as it supported the other arms deals Egypt has struck with France.

Each Mistral vessel is capable of carrying 16 helicopters, up to 1000 troops and 50 armored vehicles.

Egypt is also buying Russian Ka-52K helicopters from the Russian Helicopters Company, Russian news agency TASS reported. These helicopters were originally designed to operate from the vessel in Russian service. The Russian Navy is also expected to buy these helicopters, becoming operational in 2017-2018; Egypt is expected to receive its first helicopters at the same time.

The Egyptian Air Force is already operating 46 Boeing AH-64 Apache attack helicopters and the Russian made Alligators will provide the Naval air arm a potent strike capability that could be used against insurgents in Northern and Southern Sinai and along the Egypt-Libyan border in Egypt’s Western Desert. It is assumed that one of the Mistrals will serve in the Red Sea, and the other will be positioned in the Mediterranean. According to a source in France’s Ministry of Defense, the ships could be delivered to Egypt in March 2016, after the Egyptian navy crews go through training – the Russian Sputnik site reported.

Russia and France have reached a settlement over the termination of the contract in August 2015. France will refund 950 million euros already paid by Russia, as part of the 1.2 million Euro deal.

Egypt is likely to buy 50 Ka-52K navalized attack helicopters, to operate from the deck of the new Mistral helicopter carriers Egypt is purchasing from France. Photo: Tamir Eshel, Defense-Update

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Philip » 05 Oct 2015 17:05

Russia's New MiG-35 May Replace Vietnam's Aging Fighter Jets
12:59 26.08.2015
Russia may sell new MiG-35 fighter jets to Vietnam as a replacement for its aging fighter jets, as Southeast Asian countries are expressing growing interest in the planes.

Russia's MiG-35 multirole fighter jets may be coming to Vietnam, where the useful life of the country's third-generation MiG-21 fighter jets is coming to an end, the head of MiG aircraft manufacturer Sergei Korotkov told RIA Novosti.

The MiG-35 is a new multirole fighter which includes fifth-generation information and sighting systems. According to Korotkov, Southeast Asia is an "interesting region" for the aircraft manufacturer when it comes to prospective sales.

"According to our evaluation, there are definite prospects for MiG-35s in Vietnam, where the expected life of MiG-21 fighter jets is coming to an end," Korotkov told RIA Novosti.

Korotkov added that interest in MiG-35 planes is growing in India, in part because French Rafale fighter jet shipments are limited. The purchase of MiG-35s to replace India's aging fighter jet fleet is being discussed in India's professional circles, according to Korotkov.

"Unlike the 'classic' MiG-29, from which the MiG-35 inherited its aerodynamic concepts, the new machine is multirole. It can employ high-precision weaponry on any targets, air, ground or sea. It can even perform some functions which were earlier entrusted to reconnaissance planes," Korotkov added.

MiG is currently modernizing India's MiG-29 planes in collaboration with the local aerospace industry to the MiG-29UPG standard under a $1.2 billion 2010 contract. MiG is also supplying MiG-29K carrier-based fighter jets to the country.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/asia/20150826/10 ... z3nhE8GzqW

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Surya » 08 Oct 2015 06:40

Memo for AF pilots on how to answer questions on JSF (F35)

http://cdn.warisboring.com/images/F-35- ... idance.pdf

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby SaiK » 09 Oct 2015 06:31

Image

http://www.popsci.com/chinese-hypersoni ... speed-race
CHINESE HYPERSONIC ENGINE WINS AWARD, RESHAPES SPEED RACE?
CHINA STARTS FLYING AT MACH 5


Image
JF-12 Hypersonic Wind Tunnel
Xinhua News Agency
The JF-12 Hypersonic Wind Tunnel began operations in March 2014. It is the world's largest hypersonic wind tunnel, capable of achieving speeds of Mach 5 to Mach 9.

Image
The Missing Drone
Bai Wei via lt.cjdby.net
China was rumored to make the first flight of a Mach 4+ test drone in September 2015. Launched from a H-6 carrier aircraft, the drone fired up its combined cycle turbo-ramjet engine to accelerate from subsonic to high supersonic speeds. If the yanked CNA report is accurate, the UAV's ability to land makes it the fastest recoverable air breathing aircraft in the world.

Image
Shadow Dragon Hypersonic Bomber
Wendell Minnick
The Shadow Dragon hypersonic bomber concept, from the PLAAF's Engineering College, won a second prize in the 4th National Future Aircraft Design Competition at the 2010 Zhuhai Airshow. The Shadow Dragon and other aircraft like it would be powered by scramjet technology that China is now racing to take a lead in.




Image
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/ ... WQ20151009

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Philip » 11 Oct 2015 12:20

More F-35 problems?
A new set of software problems may mean yet another series of delays for the F-35 fighter, already the most expensive and troublesome military equipment project in US history.
F-35 Ejection Could Snap a Pilot's Neck in an Emergency

00:17 06.10.2015
Recent tests of the Pentagon's beleaguered F-35 jet revealed that a lightweight pilot's neck could snap when ejecting at certain speeds.


During testing of the new Generation 3 helmet this summer, the Martin-Baker US16E ejection seat snapped the necks of lighter-weight test dummies in slower-speed flights, according to a source with knowledge of the program who spoke to Defense News.


Pentagon's Online Habits Render US Weapons Info Highly Vulnerable

Until the potentially fatal problem is resolved, the US military will restrict pilots weighing less than 136 pounds from flying the plane.

Representative Jackie Speier, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee's subcommittee on oversight and investigations, slammed the Pentagon for rushing tests to field the plane prematurely.

"We're seeing these flight restrictions because the F-35's ejector seats weren't tested to the level they would be on a normal aircraft, and the Pentagon rushed to field them prematurely. This is yet another example of the kind of procurement malpractice we should be avoiding," the California Democrat said in an email to Defense News last week.

Representative Mike Turner, an Ohio Republican and the chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on tactical air and land forces, said an oversight hearing on the issue is scheduled for October 21.

Pentagon Needs $5,000 Headsets to Keep F-35 Crews from Going Deaf

At least one F-35 pilot is affected by the weight restriction, but that person is not Lieutenant Colonel Christina Mau, first and only female F-35 pilot, according to Joint Program Office spokesman Joe DellaVedova.

"The bottom line is they have to get into the realm where the seat allows that weight of a pilot less than 136 pounds [to] safely eject out of the airplane," Major General Jeffrey Harrigian, the F-35 integration office director, told Defense News last week.

"They found some areas that, particularly at slower speeds, they were concerned about, so that drove the restriction that we have right now."

When a lighter pilot is ejecting, the Martin-Baker seat rotates forward a bit too much, Defense News reported. The forward motion combined with the force of the ejection proved snapped the necks of lighter dummies.

"It's that light pilot and the center of gravity of the seat," Col. Todd Canterbury, former commander of the 33rd Fighter Wing, told Defense News last week. "It all has to do with getting that center of gravity kind of located within the window, we call it, for safe seat-man separation."

Canterbury said the JPO is working closely with Martin-Baker and aircraft builder Lockheed Martin on a permanent solution.

The weight issue is the latest flaw in the F-35 program which, at a total cost of more than $1 trillion, is the most expensive weapons program in the Pentagon's history. It has been plagued by systems malfunctions, cost overruns and schedule delays.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20151006/1028 ... z3oF99xhru

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9231
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 11 Oct 2015 16:32

More F-35 problems?


Nothing significant unless you are an air-force that has a lot many pilots that weight less than 60 Kg. This is the sort of thing that comes up in testing. The helmet-seat combo for the JSF is unprecedented in that it will be tested all the way down to a 40 Kg pilot level (no kidding) and any issues that are likely to come up will be adjusted by adjusting the CG by most likely adding a weight or tweaking the software on the ejection seat. There is till 20-25% total SDD testing remaining, and small issues are likely to come up and be addressed along the way. That is the point of testing i.e. the Find-Fix-Validate loop.

Rep. Speier is the reformists's agent who wound up in an influential committee, but she needs to be asked whether the Marines have a single pilot that weighs less than 136 pounds? Or actually, one needs to ask her whether the Marines, the only service to declare IOC so far, has trained a single pilot on the aircraft that falls in a weight class that is below the level tested prior to this event? Thats the entire point of working in a limited envelope. You open up the envelope and then only get there. Norway for example has come out and said that their entire AIR FORCE does not have a single fighter pilot that weighs less than 136 pounds.

If she wants to wait with a perfectly capable jet for the entire SDD phase to be complete then she can explain to her constituents as to why you have a perfectly capable aircraft not performing combat level training (something you do between IOC and FOC). Testing and acquisition is a science and an art and you learn to test the major things aggressively and open up the envelope to your operational folks to come in and fly the aircraft. With 75+% of the testing complete on all three versions of the aircraft, there are unlikely to be any significant issues to crop up (those have in the passed and have been addressed). A majority of that 20 or so percent testing is weapons testing and software enabled envelopes.

Meanwhile, the second Development Trials on the Carrier have concluded for the F-35C. There'll will be another development trial three that will further open up the carrier envelope to external stores etc and then the US Navy will conduct an OT&E before declaring the first squadron operational in 2018.


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 11 Oct 2015 22:03


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9231
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 11 Oct 2015 22:43




It need not be. There are a few known programs out there that prototyped the sensor aspect of a high end penetrator mission. Separating the sensor from the shooter allows you solve a lot many more targeting headaches then by developing something that is all-inclusive. Your scout can be unmanned, hang in for potentially dozens of hours and when the shooter goes active your sensor is not compromised. That is why even prior to Bob Gates re-structuring the program there were plans to have at least 3 systems. one as the sensor node (Long Range Strike Sensor), one the Network-Penetrator (Penetrating Airborne EA) and one the strike aspect. Of course we'll know more in the next few months but the first issue was largely solved with the Tier 3 and sensor-craft programs and it is widely known that the RQ-180 is in Low Rate Initial production and is most likely already operational in some capacity. The second system is also largely tried and tested through the Suture Projects, the third of which was demonstrated something like 8 years ago. Even the F-16C variant has been given the Suture capability based on largely well respected media outlets (such as aviation week) and the official congressional service. The F-35's cyber pod that is in development is most likely an extension of the capability that has been already fielded elsewhere.

Now the most interesting thing is that this program was widely believed to be a development program where the down-select would happen around Aug-Sept (now obviously delayed by a few weeks, months etc) and they would embark upon a development program. First hints of this not being the case began appearing earlier last year when the widely respected Congressional Research Service (http://cdn.defenseone.com/defenseone/in ... 2F88318%2F) called out the program for being a production program than a competitive down-select given the sheer amount of money that was being spent prior to vendor down-select.

The RFP may be less than it seems, however. As Figure 1 shows, the projected LRS-B budget increases more than 10-fold in the current Future Years Defense Program, from $258.7 million in FY2013 to $3,451.2 million in FY2019. Aviation analysts and industry officials confirm CRS's assessment that this funding stream resembles a production program more than a typical development profile. This may indicate that significant LRS-B development has already been completed, presumably in classified budgets.



This largely remained un-addressed by the USAF until they asked some high level washington think tanks (to the hate of journalists) to send in their representatives for a briefing on the program. Defense industry reporters were kept out but the tank tanks did fead some info to these reporters that wound up on the various sources. What was revealed by the USAF was the Preliminary Design Review of both the designs had already occurred. This was strange, since the sequence usually followed is that you issue RFP, solicit responses, set a final RFP date and receive final proposals > Evaluate proposals and make a down-select > Wait for protests, then embark on a PDR that usually lasts 12-18 months and once complete begin designing the bulk of the systems. Of course this program is not the first where the PDR has happened prior to EMD but it is a rarity. The info on the PDR having been completed basically means that the program to develop a new bomber is at least 5-7 years into its development and that at least for the last 12 or so months (through the PDR) Both the Boeing team and Northrop Grumman had at least a 1000 if not considerably more people working on the project maturing the design to pass the PDR. Going by that standard you can expect first flight in the 2018 or so time period. It was earlier believed (and most reporters such as Sweetmann, Butler and Clark reported on it) that the NGB program was cancelled by Robert Gates, and he sent the USAF out to re-valuate the long range strike mission and develop a new bomber that was the LRS-B. The CRS estimates and the subsequent reports coming out from the USAF briefing to the think tanks suggests otherwise. What is likely to have happened is that Robert Gates, simply asked them to revaluate the maturity and develop the technology further before embarking on a Milestone C. While the LRS-B may well differ from the NGB since the former is likely to be heavily focused towards the Pacific, the technologies are largely similar therefore pointing to a continuation of the work that was underway (hence the teams and partnership also did not change between the programs) for the NGB. This explains how they were confident enough to invest so much money so early on to complete two-full PDR's instead of waiting for a down-select and them embarking on a PDR. The difference is huge, since prior to embarking on a PDR you can have a 200-300 or so engineers and workers on a program (per team) while if you want to complete a full PDR you need at least a 1000 if not significantly more (historically).

The third confirmation came a few weeks ago when the head of the Pentagon's acquisition said that the LRS-B funding would not be affected by the CR or a budget deadlock since its not a new start but a continuation of an earlier development funding. Basically, to borrow from Viv's graphic cited in the PAKFA thread the Bomber program that kicks off "OFFICIALLY" in a few weeks once a vendor has been down selected starts off at the CDR phase having completed the first two phases already. The decision which will be announced shortly would simply be the decision to not pursue further development (i.e. Pursue CDR and production) of one of the designs.

Image

As a reference the F-35 took between 15-20 months to go from contract award to successfully completing the PDR and then took another 3 or so years (could have been more) for first flight. There is a good chance that the bomber can begin in low-rate initial production in the next 36 months or so that is if they do not bother building a prototype i.e. the first example from LRIP is the first full system produced.

Here's some fan art

Image
Last edited by brar_w on 12 Oct 2015 05:48, edited 11 times in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 11 Oct 2015 22:56


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 12 Oct 2015 04:18


shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby shiv » 16 Oct 2015 07:26

German Eurofighters restricted from flying with external fuel tank
was implemented after the right fuel tank came off while a German Eurofighter was preparing to take-off in Estonia. Preliminary investigation found that the bolts for retaining the tank does not have the necessary torque.

SidSom
BRFite
Posts: 119
Joined: 01 May 2011 07:49

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby SidSom » 16 Nov 2015 19:14

More JSF problems......

http://www.janes.com/article/55987/wing-spar-cracks-found-on-usn-f-35-variant

Key Points
Pentagon testers have discovered cracks in a main structural element of the F-35C's wing
Government and prime contractor engineering teams are formulating a solution, and retrofits are planned on existing aircraft
Pentagon testers have discovered cracks in a main structural element of the wing on the C-model of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, a spokesman for the Pentagon's F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) confirmed on 13 November.

During a late October inspection of the F-35C durability testing ground article, a crack was found in one of its 13 wing spars, Joe DellaVedova told IHS Jane's . Government and prime contractor engineering teams are formulating a solution, he added.

"Initial estimates indicate a modification of approximately a half a pound to the aircraft will fix it," said DellaVedova. "Modifications to planes flying today will be incorporated to ensure full life operation."

The issue is not expected to affect flying operations for any of the three variants, nor will it alter the US Navy's (USN's) ability to meet its planned Initial Operating Capability (IOC) for the C-model in August 2018, according to the JPO. The cost of the retrofits is not yet known.

The F-35C durability test article had already accumulated more than 13,700 test hours, which equates to 6,850 flight hours or more than 20 years of operational flying, according to DellaVedova. "All current F-35Cs flying today have less than 250 flight hours," he added. Durability testing intentionally stresses aircraft to its structural limits by applying cyclic loads to the airframe to simulate operational flying in order to identify weaknesses and potential corrective actions.

The F-35C variant is distinguished by its larger wings and more robust landing gear, designed for catapult launches and arrestments aboard naval aircraft carriers, and its wingtips fold to allow for easier storage aboard a carrier.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9231
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Nov 2015 16:08

Jeff Bezos beats Elon Musk's SpaceX in the reusable rocket race

Blue Origin, the private space firm owned by Amazon's Jeff Bezos, has just dropped a huge, unexpected gauntlet in the race to develop a reusable rocket. In video released by the company (below), it managed to launch its New Shepard space vehicle consisting of a BE-3 rocket and crew capsule to a height of around 100.5 kilometers (62 miles). Minutes later, the capsule made a controlled landing beneath a parachute, but more importantly, the BE-3 rocket started its own decent when rockets fired at 5,000 feet. From there, it made a a controlled vertical landing and touched down at a gentle 4.4 mph.




Image
Last edited by brar_w on 24 Nov 2015 17:21, edited 1 time in total.

member_29089
BRFite
Posts: 112
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby member_29089 » 24 Nov 2015 17:16



While the Chinese are talking, the Japanese have test flown the 100-seater Mitsubishi Regional Jet (MRJ). Interesting that they have 200+ orders. Pratt & Whitney Engines.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2777
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby JTull » 24 Nov 2015 18:12

Bezos' VTOL launcher success is commendable. ISRO should take note of this tech!

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby SaiK » 19 Dec 2015 22:15

http://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-a ... 015-12?amp
SpacX gonna be doing some historic landing

member_28756
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby member_28756 » 20 Dec 2015 22:22

They just recently purchased this T 50 from South Korea

An Indonesian fighter jet taking part in an aerobatic show has crashed and burst into flames, killing two pilots.

No one on the ground was injured.

The KAI T-50 Golden Eagle, a US-South Korean-made light attack aircraft, spun out of control on Sunday.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/jet-fighter ... z3usudm6vQ
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

Nick_S
BRFite
Posts: 516
Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Location: Abbatabad

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Nick_S » 21 Dec 2015 14:09

^

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby ldev » 22 Dec 2015 06:10

SpaceX just landed the first stage of its Falcon 9 back at Cape Canaveral after the launch. Bulls eye.

Simply amazing to watch!!

This will change the economics of the launch business on its head. ISRO should take note.

A Nandy
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Sep 2009 23:39

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby A Nandy » 23 Dec 2015 23:06

The Falcon 9 returned booster will now be checked for where wear-and-tear occurs and modifications made to future rockets.

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-da ... -canaveral


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9231
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Dec 2015 04:04

Opinion: Are Rolls And Pratt Destined To Merge?

Rolls-Royce is finishing its second tumultuous year in a row with fresh profit warnings and a new leadership team.

The company has fought hard to regain market confidence. CEO Warren East is undertaking a broad operational review and demonstrating increased financial transparency. An entire layer of management will be eliminated in a restructuring that will save up to $300 million per year. Still, the U.K. government recently completed contingency plans to protect national interests should the company be sold. Can Rolls-Royce ride out the storm, or will fundamental restructuring be required?

A recent research note by UBS Securities argues that Rolls-Royce can indeed survive the storm. Profits will continue to ebb, bottoming out in 2016, before a recovery in its marine division, Trent XWB production and aftermarket growth that will underpin revenue growth later this decade. Moreover, its balance sheet is solid, with modest levels of debt. The same analysis, however, projects 5-7% EBIT margins for most of the decade, compared to 10-11% in recent years.

This level of profitability may not be acceptable to financial markets. United Technologies Corp. recently jettisoned Sikorsky to boost financial results. Activist shareholder ValueAct has accumulated 10% of outstanding equity as it pursues a seat on the Rolls-Royce board. Financial markets aren’t sanguine either, pushing down Rolls’s share price nearly 50% in the last eight months.

Broader changes in the gas turbine sector are increasing critical mass requirements and may be contributing to Rolls-Royce’s maladies. The incremental cost of fuel-efficiency improvements are increasing at a time when sponsored research—particularly in military development programs—is declining. At the same time, aircraft OEMs are moving to more sole-source engine programs such as the Airbus A350 and Boeing 777-X. This means the aeroengine business is becoming more of a winner-take-all endeavor with large gaps between programs and huge annual R&D expenditures—$1 billion or more—required to stay in the game. Even Rolls-Royce admits its next major single-aisle opportunity may not arise until 2030 or later.

Given these changes, successful aeroengine OEMs will need two types of critical mass: scale in gas turbines to fund ongoing R&D and corporate critical mass to ride the aeroengine business ebbs and flows.

Consider the competition: GE and Safran, with their CFM International joint venture and tight risk-sharing arrangements, have combined corporate revenues of more than $160 million, including aeroengine revenues of $31 billion. Add to this GE’s large industrial gas turbine (IGT) portfolio, and GE/Safran have more than $40 billion in annual gas turbine revenues. This critical mass enables huge investments in next-generation technologies such as ceramic matrix composites and additive manufacturing. GE/Safran have a portfolio that spans the entire aeroengine thrust range, and both are now pursuing the business jet segment, a Rolls-Royce stronghold, with new engine models.

The other major competitor is UTC’s Pratt & Whitney, which has similar aeroengine scale to Rolls-Royce but three times the corporate revenue. Moreover, Pratt is poised to grow significantly as geared turbofan (GTF) and F135 volumes surge later this decade.

Lacking the scale of GE/Safran, both Pratt and Rolls have had to choose in recent years which thrust segments to prioritize. Pratt decided not to develop a new-generation twin-aisle engine and to concentrate on GTF development. And Rolls chose to focus on twin aisles with the sale of its stake in International Aero Engines to Pratt.

This raises the intriguing question: In the long run, are Pratt and Rolls destined to merge? On paper, the tie-up makes sense by combining Pratt’s single-aisle strength with Rolls’s large thrust forte. R&D costs could be rationalized and spread over a larger base. Rolls, for example, is embarking on its own GTF architecture; Pratt is already there. There are also major cost-savings opportunities in facility rationalization, purchasing leverage and customer support. Political and cultural obstacles to such a merger are high, particularly with Rolls’s unique positioning as a British engineering icon and the U.K. government’s golden share in the company.

There are other options for Rolls to gain critical mass. One possibility is Siemens, a leading IGT OEM with nearly $80 billion in revenue. Another is BAE Systems, which would create a British super-supplier but would not add to gas turbine critical mass.

Clearly, Rolls-Royce is in a pickle as it faces near-term headwinds in an era of unforgiving financial markets. Pivotal decisions on restructuring and independence await.



kmkraoind
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3908
Joined: 27 Jun 2008 00:24

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby kmkraoind » 29 Dec 2015 13:57

Vietnam Reveals New Drone for Patrolling the South China Sea - The Diplomat
Image

Vietnamese media reports that the unarmed UAV prototype sports a Rotax 914 engine and a 22-meter wingspan. It has a range of up to 4,000 kilometers as well as an endurance of up to 35 hours. It will be equipped with unspecified optical and radar surveillance systems.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1922
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Zynda » 31 Dec 2015 10:57

It is a usual practice to install Auxiliary Fuel Systems (AFS) in cargo bay pits of custom interior aircrafts to extend the range of the platform.

I just learnt that Sukohi has selected an American firm to supply & install AFS on SSJ-100. Surprising...I would have thought that there would be a Russian firm who could probably supply the systems at a lower cost(?)

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 31 Dec 2015 14:28

^^^^^

A Russian one would/could mean certification in the West, which could take time and potentially cost more.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 31 Dec 2015 14:31


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 01 Jan 2016 21:59

USS America receives upgraded flight deck to support F-35 JSF

Image

The US Navy's amphibious assault ship USS America (LHA 6) has received an upgraded flight deck, with a thermal spray coating to support the F-35 joint strike fighters (JSF) during future operations.

The upgrade has been carried out as part of its post-shakedown availability period (PSA), which also includes improvements to the ship's design.

USS America commanding officer captain Michael W Baze said: "When this ship was built, Joint Strike Fighter testing was underway, most recently on the USS Wasp, based on the East Coast at the time.

"The lessons learned during the Wasp testing periods are being incorporated into the USS America's design."
"The lessons learned during the Wasp testing periods, lessons about the long-term sustainability of our ship flight decks during JSF operations as compared with the legacy AV-8B Harrier, are being incorporated into America's design.

"These changes will become a part of subsequent landing helicopter assault (LHA) / landing helicopter docks (LHDs) moving forward, for example our follow-on LHA ship the Tripoli; currently in construction."

The new thermal coatings will allow the ships of the class to handle the new JSF's thrust and reduce heat sent to decks below.

Moored at Naval Base San Diego, America's PSA is scheduled to run until early next year.

The 844ft-long ship has been designed to support a variety of missions, including humanitarian, disaster relief, maritime security, anti-piracy and other operations, while providing air support for ground forces.

The LHA 6 is optimised for US Marine Corps aviation, uses a gas-turbine propulsion system to cruise at a speed in excess of 20k, and can carry a crew of 1,059 (65 officers) and 1,687 troops.


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 02 Jan 2016 06:04

GE-Atomic Bonding from a Bottle? These Scientists Use Supersonic Spray to Repair Turbines



Two years ago, scientists at the GE Global Research labs (GRC) in upstate New York found a futuristic way to fix things: blowing metal powder, at four times the speed of sound, onto parts in need of service. “The tiny bits of material fly so fast then they essentially fuse together when they hit the target,” says Gregorio Dimagli, materials scientist from Avio Aero. “Unlike welding, you don’t need to apply heat to make them stick. The bond happens on the atomic level. That’s why we are so excited.”

Unlike traditional manufacturing, which removes material to achieve the final shape, most additive methods build parts from the ground up. This GIF captures particles leaving the cold spray nozzle at four times the speed of sound and hitting their target. The image was slowed down by using a camera capable of shooting 10,000 frames per second. (GIF credit: GE Global Research)

This is a big deal. The method, called cold spray, will allow Avio Aero and its parent, GE Aviation, to repair turbine and compressor blades without changing their highly complex underlying crystal structure. “Manufacturers spend a lot of time to make the part just right,” Dimagli says. “But when you heat up metal and then cool it again, it changes in the same way powder snow can become a sheet of ice after a warm spell.”

Dimagli and his team just partnered with the Polytechnic University of Bari, Italy, to perfect the applications of cold spray, sometimes also called “3D painting,” as well as laser deposition and other additive manufacturing techniques.

The new lab will employ three Avio Aero scientists and six researchers from the university. They will use thermography and other scientific disciplines to look for the best applications of the new methods.

Anteneh Kebbede, manager of the Coatings and Surface Lab at the GRC that helped developed cold spray, says the technology is “like a fountain of youth for machine parts.”

3D painting deposits metal powder flying at velocities of up to Mach 4 on precise models to produce and repair jet engine blades, rotors and other components without resorting to machining or welding.

He says the method can build whole new parts with walls as thick as one inch or more. “For manufacturers the potential benefits are enormous,” Kebbede says. “Imagine being able to restore an aging part to its original condition with a tool that looks like spray gun.”

The 3D painting gun uses pressurized carrier gas zipping through a de Laval nozzle to accelerate powder particles as small as 5 microns to supersonic velocities. The speed causes localized high energy collisions when the particles hit the surface, the micro version of bullets hitting a steel bar. “Powder particles slam into the surface and form a diffusion bond with the part,” Kebbede says.

Cold spray operators are using a computer-controlled robot to manipulate the gun. Like 3D printers, the computer works with a 3D image of the part. Engineers program the robot so that it moves in an optimal way to deposit the powder. “All the hard work is in the details,” Kebbede says. “The powder selection, the conditions the powder experiences in the gun, the speed of the gun, the gun distance from the part and its angle relative to the part are just some of the inputs that lead to a good bond. That’s the trick. The same process that can cause build up can also cause erosion.”

Dimagli says that possible applications range anywhere from heavy-duty gear boxes for oil and gas machinery, to gas turbine rotors and jet engine blades. “These methods are the future,” he says. “Compared to what we are using now, you get better quality for less money and you are also done faster.”

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 02 Jan 2016 06:11

E-19 Tech Stories From 2015 You Should Know About

GE scientists shrunk and 3D printed and steam turbine originally designed to generate electricity. The smaller version can efficiently remove salt from seawater. The system could one day reduce the cost of desalination by as much as 20 percent and bring desalination technology to places that cannot afford it today.

Image



Image


Image

The FAA cleared the first 3D-printed part to fly inside a GE jet engine. GE engineers also 3D-printed all of the components for a miniature jet engine, assembled it and then took the engine for a spin. Advanced manufacturing techniques like 3D printing will be going mainstream in 2016.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 02 Jan 2016 06:21


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 02 Jan 2016 06:22


Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1922
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Zynda » 14 Jan 2016 19:18

So the new liberal Canadian Govt. is redrawing requirements for fighter jets to replace their existing CF-18 fleet. This is like our MMRCA saga :rotfl: . Except for nations which produce products (Massa, Bear, France & to a small extent Panda), the rest of importers have to go through a circus like the above to finally select a system.

Requirements for New Fighter Jets Are Being Redrawn, Defence Minister Says (excerpt)

The requirements for Canada’s next fleet of fighter jets are being redrawn as part of a thorough defence review ordered by the new Liberal defence minister.

Harjit Sajjan said his department is looking at the procurement of military equipment, the size of the Canadian Forces and the theatres where they operate.

“We will consult with the public, through MPs, committees, stakeholders and think-tanks, so that we have a vision in line with our foreign policy objectives,” he said in an interview Tuesday.

Part of that process will be determining what will replace the CF-18 fighter jets. The Conservatives had committed to Lockheed Martin’s F-35 joint strike fighter but the project was heavily criticized for rigging the requirements so that only the F-35 could qualify. Defence officials had written the requirements to call for a plane with stealth capability, advanced radar and integrated avionics.

During the election, the Liberals said they would not choose the F-35, and re-invest any savings in the navy.

Mr. Sajjan has since said he will launch an open process to replace the CF-18s.

“The requirements we create will be those that are needed for Canada’s role,” he said.

He would not say whether Lockheed Martin would be barred from the bidding process, or whether the requirements might now be written to ensure the F-35 did not win. (end of excerpt)


Expect Rafale, EF & possibly F/A-18E/F with EDE or EPE (which ever is the newer version) throw their hat in the ring. Gripen-NG & F-16s won't qualify due to being a single engined.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests