International Aerospace Discussion

[NRao]

Neshant, i can agree that a souped up F15 SE may be a better bang for the buck but how long will it serve? it would need to be replaced by a 6th gen fighter and what is the assurance that this mythical fighter will arrive in budget? All R&D projects have an inherent risk and cost escalation; but everyone will need to engage in it nevertheless.

A souped up F-15 is a Trumpism that is dead on arrival. Even the Israelis, who are experts at reviving and "souping up" (MiG-21?) have given up on that idea. They are planning on replacing them with ........................ the F-35!!! Surprise. You see at some point in time adding progressive features to an old platform becomes a liability - both financially and in the battle field (which is probably what you were saying).

BTW, the F-35 is an incremental product ....................... belonging to the 5th Gen stream. The F-35 is hardly a brand new effort, they have been at it for some 4/5 decades now.

Finally - on the topic of incremental - it is not an accident that the US did NOT use the A-10 in Syria. They instead opted to use the F-16, etc. In the future it will be the F-35 that takes the F-16s place. The returns are non existent, forget diminishing.


BTW, it is not an accident that LM wants to transfer the F-16 to India and claims India can sell to other nations. All nations that cannot afford the F-35, and have no access to Russian/Chinese planes, will have to buy something like the Block 70 MII. All those front line NATO countries...... yes, they seem to be potential customers for such a plane (no they will not buy the LCA).

The clarity between a 4th and 5th gen is very well understood. What is a fact is that not all follow the same definition - and they will not. We cannot expect them to. The US fights FAR from her shores, so her assets are designed for that env. China and Russia both fight close to their borders - so they have other friendly assets in the immediate area and therefore do not need the same features that the US assets have.

India has taken the same platform that the RuAF is about to induct and insisted on making it a totally diff plane!!!! What - how dare you? The Indian FGFA will be closer to the F-35 than the PAK-FA. And, the AMCA should be even further than the FGFA. And, no matter how much you "soup up" the LCA, it will never come close to either of these two in totality. Each defines what a 5th Gen is based on their *needs*. BTW, the LCA < a LCA with RAM < AMCA. All of them have a place, but cannot be compared.

The stealth feature is meant for a very small slice of the battle. Once the enemy is overpowered, then what is the need for stealth? Which is why a 5th Gen is designed for both phases - carry internal and external. Use either as and when needed.

BUT, to overpower, stealth alone will not do. Especially in the future envs. Heck a 4th gen will not survive *most* situations. Not even possible.

Thankfully this will not be the end of design/development. The thinking is on to add to the 5th Gen feature set to deal with the next set of challenges that even the 5th Gen will not survive in.



I seriously think one must FIRST get to know the environments a plane is expected to operate. Only then one will get to appreciate a F-35 like plane.

As an example would you prefer a baseline F-35 or a baseline LCA facing a S-400?

[NRao]

F-35 has 276 deficiencies and counting, unfit for combat operations – Pentagon report

rt.com, as I had figured. First it was sputnik.com. Pretty good eh?

Anyhow, Dr. Gilmore said a lot of things, but never "unfit for combat operations".

But, here is teh Anuual Report fro 2016. I just searched for "unfit" and found none.

What he did say is totally diff and in that report.



Julian must be happy - waiting for his blessings. Certainly in good company.

[Viv S]

The hardware element is already ready, just about. Currently they're debugging the Block 3F software (the final software build). That's where most of the 'deficiencies' lie (that and the ALIS software).

Program office says it'll be done by Oct 2017 (though now they concede it might to go upto Jan/Feb 2018). DOT&E says that its an overoptimistic assessment and the development will only conclude by June 2018.

Meh. Either way, its a software upgrade. Can be rolled out to the fleet in a matter of days.

[brar_w]

The PEO has been quite open about a 6-8 month delay in block 3F completion. I've posted statements on record from him in the JSF thread that go back a year or more. He even said back then that they would try their best to pull some of it back and this is exactly what they are doing.

Furthermore, because they have moved resources from providing DOT&E with 23 full-up configured test aircraft to completing the development work --> and development testing they have requested that the DOT&E work with them to begin official OT&E with resources available to them as early as possible while they wait to get their completed 23 aircraft. This is not unprecedented and is at the discretion of the next DOT&E whenever he/she is appointed.

@Neshant...I'd go back and suggest you look at what URF, APUC and PAUC means and why simply taking an annual contract and dividing by the # included in it is a stupid way of trying to figure out unit flyaway cost. Briganti can do whatever he likes, he does not have provide data that he is held accountable on. Go ask him whether what he comes up with actually even qualifies as URF and if so can it hold up to an actual test.

And as Viv rightly mentioned, even his armchair/amateur cost analysis shows a decreasing trend. All one has to do is take the total contract announcement and divide it by the # for each contract starting LRIP-1 and see a trend of decreasing unit cost. The resultant unit cost won't be the fly-away cost but regardless of what that number is, there will be a trend of it going down with each subsequent production lot.

It's not rocket science to develop an understanding of what is included and what is measured by URF, APUC and PAUC, and why the last two are programmatic measurements while the first one measures the lot flyaway price. This is a forum where just about everyone exhibits a certain level of technical curiosity to go and dig through matters concerning defense, aerospace and the military in general.

The acquisition lingo used here, is not even moderately complex to a point that it may be considered hard to understand. One shouldn't really have to spend a lot of time to explain (after all that has been already explained) why Brigganti's analysis is deeply flawed.

If properly understood, the graphic provided by Viv, could have avoided a whole bunch of unnecessary and repetitive back and forth -

http://i.imgur.com/JzQxvt3.jpg?1

Once you do that, tell us why we should factor the cost of Lift Fans and spare propulsion units (STOVL) into the unit fly-away cost of the CTOL or CV version? Or why should Ship-deploy-able PHM ECO cost be factored into the URF of the F-35A?


___

The USecDef AT&L's job is to take input from the PEO, from DOT&E and a few other agencies and then provide his/her balanced views to the authorizers and appropriators on the program. Here are some snippets from his letter to the SASC Chairman and ranking member. The letter is dated December, 19 2016.



On specific questions -






And no, there is no danger to the crews with Block 3F software deficiencies ...Block 3F is only flying in the test fleet and those doing development testing to it. Operational aircraft including those training are flying block 2B and 3I that have gone through this development ---> development test ----> Certify -----> Operationally assess ------> Operationally cleared/ cycle.

No block or sub-block can be implemented on the non-test fleet until and unless it has successfully completed developmental testing. Before someone raises this question again, Dr. Gilmore, and his office of DOT&E DO NOT do the developmental testing. They do operational testing and they don't start on that till next year. So far, his office has done ZERO testing on the aircraft.

Specifically on the SDD completion targets there seems to be a consensus emerging with the majority of the agencies looking at this of between a Feb. 2018 and May, 2018 time frame/window. As the USecDef describes they are looking at 80% funding for the cost increase to come from negotiated cost savings and 20% ($100 Million) from delaying FoM by 6-months. The goal being to have very little money come out from outside the program.

____

Meanwhile, as the FY18 budget planning gets closer to completion, and as the early FY19 budget planning begins...the SASC has floated out it's "expectations" -

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7088&start=600#p2102544

On the net, it proposes purchasing 559 F-35's between the Air Force and the Department of Navy over the FYDP (FY18-FY22) instead of 466 currently planned. An increase of 93 aircraft.

[NRao]

No, the one I am looking at is the figure in the middle number "4" from either side. Dual engined single variable nose intake.

The goal was the #3 from the left, but they did not have enough expertise to design one, so they made this pit stop (thinking it will solve the problem they had - see below).

This whole story is very, very interesting involving China, China-USA, Pakistan-USA-China and Pakistan-China-Soviets. And, it all wound up as the -17 Thunder!!!

And, if it were not for Tiananmen Sqaure, the J-8, with the side inlets, would have had a US radar. What is funny is that it was first conceived as an interceptor to intercept very high altitude planes ........... from the US (THE problem they had).

[Cosmo_R]

...

...
BTW, it is not an accident that LM wants to transfer the F-16 to India and claims India can sell to other nations. All nations that cannot afford the F-35, and have no access to Russian/Chinese planes, will have to buy something like the Block 70 MII. All those front line NATO countries...... yes, they seem to be potential customers for such a plane (no they will not buy the LCA).

...
As an example would you prefer a baseline F-35 or a baseline LCA facing a S-400?

On the LM argument, I have heard people respond with "But it will take away the LCA's export market!"

As to what the IAF might have (LCA/F-35) facing a S-400, I have heard the same people say that building up a domestic aerospace industry is more important than the IAF's operational necessity—in so many words.

At the end of the day, the LCA has its 120 orders and it has a place in the IAF. However, if we are to be practical (no signs of that during the last 70 years), the best possible (vs ideal) option is to order the 100 F-16s, set up the line in India, hold LM to their export targets and order 100 F-35s in flyaway state and defray some portion of those costs with the F-16 exports.Forget the FGFA/PAKFA and focus on the AMCA learning from the F35. But heck! it makes too much sense

I get brar_w's point about what the F35 would involve in terms of inter-operability with the US and the political repercussions with Russia and domestically. But the way China is trying to drop kick everyone, we have no choice but to cozy up to to the US, Japan, Oz and anyone else not on China's side.

FWIW, I do believe DT will try (and possibly succeed) and wean Russia away from China and back into Europe where they would rather be.

[NRao]

On the LM argument, I have heard people respond with "But it will take away the LCA's export market!"

1) rather easy to make a matrix, with various nations on y axis and LCA, F-teens and the J-31 on the x axis and figure out which cell can be filled with which plane or planes.

2) Sales is associated with the word "cycle". And that cycle starts with funds - does a potential client have funds to spend on their dreams. The assumption is that everyone dreams. From there it is typically a 5 step process, you NEVER go the next unless the current one is a done deal. For all this to work the sales team HAS to have an in with the client and preferably a sponsor.

LM has that in place. I have no idea WRT the Indian side. IF India does not have that team, then it would be a very good idea to start one now. Should take a few years to rev up.

say that building up a domestic aerospace industry is more important than the IAF's operational necessity—in so many words.

They go hand in hand. Else one arm will be like one belonging to a wrestler and the polioed.

I think exports are a must for a MIC. Which means ability to ramp up, switch or multi use of facilities, etc.

[brar_w]

LCA and the F-35 or any similar aircraft do not even compete in the same market. On one end you have LWF and on the other a medium sized stealth fighter. If you seek the former than the latter is a waste of O&S resources, and if you need the latter then the former is inadequate to fulfill the mission requirement. The F-35A has a higher MTOW than the F-15C or F-18E.

[brar_w]

Top Navy leader: F-35 'on a completely different level' from the Super Hornet

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said Tuesday that Lockheed Martin's F-35 is "on a completely different level" from the F/A-18 Super Hornet, which President-elect Trump asked Boeing to price out as a possible replacement for the fifth-generation joint strike fighter.

Richardson said the Lockheed Martin F-35 is a fifth-generation fighter jet, while the Boeing Super Hornet is a fourth-generation platform. The difference represents a large jump in capability.

"If you just think about the aircraft in terms of capability … [the F-35] is on a completely different level from the Super Hornet," Richardson said at a DBrief Live event.

While he acknowledged there are updates and improvements that can be made to the Super Hornet to make it closer to a four-and-a-half generation plane, the F-35 is crucial to the Navy's missions."We need the F-35," he said....[More at the Source]

[Neshant]

Time to drain F-35 Joint Strike Fighter swamp

Donald Trump’s strategy around the Joint Strike Fighter is all about dismantling the US ­military and industrial defence machine that has been corrupted by power.

Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter project is now in big trouble.

And the vast army of Australia’s Joint Strike Fighter contractors are also in jeopardy because our government, led by Defence Industry Minister Christopher Pyne, has not woken up to what it means to have Donald Trump as US President.

And so, in the lead-up to Christmas, Trump issued a very carefully prepared tweet: “Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35 (JSF), I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F/A-18 Super Hornet!”

Through that tweet Trump was making three signals:

• That he wants to end the cosy relationship between Pentagon equipment officials and suppliers, like Lockheed Martin, that has seen Joint Strike Fighter half-truths plague the project in the US and Australia. Enlisting Boeing brings competition.

• Highlight the true cost horror of the Joint Strike Fighter (about a sevenfold increase) and make that cost explosion known in the US and in countries like Australia.

• Prepare the US and Joint Strike Fighter buyers, like Australia, to accept that because of the Joint Strike Fighter cost and the failure of the plane to go anywhere near matching its rivals, a complete shutdown of the project should be considered.

Trump has had the JSF in his sights since last year but on ­December 12 the sheer ­absurdity of what has been going on with the Joint Strike Fighter was dramatically brought home to the Trump team.

On that day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his Defence Minister Avigdor ­Lieberman and hundreds of VIPs ­assembled at Nevatim air base in southern Israel to watch the ­arrival of the Joint Strike Fighter.

It was scheduled to arrive at 2.30pm after taking an incredible six days to fly from Texas to Israel. But despite the fact that the JSF had been given those six long days to make the journey the skies over Israel were empty — the strike fighter was late.

The Lockheed Martin public relations machine raced into ­action and began offering up excuses — none of which made any sense.

The disgruntled Israeli VIPs eventually left but were assembled back later that evening when ­the Joint Strike Fighter ­finally arrived. Israel actually knows the Joint Strike Fighter is not up to standard as a fighter so it will use the aircraft for reconnaissance.

But the Israelis are smart — they’re getting the plane for a ­peppercorn to help convince countries like Australia to stay in as full-price buyers.

Trump and his people are much closer to Israel than Barack Obama and received the six-day journey and late arrival news loud and clear. Almost certainly that event played a role in Trump ­taking the next step before gaining office.

In asking whether Boeing can take over the Joint Strike Fighter from Lockheed, Trump, will of course know that it is unlikely. And he also knows that the F/A-18 Hornets are not fifth-generation fighters so at the very best are a stopgap measure.

Trump’s strategy is all about dismantling the current US ­military and industrial defence machine that has been corrupted by power. Trump has discovered that it is a swamp that badly needs draining.

Among the people advising the Trump team are the Canadians who rejected the Joint Strike Fighter and one of the world’s foremost air defence analytics groups — Air Power Australia — founded by Peter Goon and Carlo Kopp.

It is Air Power that has been helping me unveil all the problems that have plagued the Joint Strike Fighter for the past decade. ­Accordingly last year I made a submission to the Joint Strike Fighter inquiry, standing committee on foreign affairs, defence and trade.

This submission sets out what any responsible defence minister or defence industry minster should now be working towards given that Trump is going to change the game (I wrote the ­submission well before I had any idea that Trump would be the next president).

Nothing illustrates the Joint Strike Fighter rubbish that has plagued the project more than the statements about the cost of the aircraft.

Our gullible politicians were originally told that the Joint Strike Fighter would cost $US40 million ($55.7m) per aircraft. At the time the estimate was obviously flawed.

Now our gullible politicians are being told that each Joint Strike Fighter would cost $US90m per ­aircraft. While it is more than ­double the first estimate it is just as silly. Both these estimates ignore the total cost of making the Joint Strike Fighter battle ready.

Treasury discovered real outlays would be much bigger than what was being told to the politicians and are now going for a total cost of about $US190m per aircraft in the forward estimates. But that’s still way off the mark. The Trump Joint Strike Fighter cost estimates appear be above $US290m per aircraft (woah!) and rising — seven times the original floored estimates. We’ve ordered 72 aircraft so the bill is about $30bn but likely to be much higher.

The same sort of money games are being played in the US where monumental figures are coming up. Trump’s nomination of the “no nonsense” General James Mattis as Secretary of Defence means the days of playing games are over.

The Mattis appointment gave Michael Gilmore, the chief Joint Strike Fighter tester, the courage to warn that Pentagon officials have been preparing misleading assessments of progress of the Joint Strike Fighter, Australia’s defence people are too deep in the swamp to help our defence and defence industry ministers wake up to the fact that the days of ­Pentagon-inspired half truths ended with the appointment of Mattis.

At the moment there is an option that should save our defence supply industry. But the option will not exist for long. To appreciate the option we must start with Tony Abbott’s statement in 2014 that Australia was buying the Joint Strike Fighter to maintain air superiority in the region.

The then prime minister honestly ­believed he was telling the truth but was quickly shown to be talking complete rubbish when it was revealed that the commander of American Air Combat Command, General Mike Hostage, had declared: “The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22”. (then what is it built as? )

The Chinese and Russians base their new aircraft on the F-22 — that’s the aircraft that delivers clout. The Joint Strike Fighter is not worth worrying about in ­Russian and Chinese eyes. As part of the cosy arrangement between the Pentagon and Lockheed, the US stopped making F-22s.

Production of the F-22 needs to be restarted and the incredible software that had been developed for the Joint Strike Fighter needs to be incorporated in the ageing F-22.

If we can play a role in that transformation our industry will not be destroyed. But if we keep up the current charade then I fear two ministerial careers will be over because they will be correctly blamed for the industry carnage if Trump just stops the Joint Strike Fighter.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines ... eb35154b5f

[brar_w]

The Trump Joint Strike Fighter cost estimates appear be above $US290m per aircraft (woah!) and rising — seven times the original floored estimates. We’ve ordered 72 aircraft so the bill is about $30bn but likely to be much higher.

Where is this estimate? Can we see it???

Among the people advising the Trump team are the Canadians who rejected the Joint Strike Fighter and one of the world’s foremost air defence analytics groups — Air Power Australia — founded by Peter Goon and Carlo Kopp.

Where is any evidence that the Trump team is taking it's advice, not from it's own armed forces but the Canadians?

Garbage at the very least should be believable or else you don't get the desired effect. Even folks like Axe are more subtle these days than this and don't post so much BS so as to be dismissed even after a cursory glance.

Trump’s nomination of the “no nonsense” General James Mattis as Secretary of Defence means the days of playing games are over.

We can either read this or simply read, or watch General Mattis's own testimony to Congress where he specifically raised the F-35 both in his written statement submitted for the record and in the discussion.

To refresh -

A Thursday statement by James Mattis, Trump’s presumptive Defense Secretary, to the Senate Armed Services Committee pretty much confirmed my interpretation. Asked by former presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz about the F-35, Mattis said the president-elect “just wants the best bang for the buck.” Mattis, who has spoken with Trump several times since the election, claimed, in fact, that Trump has in no way shown a lack of support for the F-35 program.”

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/01/trum ... -promised/

So let's recap -

- General Mattis publicly supported the JSF program prior to his hearing
- General Mattis supported the JSF program during the hearing
- General Mattis claimed that Trump is not opposed to the program
- The last 2 CSAF's including the current one have maintained the F-35A acquisition as their top 3 priorities
- The Marine commandant is on public record saying that it's what they want
- The USAF ACC Boss just TODAY emphasized the importance of the F-35A to his fleet and spoke on its capability
- The CNO just TODAY said that the F-35 is significantly better than the F-18E/F and is on a completely different level, even compared to an upgraded F-18
- The Senate Armed Services Committee (Trump's DOD budget authorizer in chief) recommended buying 93 Additional F-35's over the next 5 years.

And yet, we are to believe completely made up (unsubstantiated) cost estimates, believe that the Canadians and Aussie think tanks are advising Trump and that his SecDef isn't going to have any of it.

Do you yourself take this article seriously??





At the very least read the article and see whether it will even pass as a half-decent, or believable hit piece before posting it.

[NRao]

THE WORLD’S SMALLEST COMBAT PROVEN AND ADVANCED “FLYING ROBOTIC BINOCULARS”

A surveillance micro drone, easily started from the palm of a soldier’s hand, can fly horizontal and look on a suspected area or hover beside a building and look into a window, giving soldiers on foot patrols an advantage of seeing what’s there from a safe distance: that is the Black Hornet.

When U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan needed to see whether danger lurked over the next hill or on the next city block, they often relied on small, hand-launched, fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles, such as the Army’s Raven and the Marine Corps’ Dragon Eye.

[NRao]

Analysis, even if one does not agree with it. Another angle.

If Trump Wants Lower F-35 Costs, He Should Compete F135 Engine :: John Venable

Unfortunately, the actual dimensions and weight of the three variants (Air Force F-35A, Marine STOVL F-35B, and the Navy’s carrier-based F-35C) have all grown over time and now exceed the original specs the F135 was designed to power. Every fighter gains weight throughout its development and operational life. The F-16 was designed as a lightweight fighter, but it put on almost 5,000 pounds during its first 10 years. The F-35 will be no different. The additional weight is almost always overcome by improvements in engine technology, spurred on through competition. The F-16’s original engine, the Pratt & Whitney F-100-200 (Pratt F-200) worked well for the first F-16s off the line. But as the jet grew around the waistline, its thrust-to-weight ratio deteriorated considerably. To improve performance and drive down unit costs for the F-16, the Air Force in 1984 wisely implemented the Alternative Fighter Engine (AFE) program. A competitive bidding process led to General Electric’s (GE) F-110, which delivered 5,000 pounds more thrust than Pratt’s motor.

The timing of the requests for the second F-16 engine gave Pratt their just due for that system, and they had every advantage for winning the inevitable follow-on competition. In the end, GE won the F-16’s AFE follow-on contract, but fighter pilots and taxpayers were the real winners of what became known as the Great Engine War. That competition gave the F-16 the thrust needed to improve its operational and readiness faculties, while saving the taxpayers money.

[NRao]

Did not have intention of (re)wading into the F-35 article (yikes, called it an "article"?) from the land of Oz. But, happen to stumble upon some info (does it even matter?):

Dec 29, 2016 :: Israel Announces F-16 Variant Upgrades

The Israelis fly the largest contingent of F-16s outside the United States, alongside longer range, higher performance F-15s. F-15A-D Baz (“Eagle”) models have greatly distinguished themselves external link in IDF service, and the customized two-seat F-15I Ra’ahm (“Thunder”) Strike Eagle external link is optimized for advanced ground attack and long range interception. All of these aircraft are heavily modified from the US versions, with Israeli avionics, self-protection systems, weapons, and sometimes radars as well.

This originally from the JPost (subscription now), so here it is from another source (As-is from the original site):

“This was against the way we had bought planes throughout our history,” the IAF officer explained. “Every plane we bought was unique, since we were able to add our own indigenous technology to it to provide it with the edge that we need to retain our air superiority in the region, and here we were told take it or leave it.”

While Israel was promised that it would be the first country in the Middle East to receive the plane, judging from history it could not count on being the last. Egypt also flies F-16s and Saudi Arabia flies F-15s as well. For this reason, Israel had to ensure that its unique technology would be installed on the aircraft.

ITS DEMANDS FOCUSED on three main issues – that it be allowed to install its own electronic warfare (EW) systems, that it be able to work with its own radar and communications systems and that it retain independent maintenance capabilities.

All of these demands went against the Americans’ vision of the deal.

From an Israeli PoV, their F-35 is the best. And, IIRC, they paid an extra $500 mil to get to make their own decisions.

[Neshant]

The next generation of flare / chaff dispensers.
Releasing dozens of little drones that either confuse or perhaps even attack & destroy on-coming missiles at an aircraft.
They don't need long endurance as they will last for less than 30 seconds.
____

Drones Swarm Like Gnats in Navy Video

http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet ... 180961802/

Last week the Pentagon released video taken in October showing Navy F/A-18s releasing more than a hundred Perdix micro UAVs in a test of swarming behavior. The Perdix drones, which deployed in canisters from pods that normally release flares to confuse heat-seeking missiles, appear so small in the video (above) that they are nearly invisible. You can hear them buzzing as they circle a point from 100 meters away, at speeds approaching 70 mph.

[brar_w]

Analysis, even if one does not agree with it. Another angle.

If Trump Wants Lower F-35 Costs, He Should Compete F135 Engine :: John Venable

Unfortunately, the actual dimensions and weight of the three variants (Air Force F-35A, Marine STOVL F-35B, and the Navy’s carrier-based F-35C) have all grown over time and now exceed the original specs the F135 was designed to power. Every fighter gains weight throughout its development and operational life. The F-16 was designed as a lightweight fighter, but it put on almost 5,000 pounds during its first 10 years. The F-35 will be no different. The additional weight is almost always overcome by improvements in engine technology, spurred on through competition. The F-16’s original engine, the Pratt & Whitney F-100-200 (Pratt F-200) worked well for the first F-16s off the line. But as the jet grew around the waistline, its thrust-to-weight ratio deteriorated considerably. To improve performance and drive down unit costs for the F-16, the Air Force in 1984 wisely implemented the Alternative Fighter Engine (AFE) program. A competitive bidding process led to General Electric’s (GE) F-110, which delivered 5,000 pounds more thrust than Pratt’s motor.

The timing of the requests for the second F-16 engine gave Pratt their just due for that system, and they had every advantage for winning the inevitable follow-on competition. In the end, GE won the F-16’s AFE follow-on contract, but fighter pilots and taxpayers were the real winners of what became known as the Great Engine War. That competition gave the F-16 the thrust needed to improve its operational and readiness faculties, while saving the taxpayers money.

The last recommendation in the article is exactly what the current administration has set up for the next one, or rather the one after this to pursue. The ADVENT --> AETD ---> AETP all prepare the two OEM's for an EMD propulsion award starting around 2022-23 time-frame. Whether that is for an F-135 replacement, F-119 replacement or a completely new class for some other project can be determined at the time.

I'm guessing a lot will depend upon how they size the PCA and whether there is a planned engine swap on the B-21 (whether it IOC's with an interim engine). Completely new engine families are expensive and tough to develop and cost a ton as well. We're essentially looking at close to a decade worth of hard work following the EMD award if it comes in the early 2020s. Those are precisely the time-frame the Penetrating Counter Air, and the FA-XX would be required to begin to provide the PCA mission to the USAF and to replace the F-18E/F's that will begin to be retired off starting the early 2030 time-frame.

It wouldn't be any easier than what they had to do on the F-119/120.




While other's have pointed to the decision to chop the F-136 as the deat of the Great engine war, Pratt's exclusion from ADVENT, their own investment in creating a core using IRAD and the subsequent AETD and AETP contracts essentially signals the third GEW. I've been saying it here for a couple of years now. It's here and it's consuming a vast amount of AFRL, DARPA, ONR and OEM's internal resources. It's happening on the R&D front as we speak and will happen on the procurement front next decade. It's happening on the rotary craft engine's as well with FATE and other initiatives.

Air Force awards $2 billion in advanced engine contracts to P&W, GE

The Air Force last week awarded more than $2 billion in advanced engine development contracts to Pratt & Whitney and General Electric.

The contracts, worth more than $1 billion each with options, represent the next phase of the service's Advanced Engine Transition Program. Both companies have been developing and maturing technologies through the service's Advanced Engine Technology Demonstration program since 2011. The AETP contract will provide funding to transition that work into a full prototype engine.

In a July 1 press release, Air Force AETP Materiel Leader Lt. Col. Jeff Finch said the program represents "a revolutionary advance in turbine engine technology."

"Throughout AETP, we look forward to working with both engine manufacturers as they continue maturing fuel-efficient adaptive cycle engine technologies," said Finch. "Our collaborative focus will be reducing associated technical and manufacturing risks in preparation for next-generation propulsion system development for multiple combat aircraft applications."

The program aims to demonstrate 25 percent improved fuel efficiency and a 10 percent increase in thrust.

[brar_w]

[TSJones]

please note in the above video that the planes did a TRANSPAC with out drop tanks.

they had in air flight refuel.......but still no drop tanks.

nice. just real nice

[Indranil]

Just saying. It took off on Monday from Yuma and reached Iwakuni on Wednesday.

[Viv S]

Just saying. It took off on Monday from Yuma and reached Iwakuni on Wednesday.

[TSJones]

sure. they stop at bases along the way. hawaii or anchorage. etc. no emergency, why not? also crossing international time line.

lets see su-30 do it w/o drop tanks.

[brar_w]

Su-30 will outrange the F-35B and the F-35A/C on internal fuel for ferry or combat flights.

[Indranil]

sure. they stop at bases along the way. hawaii or anchorage. etc. no emergency, why not? also crossing international time line.

lets see su-30 do it w/o drop tanks.

Boss, you know not what you speak of. If you forget your fanboyism, you will realize that Su-30s HAVE TO do it without external fuel tanks

[TSJones]

indeed you are correct.....
\
from wiki

The aircraft's powerplant incorporates two Saturn AL-31F afterburning low-bypass turbofan engines, fed through intake ramps. Two AL-31Fs, each rated at 123 kN (28,000 lbf) of full afterburning thrust ensures Mach 2 in level flight, 1,350 km/h speed at low altitude, and a 230 m/s climbing rate.
With a normal fuel reserve of 5,270 kg, the Su-30MK is capable of performing a 4.5-hour combat mission with a range of 3,000 km. An aerial refueling system increases the range to 5,200 km (3,200 mi) or flight duration up to 10 hours at cruise altitudes.[10][11]

.

[Indranil]

That's not what I meant. Su-30s can't carry external tanks. And yes they have flown from Portugal to Gander in about 4 hours without refueling.

[Cosmo_R]

"They go hand in hand. Else one arm will be like one belonging to a wrestler and the polioed."
That is the goal (hand in hand not the polio stuff). They are not mutually exclusive and the IAF should not be responsible for the MIC—in the Indian setup, theirs' is to do and die, There is the budget and there are strategic issues.

I honestly don't see how (now that 120 LCA are on order) a LM driven F-16 based ecosystem will arrest development of the Indian MIC—particularly since they have said they will export (hold them to it). It should in fact do the opposite—build up the SME base.

Mirroring (and collaborating with ) the Israelis with their F-16/F-35 mix with all the secret sauces they put in is worth a look.

Those who disagree need not worry. Nothing will happen in 2017 (elections and Donald Trump) or (2018 elections ) or 2019 (elections) or 2020 (elections and Donald Trump).

By 2020 maybe we can outsource it all to Uber.

[TSJones]

here's what I am trying to grok.....

su-30 weighs over 40,000 lbs f-35A weighs up to 26,000lbs

su-30 has two engines with around 22,000 lb internal fuel

f-35A has a single engine with around 18,000 lb internal fuel capacity.

su-30 has greater range than f-35A.......what gives? flight body shape?" serious question.

[Indranil]

1. Mostly because of higher fuel fraction under ferry conditions.
2. Lower zero-lift drag

[brar_w]

As the McCain SASC documented had also recommended, the USAF is likely to move on a light Strike craft soon -

Light-attack experiment could kick off this spring

The Air Force plans to launch an experiment this spring to consider a possible low-end, light-attack capability that could augment and relieve the strain on the current fighter fleet.

Gen. David Goldfein, chief of staff of the Air Force, told reporters following a Jan. 18 event at the American Enterprise Institute the service plans to reach out to industry in the spring to see what existing capabilities might be able to perform the service's light-attack mission in a permissive environment.

Goldfein noted that an affordable, low-end capability would not only alleviate strain on his force, it could also be available to coalition partners.

"If getting into a low-end capability that can actually help me with building and sustaining the coalition lowers cost and improves readiness, I'm all for it," he said.

The Air Force expects "many companies" to participate in the experiment, Goldfein said when asked whether Textron AirLand's Scorpion was in the running. The aircraft achieved its maiden flight in September and may be a contender for the Air Force's next-generation trainer competition, though the company has not publicly confirmed whether it will bid. Goldfein stressed that the experiment would not be a competition, but rather a chance for the service to survey commercially available capabilities.

Following their CRADA (Cooperative Research and Development Agreement) with the USAF, Textron just recently flew the first "Production Conforming" Scorpion.

Design improvements introduced with the new aircraft include a simplified landing gear, enhanced aft horizontal stabiliser and an additional 4˚ of sweep to its wing.

In the cockpit, the Scorpion gets a new head-up display, hands-on-throttle-and-stick controls and a Garmin G3000-based avionics suite. “The newly configured avionics system features a large, high-definition display complemented by touch-screen controllers and provides more mission capability in the forward cockpit position, additional navigation capability in the rear cockpit position and overall weight savings,” the airframer says.

Textron AirLand says the adaptations are the result of “target customer feedback, as well as results from an extensive flight test programme”. Its earlier prototype, N531TA, has amassed more than 800h of flight time since its debut in December 2013.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ir-432726/

[Austin]

Pentagon report raises risks of further delays to F-35

http://www.janes.com/article/67049/pent ... ys-to-f-35

[brar_w]

These guys love to split hairs..The PEO said in 2015 that he expects 3F to be completed by early 2018. He came out in March, 2016 and said that he expects it to be done so by Q4 (CY) 2017 but cautioned that there is work still left to be performed and that better estimates would be available the more they go through the test points. He has now moved that from late Q4 2017 back to early 2018 ( Feb. 2018) as his best estimate. DOTE thinks it's going to be June, 2018.

The Under Secretary AT&L has put it in at May after considering everything the PEO, DOTE have to say and after taking to his own staff assigned to overseeing the program. There is literally 12 weeks difference between the AT&L expected timeframe and the program-office expected time-frame and just a couple of weeks from that of the DOTE and AT&L. Meanwhile, there is no schedule impact on either the production rate, or the IOC time-frame window for the US Navy that still has an objective, and threshold IOC date that it crafted at the time of the program re-baseline in 2011/12.

The only schedule impact is on FoM which gets impacted by 6 months on account of the program moving $100 Million dollars from it to fund SDD completion and that too can be overcome if the program gets those additional funds from outside. IOT&E is delayed but the next DOTE would decide by how much since he has been offered some early aircraft to begin some of his work but the outgoing director has been adamant that his activity won't start until all 23 aircraft are delivered to him.

Naturally, the program's focus is on finishing development and debugging 3F so they aren't going to pull aircraft out of the test-program and send them off to the depots to have the concurrency changes implemented so that the 23 test aircraft are production standard. I bet the next DOT&E will be more flexible and willing to take a few early aircraft so that some of the work can begin concurrent to development testing completion. IOT&E itself is a Milestone-C pre-requisite and does not impact either service's FOC or IOC (USN) plans, or how they operate the aircraft. IOT&E isn't even a pre-requisite to moving full up block 3F capability to the operational fleet. That is done once developmental testing is complete and all the results analyzed.

It only impacts the decision to transition from Low Rate Production, to Full rate production.

[Austin]

What is the range and altitude at Arrow-3 Interceptor can interceptor also the type of target and range ?

Israel declares Arrow-3 operational

http://www.janes.com/article/67053/isra ... perational

[Viv S]

1. Mostly because of higher fuel fraction under ferry conditions.
2. Lower zero-lift drag

How'd you calculate the fuel fraction?

The MKI's empty weight is 40% while its internal fuel load is about 15% higher than the F-35A. Fuel fraction should therefore be lower by a fifth.

The F-35 will have a higher parasitic drag perhaps but then again the induced drag ought to be lower. The sweet spot for optimum cruise will be different but not necessarily contributing to a higher net SFC.

[brar_w]

What is the range and altitude at Arrow-3 Interceptor can interceptor also the type of target and range ?

Israel declares Arrow-3 operational

http://www.janes.com/article/67053/isra ... perational

I don't have a definitive number for It's considered an anti-MRBM capability although it could probably also target shorter-ranged IRBM's. , I'm pretty sure that I've heard MDA describe the Arrow-3 as being superior to the PAA Phase I, and comparable to PAA Phase II (SM3 block 1B) but I can't locate where this was but It may have been during one of the Congressional testimony from an MDA official.

From Aviation Week & Space Technology Oct 04, 2010 , p. 58

The cornerstone of the upgraded ballistic missile defense architecture is the Arrow 3 exoatmospheric interceptor. Ground trials of the hardware are underway, with Israeli developers aiming for a first flight test in 2011. Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) is targeting an initial operational capability of the system in 2013.

The tight timeline is driven largely by what Israel sees unfolding in Iran. Teheran is developing new ballistic missiles and introducing them into its operational inventory. The weapons offer longer range, different trajectories and new reentry vehicles that expand the threat to Israel and increase the area of potential launch sites.

Relatively recently, the Iranians received the BM25 intermediate-range ballistic missile from North Korea. The weapon allows them to disperse their launch sites around eastern Iran because of the missile’s 2,500-km. (1,550-mi.) range.

“They are much more sophisticated and reliable than the [early] Scud designs,” says Ariel Herzog, director of the Israel Missile Defense Organization. “The inertial navigation systems are better, and improved guidance in the final phase makes some of them accurate to within about 100 meters [330 ft.].”

What’s more, the trend is for a very fast introduction of larger quantities of existing weapons as well as new types of missiles and rockets. That development involves not only the Shahab 3 but also the Sajir missile, both equipped with solid-propellant rocket motors that generate a range of 2,000 km. or more.

The Shahab family of missiles, for example, would be approaching from a range of 1,500-2,000 km. The incoming missile’s trajectory will take it to an apogee of 300 km. or higher. That means it is in space—above 90 km. and beyond Arrow 2’s envelope—for a long segment of its flight.

Although the higher closing speeds pose a new challenge, the flight path also provides new opportunities to the defender. “The next logical step [for missile defense] was to get more than one chance at an intercept by going to a shoot, look, shoot system that produces a higher percentage of kills,” says Haim Berger, deputy for programs at IAI. So an additional layer, designed for space interception, was added to Israel’s defenses.

That, in essence, “will allow us many more interception opportunities against any incoming missile, which is very significant in the case of a nuclear missile,” notes Inbal Kreiss, IAI’s Arrow 3 project manager.

[NRao]

Do not know where to post this.

The full meaning of Donald Trump's finger on the nuclear button

Story highlights
Ira Helfand says a Trump presidency makes it clear the fate of the planet shouldn't be in the hands of one person

He says legislation limiting use of nuclear weapons and a treaty to ban them are both needed

Dr. Ira Helfand is a past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility and currently serves as the co-president of PSR's global federation, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1985. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his.

[SaiK]

Is it Trump card that is making USAF think they want now 300 low cost fighter jets for anti-terror ops? now, why one needs to even announce that? just get it done. BTW, what is low cost? 20 million with all the bells and whistles?

[brar_w]

Is it Trump card that is making USAF think they want now 300 low cost fighter jets for anti-terror ops? now, why one needs to even announce that? just get it done. BTW, what is low cost? 20 million with all the bells and whistles?

No it isn't Trump. The CRADA was signed with the USAF prior to him, and there was interest even prior to that. This proposal actually was driven by the last CSAF and operational needs in general. He organized a Close Air Support Summitt in 2015 and the current plans originated from there.

Textron saw the market much earlier to that and spent their own money to prepare and offer something that might be of interest. This has been doing the rounds for quite a while now. I've documented some interest on the platform here over the last year or two.

USAF signs first-ever CRADA of its kind

[Cybaru]

so basically lightly armed AJT/IJT variant!

[brar_w]

Essentially that but one advantage the Scorpion enjoys in it's current form over say modifying whichever type is selected for the T-X, would be the fact that it has a straight wing and offers excellent TOS at range. It also has a dedicated payload bay for ISR equipment that could house some of the new sensors and racks being developed for data-linking and comms etc.





http://www.scorpionjet.com/files/TAL-2014-MISSIONS.pdf

[Indranil]

1. Mostly because of higher fuel fraction under ferry conditions.
2. Lower zero-lift drag

How'd you calculate the fuel fraction?

The MKI's empty weight is 40% while its internal fuel load is about 15% higher than the F-35A. Fuel fraction should therefore be lower by a fifth.

The F-35 will have a higher parasitic drag perhaps but then again the induced drag ought to be lower. The sweet spot for optimum cruise will be different but not necessarily contributing to a higher net SFC.

F-35A : 8382/22470 = 0.37
Su-30 : 9400/25000 = 0.37

F-35A should have pretty decent legs. F-35B and F-35C, not as much.