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.
Ravishankar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 43
Joined: 30 Aug 2008 16:32

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Ravishankar » 17 Sep 2009 12:01

U.S. to Shelve Nuclear-Missile Shield

Defense Plans for Poland, Czech Republic to Be Dropped as Iran Rocket Threat Downgraded; Moscow Likely to Welcome Move

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125314575889817971.html

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4850
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Neshant » 17 Sep 2009 14:16

Poland got screwed from the looks of it. They were banking on lots of $$$ and good will from the US for hosting the missile shield.

Instead all they accomplished was destroying their relations with Russia chasing after pie in the sky.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Austin » 17 Sep 2009 15:28

Great News

Russia welcomes U.S. move to scrap missile plans for Europe

MOSCOW, September 17 (RIA Novosti) - Russia welcomes reports of a U.S. decision to abandon its missile defense plans for Central Europe, and is waiting for official confirmation on the issue, the Foreign Ministry said on Thursday.

"We are waiting for the reports to be confirmed. Such a development would be in line with the interests of our relations with the United States," a ministry press officer told RIA Novosti.

Russia's Vesti news channel cited Czech media earlier on Thursday as saying that President Barack Obama told Czech Premier Jan Fischer on the telephone late last night that Washington is abandoning the Bush administration's plans for an anti-missile radar in the country.

Czech officials confirmed the telephone conversation, the reports said. Prague is expected to issue a statement on the matter later on Thursday.

Also on Thursday, The Wall Street Journal cited sources close to the issue as saying the U.S. government will shelve plans for the radar on Czech soil, as well as an interceptor missile base in Poland. The planned anti-missile system has been fiercely opposed by Moscow.

The Czech news agency CTK said a U.S. delegation led by Ellen Tauscher, under secretary of state for arms control and international security, will arrive in Prague for talks later today. The diplomat's visit to Prague follows a trip to Warsaw.

The WSJ said the U.S. decision to scrap the plans are based on an assessment that Iran's long-range missile program has not progressed as rapidly as previously estimated, reducing the threat to the U.S. and Europe's major cities.

Moscow views the planned anti-missile system as a national security threat, upsetting the strategic balance of forces.

The paper cited current and former U.S. officials as saying that the administration is expected to leave open the option of restarting the Polish and Czech system if Iran makes advances in its long-range missiles in the future.

The decision, a major reversal from the line aggressively pursued by the George W. Bush administration, is seen by many critics as a gesture to win Russian cooperation with U.S.-led efforts to impose new sanctions on Iran if it does not abandon its nuclear program, the paper said.

The move is also likely to raise concerns in Europe, where officials have been alarmed by the White House's effort to "reset" ties with Moscow, the WSJ said.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Sanjay M » 18 Sep 2009 05:09

Hahaha, the Atlanticists are certainly in a vulnerable phase of transition right now.

Brzezinski has been against the missile shield since day one, because it would renew military tensions in Europe. As you know, the Brzezinski types absolutely don't want any confrontation with Moscow to be played out in the vicinity of their East European motherlands, which history shows have been trampled upon during the many conflicts among larger European powers. Instead, they prefer to gradually bleed the Russians from their hindquarters by cultivating Taliban and Chinese as proxies to hit the Russians in their underbelly and their rear.

So to me it looks like Obama is slowly but surely turning policy away from the Bush era, and more towards the designs of the Atlanticists. This means the new whitehouse will try to push for a softer line against the Taliban, as well as the Chinese.

But shedding one strategic shell while growing a new one means being caught without much protection in the meantime, during the transition.

This is why the US is now acutely vulnerable on a variety of fronts. It's climbing down from confrontation with the Russians, but hasn't mended fences with them yet. It's trying to wind down the conflict with the Taliban, but hasn't extricated itself from that yet. It's trying to repair relations with China, but hasn't succeeded at that yet.

In the meantime, wider international events will overtake them, possibly preventing them from adopting an opposing strategic trajectory, instead forcing them to stop short of it.

Maybe this is the heralding of the long-sought multipolarity we've been wanting.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Gerard » 22 Sep 2009 07:42

Students launch first do-it-yourself space camera
American students Oliver Yeh and Justin Lee have taken images of the earth's surface using a camera bought on eBay, a weather balloon, a mobile phone, handwarmers and a drink cooler at a total cost of £90.

chanakyaa
BRFite
Posts: 1452
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 00:09
Location: Hiding in Karakoram

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby chanakyaa » 22 Sep 2009 08:31

Sanjay M wrote:Maybe this is the heralding of the long-sought multipolarity we've been wanting.


I enjoyed your post. Many things you said in your post are true, but , I hope the multipolarity, which some people seem to be in desperate wanting, ends up helping India. Multipolarity means 100% power shared by one nation is now shared by more than than one and it is good as long as those (Russia and China) who think they are in power act wisely. And I wonder how India benefits from this. Multipolarity means nations now have to take side of either camps. Last time I remember when it happened was before World War II and Cold War. Today most of the Asian countries, if given an ultimatum would take China's side. Having two powerful nations such as Sri Lanka, Nepal :lol: on India's side is not a pretty situation. To be honest, this multipolarity scares me and it should scare India as well.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Sanjay M » 22 Sep 2009 09:11

chanakyaa wrote:
Sanjay M wrote:Maybe this is the heralding of the long-sought multipolarity we've been wanting.


I enjoyed your post. Many things you said in your post are true, but , I hope the multipolarity, which some people seem to be in desperate wanting, ends up helping India. Multipolarity means 100% power shared by one nation is now shared by more than than one and it is good as long as those (Russia and China) who think they are in power act wisely. And I wonder how India benefits from this. Multipolarity means nations now have to take side of either camps. Last time I remember when it happened was before World War II and Cold War. Today most of the Asian countries, if given an ultimatum would take China's side. Having two powerful nations such as Sri Lanka, Nepal :lol: on India's side is not a pretty situation. To be honest, this multipolarity scares me and it should scare India as well.


China's neighbors would not all love to be stuck clinging to the Dragon's tail as it whips along.
They have their economies to protect, and they would fear Chinese encroachment/domination, just like the East Europeans who fear Russia. Everyone knows that India is less domineering and bullying than China, which has a history of intervention in the region - just ask Vietnam. China still has plenty of territorial disputes like the Spratleys, and of course they want to extend their offshore resource rights directly into other nations' zones.

Many European countries don't want Turkey to be part of EU, but they are glad to have it as a NATO bulwark against Moscow. Many Asian countries wouldn't like to have India with its poor masses in an EU-style common free market zone with them, but they'd be glad to have us as a Turkish-style anchor for regional security, to help them keep their independence against Beijing. If East Asia ever developed a NATO, then I'm sure we'd be invited in like Turkey was.
But with the Atlanticists reserving NATO-type alliances only for themselves and thus leaving smaller Asian nations less secure, then maybe our 'look east' policy will be more successful than Turkey's 'look west' policy. This is because Asian nations left less secure in relation to China cannot easily afford to spurn us. This is one of the by-products of a currently Atlanticist-dominated world, which we would benefit from.

chanakyaa
BRFite
Posts: 1452
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 00:09
Location: Hiding in Karakoram

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby chanakyaa » 22 Sep 2009 19:33

Agreed. This is an "International Aerospace Forum" so I'll make this last post and stop.

Sanjay M wrote:China's neighbors would not all love to be stuck clinging to the Dragon's tail as it whips along.
They have their economies to protect, and they would fear Chinese encroachment/domination, just like the East Europeans who fear Russia.

Do you think China doesn't know that? I think, Chinese are trying to make smaller Asian countries, the way South American countries are to U.S. "DEPEPNDENT". Territorial disputes these days are like "wildcards" used to keep nations on toes. All smaller Asian countries are export driven. Today they export to US and EU, tomorrow they will do overwhelmingly to China to keep their economies running. This gives China tremendous leverage. Time will tell, but, Chinese may not jeopardize this relationship by taking their land. They might sit at negotiation take, arguing for next 50 years but will not hurt.

Sanjay M wrote:Everyone knows that India is less domineering and bullying than China, which has a history of intervention in the region - just ask Vietnam. China still has plenty of territorial disputes like the Spratleys, and of course they want to extend their offshore resource rights directly into other nations' zones.

You seem to be taking some pride in India being "less domineering". If we were living in time of Ram and Laxman, I would take pride as well, but the problem is we don't. If we look in the past, we see that every major largest and successful economies in the world have at some point in its modern history has taken assertive and dominant role. Japan, U.S., U.K., to some extent Russia, France, Germany, Spain. In this day and age, I think a country either uses others or gets used in some shape or form. I get tears in my eyes my seeing my "less domineering" country is still being used.

Sanjay M wrote:Many European countries don't want Turkey to be part of EU, but they are glad to have it as a NATO bulwark against Moscow.

I hope you are not taking this as good for Turkey. If given choice, Turkey would rather be part of EU and not NATO. Being part of NATO means, war, destruction, death, whereas being part of EU means prosperity, healthy trade, backing of a powerful currency. EU will never allow a Muslim nation to be part of their union. I don't buy their otherwise reasoning that Turkey is not ready. **IN THE CONTEXT, YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE LIKE TURKEY**

Sanjay M wrote:Many Asian countries wouldn't like to have India with its poor masses in an EU-style common free market zone with them, but they'd be glad to have us as a Turkish-style anchor for regional security, to help them keep their independence against Beijing.

I'm okay with this strategy, but this also means "being used" for India, unless India can derive some premium for its "being used against Beijing" stance which I absolutely don't see evident of. We are not demanding enough. I hope bureaucrats in New Delhi are not getting wet dreams about one day Asian nations knocking at India's door for help against China. I hope I'm wrong but hard to see it happening.

Sanjay M wrote:If East Asia ever developed a NATO, then I'm sure we'd be invited in like Turkey was.

Oh man!! Why are you hoping for Asian countries, not even half the size of India, to create some kind of alliance. Shouldn't India be the one taking a lead. Where does this tendency of subordination come in people of India? May be we are so used to rushing to temple, mosque, durga everytime we run into problem that we have forgotten the meaning of the simple word "LEADERSHIP". Very scary thought.

Sanjay M wrote:But with the Atlanticists reserving NATO-type alliances only for themselves and thus leaving smaller Asian nations less secure, then maybe our 'look east' policy will be more successful than Turkey's 'look west' policy. This is because Asian nations left less secure in relation to China cannot easily afford to spurn us. This is one of the by-products of a currently Atlanticist-dominated world, which we would benefit from.

I agree, with the "look east" policy but IMHO China may not alienate any major countries in Asia. They will continue to build the "love and hate" relationship. And, one day when Chinese Yuan/Renminbi takes over as Asian currency, that will mark the end of India's influence. We have to work very hard to constantly engage in Asian policy and be an assertive alternative you are describing.

With Respect,
JAI HIND


Baldev
BRFite
Posts: 501
Joined: 21 Sep 2009 07:27

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Baldev » 27 Sep 2009 19:57

sorry if someone else posted earlier

RD1700 engine for MIG AT
http://img121.imageshack.us/i/rd1700.jpg/

Maximum thrust, kgf 1,700
Specific fuel consumption, kg/kgf.h 0.7
Bypass ratio 0.78
Service life, h:
total 6,000
hot portion 4,000
Dry weight, kg 297.5

can someone compare this to AL 55 engine :D

Ameet
BRFite
Posts: 841
Joined: 17 Nov 2006 02:49

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Ameet » 28 Sep 2009 00:47

China to build, launch satellite for Laos

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090926/sc ... hpbmF0b2J1

In 2007, China for the first time launched a Chinese-made satellite for a foreign country, Nigeria.

However, the 257-million-dollar NigComSat-1 satellite -- which was launched to provide phone, broadband Internet and broadcasting services to rural Africa -- failed after a year due to technical problems.

In October 2008, Beijing launched Venezuela's first satellite, Venesat-1, which cost 241 million dollars.

China, which has developed its space programme considerably in recent years, is a growing presence in the market for building and launching satellites.

In March this year, the head of European aerospace giant Arianespace expressed "shock" that China had been chosen by Eutelsat Communications to launch a satellite, and claimed it circumvented US rules to prevent the export of sensitive materials to certain countries, including China.

"We do not dispute the price factor, even if we think that to penetrate the market, China offers prices which do not reflect economic reality," Arianespace chairman Jean-Yves Le Gall had said.

Ameet
BRFite
Posts: 841
Joined: 17 Nov 2006 02:49

Re: Indian Space Program Discussion

Postby Ameet » 28 Sep 2009 00:49

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090926/sc ... hpbmF0b2J1

China, which has developed its space programme considerably in recent years, is a growing presence in the market for building and launching satellites.

In March this year, the head of European aerospace giant Arianespace expressed "shock" that China had been chosen by Eutelsat Communications to launch a satellite, and claimed it circumvented US rules to prevent the export of sensitive materials to certain countries, including China.

"We do not dispute the price factor, even if we think that to penetrate the market, China offers prices which do not reflect economic reality," Arianespace chairman Jean-Yves Le Gall had said.



Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Sanjay M » 29 Sep 2009 09:33


Mahesh_R
BRFite
Posts: 185
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 00:46

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Mahesh_R » 30 Sep 2009 03:04

MDA Launches Missile-Tracking Satellites
http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/news65677.html

MDA's space-based sensor layer to detect missile launches, provide continuous target tracking and pass accurate track data to missile defence interceptors in time to enable successful target interception.


Do we have any satellites doing this funtion or our AAD and PAD are based on ground radars ?
Do we have any military satellites ? I think IRSAT-2 was launched as military satellite but there is no news of its usage in recent times......

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Gerard » 30 Sep 2009 03:25



Falcon 9 is ready for test flight? :eek:

Praveen
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 63
Joined: 22 Apr 2005 11:29
Location: Mars
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Praveen » 30 Sep 2009 04:51

Gerard wrote:


Falcon 9 is ready for test flight? :eek:


That's great progress in a short amount of time and that too with 700 employees. Above all this they do an awesome job at PR.

Watch some of their launch/facilities videos at http://www.spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Sanjay M » 05 Oct 2009 10:01

Ad Astra founder Franklin Chang Diaz talks about the VASIMR propulsion system:

http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/23576/?a=f

So this is again another form of ion thruster, but capable of higher thrust output than most ion engines.

He mentions that his rocket will be used to help the ISS periodically raise its orbit.

Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Dmurphy » 05 Oct 2009 13:05

U.S. asks Tokyo to pay ¥1 billion for F-35 details :rotfl:
The United States has asked Tokyo to pay around ¥1 billion for information on the capabilities of the stealthy F-35, a leading candidate to replace Japan's aging fighter-jet fleet, sources said Saturday.

It is rare for a country to be charged such a large sum for information on potential imports of defense equipment.

The U.S. also told Japan that Washington will not provide information on the F-35's radar-evading capabilities until Tokyo makes a decision to purchase it, the sources said.

Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa and U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates will likely discuss the deal when they meet in Japan on Oct. 20.

Japan had initially hoped to procure the F-22 stealth fighter, but Washinton banned its export and announced it was ending production.

Were we charged for the MMRCA RFPs??

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby krishnan » 05 Oct 2009 17:04

Nope we werent charged , but every candidate us spending lot of money in trying to bag that deal.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Sanjay M » 06 Oct 2009 11:16

Soyuz blasts off as a Russian reporter watches from close proximity:




Here's another vid:


Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Affirmative Action Candidate

Postby Sanjay M » 07 Oct 2009 10:17

Bah, I don't think that Obama's affirmative action nominee is going to be a man of action when it comes to the current challenges the US faces on the space front. Mr Bolden doesn't seem very bold at all. Hollywood TV shows like Star Trek may be able to make any leader look heroic on the screen, but real life is a little more demanding.

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2009/09/23/4387757.htm

NASA May Pitch Ares-I as a Tech Demonstrator for Ares-V

Why Bolden would be willing to promote Ares ahead of a White House decision is unclear, but officials around him say he was caught off guard by the reaction to the presidential panel's findings at congressional hearings last week. Several members of the House Science and Technology Committee attacked the panel's chairman, former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine, and ridiculed its proposed options. Some were very opposed to scrapping Ares.

On Wednesday, Bolden met with several Florida lawmakers, and one participant said the new NASA boss did not seem to have any firm ideas of how to proceed.

"I left the meeting unconvinced that there is a guiding vision for the future of manned spaceflight in the United States," said U.S. Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Bartow. "I don't mean to imply that he (Bolden) is being evasive; I just don't think he knows." Putnam said several key questions are unanswered: how to replace the space shuttle; how to close the gap between the shuttle and its replacement; and how to ensure U.S. supremacy in space.


The future of the US space program seems to be surrounded in a vacuum.
All the better for ISRO to step into the void and move ahead.




Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1064
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Kailash » 08 Oct 2009 18:12

Aluminum-Water Rockets

Manufacturers over the past decade have learned how to make higher-quality nano-aluminum particles than was possible in the past.


ISRO should try something similar - less environmental and handling issues. Should be cheaper if we can master the tech.

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 09 Oct 2009 18:34

http://www.defensenews.com/osd_story.php?sh=VSDA&i=4314196

The X2's ability to reach a top speed of 250 knots means it is a prime candidate for a V-22 Osprey escort, said Jim Kagdis, program manager, Sikorsky Advanced Programs.
"Currently, the Cobra helicopter on an escort mission has to leave before the V-22, or the V-22 has to fly at slower speeds so the Cobra can keep up," he said. "The X2 will be able to fly at the same speed as the V-22 and still offer full support."
Sikorsky is also planning to offer a retractable refueling boom on the X2, increasing range and coverage during an escort mission.
The size of the X2 LTH concept allows for six passengers with 2 pilots, making it a good option for special operations forces. Sikorsky is also considering a forward mounted gun under the nose of the aircraft, along with the ability to hang gun pods from hard points on the wings, allowing the X2 to provide close air support for special ops. Also, lowered rotor noise will help it get into a drop zone undetected.
"Because it will cruise using the propeller, we can reduce the speed of the main rotor, making it quieter," Kagdis said.


Never knew, that the V-22 needed to be Escorted. Anyhow with the heading of "light tactical helo," I couldn't help but compare these to our Dhruv and LCH. Although the latter is a compeletely different beast, the former seems like it can be more than a match to the X2 given we get a better engine or an uprated version of the Shakti to match with the X2 in terms of Speed, but otherwise the armament specs of Hal's Dhruv ought to be quite commendable. Anyone know how good is our desi workhorse in terms of hover Noise. Does Dhruv have something to supress it's noise making it harder for the enemy to detect where it is advancing from?


D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby D Roy » 11 Oct 2009 00:50

X-Posted from the Su-30 thread.

Context: Analogy being drawn to transfer of SC blade tech to HAL Koraput for the AL-31FP by the Russians.

Okay I have a question.

What would the Chinese do/have done in this kind of a situation ( say for any strategic aerospace related tech) and how would the Russians respond/ have responded in the past?

Gentlemen,

Please note, nowhere do I advocate a path based on what the Chinese might have done/have done.

Just want to know a bit about the Russian-Chinese interaction in this context.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Gerard » 13 Oct 2009 17:15


Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 16 Oct 2009 19:55

US F-16 Pilot Missing after Mid air Collision
Hope the pilot is found SAFE and SOUND and that he ejected in the knick of time. Pray for his safety and wellbeing.
On a side note, just don't understand how 2 MILITARY jets can collide in Mid-Air, if flying over US territory, no reason why the RADARS should not be on.


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Austin » 19 Oct 2009 20:20

Can any one identify what seems to me like an antenna on top of the aircraft fuselage and perhaps the purpose , this is Russian equivalent of US Airforce 1

http://russianplanes.net/EN/ID5052

Thanks

bhavani
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby bhavani » 20 Oct 2009 01:07

Surya Sir

W.r.t to An-124 vs C-17

The C-17 is aviation’s equivalent of the Lamborghini – very sophisticated and fun to drive. Certainly more fun than the An-124-100, which is more ‘truck’ than ‘sportscar’


http://www.casr.ca/id-antonov-1.htm

From this Review of C-17 vs An-124. This review is from canadians, so the issues of taking sides does not arise that much atleast. The review looks in details into the C-17 vs An-124.

The basic idea is C-17 offers a lot of capabilities for a huge Price. 90% of these capabilities are not even used by many countries.

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 22 Oct 2009 03:37

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Raytheon-Gets-198M-Order-for-ALR-69AV-Digital-Radar-Warning-Receivers-05878/#more-5878
An upgrade of the ALR-69(V), the ALR-69A(V) provides improved suppression of enemy air defenses; cross-platform integration; and enhanced spectral and spatial coverage for high-sensitivity detection in dense signal environments.
The digital architecture of the system permits future programming of advanced tactical targeting techniques for multiplatform geo-location of threats, and reprogramming to keep pace with emerging threats.

Image
AN/ALR69V DIGITAL RADAR WARNING RECEIVERS

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 23 Oct 2009 04:06

US BEGINS WORK ON NEXT GENERATION TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT
[The C-130J Hercules] has since been deployed into theater by the USAF, where its vastly improved performance in “hot and high” environments has come in very handy. Unlike the pending Airbus A400M, however, the C-130J doesn’t solve the sub-survivable 20-ton armored vehicle limit that has stymied multiple US armored vehicle programs from the Stryker IAV to Future Combat Systems. As such, it represents an improvement that fails to address US tactical airlift’s key bottleneck limitation.”

The Advanced Composite Cargo Aircraft (ACAA) effort was made possible by an 11-year, $152 million Air Force Research Laboratory-led research and development investment called the Composite Affordability Initiative, which began in the mid 1990s. In its RFP, the US Air Force Research Laboratory set out goals for a STOL aircraft that could fly 400kt (740km/h), pressurized and carrying 3 cargo pallets, 20 troops or 1 light-wheeled vehicle. This is obviously a scaled-down version of the eventual plane the Air force might want, but it does force the contractors to use appropriate designs as they work to address the cost and weight issues associated with “advanced structural design and manufacturing techniques integrated with advanced aerodynamic design.”

“Afghanistan and Iraq have underscored the need for a new tactical transport that would fulfill a variety of airlift and special operations roles, Air Force officials reported. The new aircraft – dubbed Advanced Mobility Concept, or AMC-X – would have about the same cargo capacity as a C-130 but be able to fly higher and faster, while operating from 2,000-foot runways. Moreover, the AMC-X would be stealthy.

“We’re talking about … airliner speed,” close to Mach 1, said Col. Marshall K. Sabol, Air Mobility Command’s deputy director of plans and programs. The C-130’s average speed is 345 mph.

AMC also wants an airplane that can fly at the altitudes used by airliners, with greater range and greater survivability, he said. Paramount for the new transport will be its ability to operate at austere locations and carry outsize cargo, said Sabol.

Moreover, the next tactical airlifter will have to be able to operate in blackout conditions at low level, perform paratrooper and equipment airdrop, operate in all weather, and be capable of accomplishing “autoland” – automatic, virtually hands-off landing, guided only by the runway and onboard navigation systems.

20-ton airlift market (C-130J, HAL-Irkut MRTA, Embraer 390), plus a practical 30-ton military requirement that must be met at or below the A400M’s $100-120 million cost, will leave large market slices without American coverage if AJACS is not thought through correctly at its earliest stages.


MAYBE just MAYBE HAL and Irkut should start seeing if they can use advance composites on ther MRTA as it is still on the drawing board, and who knows maybe it won't have to play catch up...

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5422
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Kartik » 23 Oct 2009 07:26

Craig Alpert wrote:US F-16 Pilot Missing after Mid air Collision
Hope the pilot is found SAFE and SOUND and that he ejected in the knick of time. Pray for his safety and wellbeing.
On a side note, just don't understand how 2 MILITARY jets can collide in Mid-Air, if flying over US territory, no reason why the RADARS should not be on.


they didn't collide because they're not aware of each other's presence. they collided because both were flying together, practicing. thats how most air-to-air military collisions take place, including the recent collision between 2 Rafales. formation flying can sometimes be hazardous.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 24 Oct 2009 14:20

Got a couple of recent issues of Air Forces Monthly and read some surprising stuff.

F 22 does not have HMS and networking ability with rest of US forces.

It can't fire a Sidewinder (the mag is lying in my car - will re confirm this later

F 35 can't carry more than 2 bombs in its belly.

More when I have "revised" the article.

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

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Singha » 24 Oct 2009 15:47

on paper:
F22 - 4 x aim9x in side bays, 4 x amraamC7 (clipped fin subversion?) in main bay

F35 - 4 x LGB (of newly slimmed dimension) in its single bay.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests